Theoretical Revolutionary Strategies

[Chaosmark]

This topic thought was spawned from nbk's post here. (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showpost.php?p=87260&postcount=50)

Note: this is a purely theoretical discussion. I don't want this thread to become like these (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=5056) two (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=5080) posts. While rather informative, both of those were placed in the wrong place, and didn't stick to the proper way of talking about it. As Mega said:

One should keep to the theoritical, and avoid venturing into conspiracy territory. Remember, everything you say Will be used against you. I don't want anyone to end up like RaiseTheFist.com. He got a year in the pokey for just mentioning his intent, despite the fact he posted the same explosives crap every other kiddie kewl site had.

In starting this thread, I wish to discuss whether different strategies for a revolution might theoretically work and why, not how to go about them in a real life application. Political science (unlike regular science) has yet to be outlawed. Besides, this form of thought would be applicable to any country, like Cuba (though I'm thinking Castro needs to kick the bucket already...). However, if we truly do need to completely restrict all thoughts (even theoretical ones) of revolution from the Forum to safeguard our continued existence, so be it, wipe the thread. I'll do it myself if need be.

So, knowing that the government (whichever government that might be) is (almost?) too far gone to be recovered, how then might someone (most certainly not law-abiding citizens like ourselves) get such a resistance together? Would something like this (http://christianexodus.org/) work? Organize peacefully under the guise of reform, then stage a mass revolt (though I've no doubt they fully intend to try reform first)?

I recall a cell-based approach being discussed at one point, and there are numerous (dis)advantages to such a system.

Pros:
-Secrecy (e.g. if one cell is discovered, there's only one shot at getting other cells: capturing the cell leader)
-Easier to spread out
-More secrecy (members can appear to live normal lives if need be, stockpiles can be hidden over a greater area, a greater area of intel can be gained as part of routine activity, etc.)

Cons:
-Spread out (hard to organize activities, pass messages, etc.)
-No central location (where the revolution as a whole or part can hole up to let the storm pass)
-If one member is caught, the entire cell is (or more, if that member happens to be the cell leader)

What I'm thinking might be the best way to go about a revolution would be some combination of the cell approach and the massive grouping approach, thus gaining the benefits of both with fewer disadvantages. I'll Google some old historical revolutions to figure out what the different revolutions of the past used and how that helped/killed their cause.

Comments? (especially from revolutionary Cubans? *wink*)

[Killian]

The method you mentioned is commonly known as a covert cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_cell)(wikipedia)

This topic thought was spawned from nbk's post here. (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showpost.php?p=87260&postcount=50)
Cons:
-Spread out (hard to organize activities, pass messages, etc.)
-No central location (where the revolution as a whole or part can hole up to let the storm pass)
-If one member is caught, the entire cell is (or more, if that member happens to be the cell leader)


The only con I recognized as being valid is (#1(Spread out)), but could easily be eliminated. #2 defeats the whole point of compartmentalization and #3 seems to be a Pro to me; cutting your losses.

[hatal]

Leaderless resistance (phantom cell)

In leaderless resistance cells don't have to communicate with each-other and they don't have to have a "conventional" leader. The leader is an ideological figure who gives instructions by the mass media just with enough detail that the cells do not uncover themselves by their activity. Attacks provide publicity to maintain the driving force and communication of the movement by the media. So communication is mostly one-way, starting with a general call to organize and to begin attacking targets (like a fatwa) and later claiming credit for the attacks plus further instructions. Cells or members of different cells never meet or gather (well maybe at an early stage for evolving a strategy, resources and information sharing and training).Cells have 3-5 members.

Pros: Hard to uncover them. Capture of the leader does not uncover cells. High independence

Cons: Communication is a problem. Capture of the leader may not physically damage cells but the psychological effects can be devastating. A very low level of cooperation between cells.


http://www.louisbeam.com/leaderless.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance

[Alexires]

Also, some thought should be paid to a replacement system of government (if any). There is no point in overturning things if they will just go the same way in 300 years.

For any revolution to be planned (theoretical or not), you need to understand the nature of government and of power.

As I have come to believe, power is the ability to take freedom away. As money is synonomous with freedom, or the ability to do things, fines are just another way to gain power. There are really two ways to revolt - Either remove their ability to take money, or remove their ability to remove freedom of person.

I'll add more later after politics tomorrow.

[defiant]

Alexires wrote:

There is no point in overturning things if they will just go the same way in 300years.

Thomas Jefferson gave another perspective in his "Tree of Liberty" letter:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

With regards to cells, neighborhood friends will act to protect their common good (hopefully) when a societal upheaval occurs. That is a cell. Neighborhood groups have the advantage of being part of the scenery, blending in, and an increased likelihood of garnishing community support. Friendships between individuals from distant groups will allow for communications networking.

Of course if all hell were to break loose, as is the case in Iraq, any male of fighting age would probably come under the scrutiny of the authorities.

[knowledgehungry]

Also, some thought should be paid to a replacement system of government (if any). There is no point in overturning things if they will just go the same way in 300 years.


I think that our founding fathers idea of government was the best. The problem is that people have forgotten it or ignored it. Students are not taught that governments are dangerous nowadays when they go over United States history.

I am not really for this idea of revolution, and I think it is foolish to post this stuff here. Maybe a separate forum not run by Roguesci would be a better place to discuss these issues. The more we mix politics and our brand of science the more likely for this site to be closed down, and the government to come breathing down our individual necks.

[Chaosmark]

Once again, my thoughts for this were much like those of how to make illegal substances: if it stays theoretical, we can't be held to blame for what one person does (especially if they're Cubans).

[defiant]

This is the watercooler - we're safe here ... :D

Besides, I too am kind of partial to the founders distrust of government and the Constitution (generally).

My theoretical musings solely concern scenarios such as Iran or China invading. :D :D

[Defendu]

As money is synonomous with freedom,

And as sure as libertarianism causes brain rot, everyone who has posted in this thread after post #3 has injected politics into the discussion, and thus ruined it.

So who can swing this thread back into the "theoretical"?

[knowledgehungry]

Thomas Jefferson was talking about rebellion, not revolution. While some people may argue this, I believe that there is a difference, revolution is about replacing an old government with a new one. Rebellion is about fighting the government with an attempt to keep it in line and weak, not overthrow it.

I think it would be better to put this in the context of a foreign country invading ours rather than revolting against current government. I don't mean that as paying lip service either, I think it is not too far off where the potential to be invaded/taken over will become a possibility.

[hatal]

This is the watercooler - we're safe here ... :D

Besides, I too am kind of partial to the founders distrust of government and the Constitution (generally).

My theoretical musings solely concern scenarios such as Iran or China invading. :D :D

Do you mean, someone could invade Iran or China? Who the hell could invade China :eek: ? (Maybe I misunderstood.)

[ReverendFranz]

He didnt state you would be going against "the founders" or even the United States after some fascist reform system, he just asked for general theory and discussion of revolution in general: Regardless of politics or government. This is my first post on the forum, but this subject happens to be one of personal interest.

I think maybe we should look into the writings on the subject from the Bolsheviks and the French and Spaniards and decide what (i think alot) has changed with technology, The main thing that comes to my mind is that alot of their techniques had to do with cutting lines of communication, is that really possible in this day and age? there would be so much more capital and a decentralized network involved in putting down a revolution in most of the industrialized nations, and many of the non industrialized nations that are helped out (bought out) by the industrialized nations for trade purposes. (read: CIA "stabilization coups") I think, today, where we have umpteen percent of the total economy falling under "defence" the first problem would be breaking up that organization, by wrecking it economically, and weakening its grip. Economic depression is also one of the few ways to make the average citizen realize that there is a problem and wake up.

Another important step, in weakening its grip, i feel, would be turning a portion of the military and police force against the oppressors (im assuming that if there is a revolution, they are considered oppressors.) In fact, i cant think of a single successful revolution that didnt use the enemies army against it, and Military Coups have always been more successful than longterm guerrilla wars, regardless of cell divisions having a central leadership or not. Lets face it, the point of any revolution is to win, and create change, not hide in empty warehouses and mud huts for 10-15 years while they pick off the soldiers of "The Man" one by one. I beleive there was a "Bloodless Revolution" in an eastern block country recently, where they organized, walked up to the capital, told the guards to step out of their way, and took over the government. That is your Ideal Model, i would think, but it does require knowing that the guards will step out of your way, or its possible every one of those marching would have been killed on the spot. There used to be a Law Enforcement Newsletter out of texas i think, that was primarily intended to convince National Guardsmen and Police officers not to march against citizens when (if?) they were ordered to. I think that would be a very effective technique, to start years and years before any revolution, and probably the activity to start with. Ill try and look it up if anyone is interested.

You need probably 20% of the people in a given area to support the revolution, studies seem to show that one third of people will do nothing in a revolution, to keep things the same, or to create change, they just dont care, and want their life to be normal again. Another one third of people will actively resist change, regardless of what the reasons for it are, but the majority of those people would not be willing to die to keep things from changing, i dont think. I think 20% support, even lip service support, even if most of those are non-combatant, would allow for free enough movement in a given area, without ever letting a police force adequately penetrate any system of command or organization. Simply put, they cant arrest all of us. Interestingly enough, i think the number of people in the United States who considered themselves "Revolutionaries" in a 1960 something large scale news survey was well over one million. That isnt 20%, but even that number resulted in a scaling back of the oppression of revolutionary groups by the FBI, again, just on the basis of numbers, you cant jail them all. Make sure you have friends.

So, those are my three thoughts:

1. The beast has a soft Underbelly made of dollars. Without any real loyalty, the government rules by paychecks.

2. The armies of the people and the armies of the government are both made of people, and should be encouraged to join the revolt together.

3. If enough people are on your side, effective oppression is logistically impossible.

As far as politics go, you should probably forget that until the hard part is done. Rhetoric is your friend, you will have a much harder time convincing people to line up to fight for "Social Decentralized Representative Democracy" or whatever nonsense is new this week than you will getting them to fight for "Freedom, Liberty, and The Greater Good."

[hatal]

To take a U-turn back to the original topic of this thread and also providing something about a few things mentioned, here is an essay on Modern Militia.
Not bad (regarding the subject) :) ...

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Modern.html

[ReverendFranz]

Oh, and just to make things very clear about how the US government feels about the subject, to anyone who isnt aware, The Alien Registration Act, also called the Smith Act, was passed in 1940, and very much remains on the books, this particular piece made it illegal to:

"...knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association ".

Today, as well, we have to deal with the various subtexts of the PATRIOT ACT, particularily the "Terrorism Enhancement" clauses concerning aditional sentencing for any sort of crime that could be considered to be encouraging terrorism, a very poorly defined term.

That being said, as i wrote above, they cant arrest everyone, if everyone speaks with one voice.

[Killian]

Also, some thought should be paid to a replacement system of government (if any). There is no point in overturning things if they will just go the same way in 300 years.

For any revolution to be planned (theoretical or not), you need to understand the nature of government and of power.


I was thinking about this when I first read the thread and was surprised it wasn't mentioned thus far. A revolution consist of government, economic and social change. A deconstruction and a reconstruction. How come all of the attention is paid towards the revolt?

Let's get back to the original topic, shall we?

(Revolution(Social)): Change of values, attitudes, and expectations. do we all agree?

How chould that be orchestrated? Especially with a potential sheepish culture with no values or expectations?

[cyclosarin]

In a western, sheepish culture where the majority don't seem to care what the government does I can't see how it would be possible to motivate an overwhelming number to try and do anything to change it.

I was thinking that in theory it would be easier to motivate them from a position of massive power after the government has been removed, i.e. stage a revolution similar to a coup d'état and decapitate the present leadership replacing it with a benevolent dictatorship from which you can turn the country into what you want it to be.

Obviously the first step would be to convince the public that there's nothing to worry about and that their precious way of life will be preserved for the time being before convincing them that the new government is the best thing for them.

I'm no expert on coup d'états but I was thinking that the easiest way would be to only remove the very top of the leadership and keeping the existing government intact for the time being so that the military etc. would take it's place within your power.

Depending on your influence over the military I was thinking that the police could be used for a sudden overthrow.

[Defendu]

In a western, sheepish culture where the majority don't seem to care what the government does I can't see how it would be possible to motivate an overwhelming number to try and do anything to change it.

I believe you could get a pretty good revolt going in a degenerate society once the "bread and circus masses" are the ones starving or being killed by government thugs.

To use one example, the real reason a revolution can't take place in a society like present day America is economic prosperity. After all, why would present day consumers/McChildren revolt against supposedly unjust taxes, machine gun bans, or a few people getting killed in some far off place when they can live a safe, comfortable life in front of the TV, even as unskilled laborers?

True revolutions don't happen because of some half-baked intellectual's high ideas of "freedom", "democracy" and "equality" amongst people who live on Easy Street, revolutions occur when the people feel real oppression every waking day of their lives. Otherwise it's just those "other people" getting kicked around by the government, and not something that concerns them.

Successful revolutionaries don't try to create a rebellion over taxes among the richest people in the world, or over a perceived injustice done to a few obscure individuals. They wait for their time to come, when the masses themselves feel the need for revolution.

[anonymous411]

Dude, why reinvent the wheel? There's a lot of fantastic strategic theory on asymmetric conflict being written these days. Free .pdfs are everywhere, and there's no excuse not to read them. In my opinion, this thread would be vastly improved if somebody picked a worthwhile book, everyone read it, and you took the discussion from there.

I'm out of here, but I highly recommend the works of John Parachini, and googling "asymmetric conflict" + RAND will net you quite a bit to work with.

[hatal]

Dude, why reinvent the wheel?

I don't want to reinvent, just sum up the advantages of certain approaches to the subject (with a little help).

I found some source by simply looking for "revolution theory". The search gave some good results on that topic.

This is more a historical overview on revolutionary ideas and their practical implementation.A small percentage of the links lead to research sites and others are more philosophic than one can bear, but worth browsing and reading though.

http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/subjects/sose/history/revolution.htm

[Killian]

In my opinion, this thread would be vastly improved if somebody picked a worthwhile book, everyone read it, and you took the discussion from there.


That would indeed be a better approach to the thread(most threads, for that matter) Why not be the one to supply the book, via torrent or pdf for the forum?

[mrtnira]

May I suggest these readings:

1. The Urban Guerrilla, by Martin Oppenheimer
2. The Soviet Partisan Movement 1941-1944, by Edgar M. Howell (Government Print office)
3. Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies, Department of the Army Pamphlet 550-104. (Don't let "pamphlet" fool you, it's a full 291 pages.)
4. Riots, Revolts and Insurrections, by Raymond M. Momboisse

If you actually obtain and read these documents, it should give you some valuable insight into undergrounds, insurgencies, rebellions, and revolutions. These are well disciplined studies of different movement types and were done to educate college students, and intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel.

Now, if you think reading these classics will give the ability to wage your own internal war.... You will be most disappointed. And, I would suggest you surrender such ideas before they begin. Violence is no friend, and chaos works evil.

Instead, if you have an honest interest in studying military history and military science, or police science, and want to understand human patterns, then those four titles will give you the strong foundation you may be looking for.

The patterns of human history remain with us. History is no crystal ball for fortune telling, but good history certainly is valuable in understanding our world today. For example, in The Soviet Partisan Movement, pages 211-213 are about "lessons learned". The lesson list is exactly what we have seen again in the past four years in Iraq, as I watch the news and read the papers.

To the people of our age, caught in the moment, a book written 45 years ago about a sub-element of a war fought 60+ years ago has no relevance. But, the contents of the writings show the continuing patterns of human beings, which we see again, and again in history and today. Good history gives interested people the power to be more perceptive in interpreting the current. So, I recommend these four books to you.

[shooter3]

"...knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association ".

I wonder if this includes those who get elected, lie about defending the Constitution, then destroy our wonderful government(Constitution) from within. Overthrown from within is has the same result as the hun crossing the border.

2 years ago the Supreme court overthrew our Constitution when the approved a liberal version of "eminant domain". A communist Senator from New York acually said (paraphrased) "I would use the oil company profits to fund bla, bla...".

Who the hell said she could?

I would say that a Revolution has already taken place and we're the loosers.

It will be real difficult to get our nation back, as we don't have the moral direction that we had just a few decades ago.

Physiclly speaking, our military already figured it out. There was a pamphlet called "the contra manual". In it, it said that "The only ones who can steal your freedom are Judges and the Legislature". Well which ones are voting to steal your rights? There is your target list.

I must add that if even one inocent party is killed, you have lost the war.

What if the Mugabi's of this world kept getting shot in the head. Who would want to be "president for life" if that life wasn't very long?

In the western world, such actions would probably be counter productive, as not many people have a clue how a Constitutional Republic works and why it is the best system. Some "new" ideas on government would take hold and we would be in a bigger mess than we are now!

I'm afraid you guys in europe are in very big trouble. Your next system will be Islamic. Europe has lost all it's direction and is so politically correct that she is incapable of doing what it will take to stop it.

[nbk2000]

Government is a shared myth. When belief in the myth is gone, so is the government.

[LibertyOrDeath]

The following is meant to be academic and hypothetical and is not meant to incite anyone to commit any illegal acts:

I think the key to asymmetric warfare against a larger foe with far more resources (weapons, communications, surveillance equipment, etc.) is twofold: (1) sniping and (2) assassination of the system's thugs.

Sniping obviously involves shooting one or two of the bastards from beyond the effective range of the latter's weapons (preferably beyond 400 yards) with a suitably accurate rifle (1 MOA or better), then slipping away. The caliber should be powerful enough to do harm even if it hits Class IV body armor. Good calibers for this are .300 Winchester Magnum, 7mm Remington Magnum, and even .50 BMG if mobility isn't paramount (e.g., one is shooting from a vehicle). Solid brass bullets are better than lead core, and the insertion of tungsten carbide penetrator rods into the bullets would be even better (although making armor piercing bullets properly is more complicated than it might seem at first). Be aware that equipment is being developed that can detect from where a shot originated.

I highly recommend the book The Ultimate Sniper by Major John Plaster. It contains some BS, neoconnish commentary, but the information on sniping is outstanding. Also, take the time to practice long-range marksmanship.

As far as assassination, that pretty much speaks for itself. Jack-booted thugs are very brave when it's ten of them busting into a lone person's house at 4 AM; but catch them alone and off-guard in their nightclothes or when they're picking up the morning paper and see if they still think they're such bad-asses.

If it looks like you'll be caught, fight to the death. You're eventually going to die one day anyway (possibly from a miserable disease), and you'd be better off dead than taken alive to be beaten, starved, and "water boarded" for the rest of your life. As long as you kill more of them than they kill of you, you win.

I'm glad there are those here who still think about these things. I've been banned from other boards (gun boards) for mentioning this subject. You'd think people who claim to support the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of all people to armed defense against tyranny would at least have the courage to talk about such things. But alas, most people are cowards who gladly trade freedom and dignity for safety.

[nbk2000]

The problem with most gun boards is that they have forgotten that the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect the hunters right to kill Bambi, but to ensure that The People have the means to overthrow FedGov if it ever got out of control.

But they (other boards) don't want people to discuss such things because they're scared sheeple who piss on themselves at the thought of FedGov shutting down their board for discussing such 'terr-or-ist plots' as personal freedom and a weak FedGov.

The book Unintended Consequences, I think, gave a very good example of how such a revolution could get started. Not the cause, but the way that, by leading by example, others would pick up the banner and follow on their own.

Such decentralized action is impossible to stop if it gets enough people doing it.

Look at Iraq.

A dedicated group of resisters, all long since killed I'm sure, showed the masses that the invader wasn't ALL POWERFUL, but vulnerable, and that by nipping at it's heels, rather than standing up to it and trying to slug it out with it, that the invader could be hurt. Maybe not enough to force it out right away, but enough to make it bleed and weaken. Make it lose enough blood and it'll retreat to lick its wounds. :)

The local police are considered lackeys of a foreign power. What do they do? They kidnap them and execute them in the street in broad-daylight as examples of what awaits lackeys of the invaders.

If the invader is your own government gone out of control, such examples will work to deter future lackeys from joining the pork patrol, and deter the current crop of pork from being so enthusiastic about their late-night social calls. ;)

[chemdude1999]

The caliber should be powerful enough to do harm even if it hits Class IV body armor. Good calibers for this are .300 Winchester Magnum, 7mm Remington Magnum, and even .50 BMG if mobility isn't paramount (e.g., one is shooting from a vehicle).

I would recommend the .338 Lapua Magnum. Check out Armalite's AR-30. The version in the .338 Lapua is right around $1600-$1700 and it shoots damn near 1/3 MOA and holds it to over 1000 yards given the superior ballistics. The only caveat is that ammo is expensive and Black Hills is the only stuff worthy of shooting through it. So reloading is almost a must.

I like the .300 Win, but it tends to burn barrels faster than the .338. The 7mm Mag is an excellent choice especially if the shooter is already a hunter. As for the big 50, again I have to recommend the AR-50 for budget-conscious folks. The M-82 is great but at $7000 it's out of my league. I'm not an Armalite employee. I'm just impressed with the way they make the large calibers affordable without sacrificing quality. I own a DSA SA-58 .308 battle rifle and love it. I can hit man size targets with ease out to 500 yards with iron sights. I could talk all day on this subject.

AS for the original topic: Americans are a different breed. The founding stock came to the present-day USA to avoid taxation and oppression. They fought a nasty war for it and most of them died. If they didn't die during battle, they were murdered in their sleep afterwards.

There are, by some estimates about 250 million guns in the hands of 75 million gun owners in the states. I think the FedGov would be served well to remember that. We don't need Bradleys and M-1's to do the deed. A select team of self-taught or semi-professionally trained citizens could take a convoy and go from there. I worry about air strikes though. However, if it ever gets that bad, I won't give a fuck whether I die, because it won't be with any regrets.

[LibertyOrDeath]

The problem with most gun boards is that they have forgotten that the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect the hunters right to kill Bambi, but to ensure that The People have the means to overthrow FedGov if it ever got out of control.

But they (other boards) don't want people to discuss such things because they're scared sheeple who piss on themselves at the thought of FedGov shutting down their board for discussing such 'terr-or-ist plots' as personal freedom and a weak FedGov.Exactly. I've become more than disgusted with the cowardice of the majority of my fellow gun owners. They like to toss out slogans like "Molon Labe" and "from my cold, dead hands," but then they refuse to even whisper about actual methods for preparing for such things.

No, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting. It doesn't give you the right to have fancy range toys. It's about killing pigs and military personnel who step over the line. And anyone who has never had the courage to disobey laws in the past (even in secret!) will NOT have the courage to do so in the future. Some people -- probably most -- are born slaves. Once a coward, always a coward.


Such decentralized action is impossible to stop if it gets enough people doing it.

Look at Iraq.

A dedicated group of resisters, all long since killed I'm sure, showed the masses that the invader wasn't ALL POWERFUL, but vulnerable, and that by nipping at it's heels, rather than standing up to it and trying to slug it out with it, that the invader could be hurt. Maybe not enough to force it out right away, but enough to make it bleed and weaken. Make it lose enough blood and it'll retreat to lick its wounds. :)Indeed, Iraq is a good example. In fact, if there were ever an uprising in the US against tyranny, it would have certain advantages over the Iraqi insurgency. For example, the government thugs and their families live in cities and neighborhoods among the rest of us, so it's not like heavy air bombardment could be used by the government without risking casualties to its own people. There'd be no front lines, no areas of safe retreat for most of said thugs. Get enough Mohammed/Malvo "Beltway Sniper" types (only shooting thugs instead of random people) and see all of said thugs disappear, just like they vanished during the LA Riots.

It wouldn't take a majority of Americans to pull it off -- one percent of gun owners would be plenty.

Once again, for the record, I'm not advocating any of this; the above is all hypothetical. I'd prefer to see a peaceful solution to the problem of America's increasing tyranny. But I'll be damned if I'll ever be anyone's slave or obey any laws that serve no purpose other than to give other men unlimited power over me. And any pigs reading this can kiss my ass. :D


I would recommend the .338 Lapua Magnum. Check out Armalite's AR-30. The version in the .338 Lapua is right around $1600-$1700 and it shoots damn near 1/3 MOA and holds it to over 1000 yards given the superior ballistics. The only caveat is that ammo is expensive and Black Hills is the only stuff worthy of shooting through it. So reloading is almost a must.You know, I was just researching that one right before I came back to this board and posted my above response to NBK! It sounds like a fantastic rifle, and I've got a major hard-on for one. I've read only good things about it on other boards, with some people saying it's easily worth twice the price. A .338 Lapua Mag that only weighs 12 lbs, is 48" long, and has easily manageable recoil -- amazing! That sounds like the perfect sniper rifle. And the power...with the right bullets (maybe Barnes solids), it might even be able to penetrate lightly armored vehicles.

I like the .300 Win, but it tends to burn barrels faster than the .338.That's very good to know -- thanks for posting that info.

You wouldn't happen to have an estimate for barrel life for the .338LM, would you?

In any case, that will probably be my next rifle. I'm just getting into reloading (in large part because I want to experiment with bullet modification!), so that will help keep the costs of shooting that monster down.

[chemdude1999]

You wouldn't happen to have an estimate for barrel life for the .338LM, would you?

I've read some boards that complain about barrel life on both calibers. But I remember reading (maybe Boston's Gun Bible) that the .300 Win Mag can burn out at around 1000 rds. or less. The .338 Lapua something like 2000-3000. There are heated discussions on this.

It has a lot to do with the types of rounds shot. Barnes solids would be great for penetration, but might be a little rough on the rifling. And to be honest the .300 win mag is a step below the .338 lapua in terms of distance and size. Apples and Oranges I guess. Get both? Right.

At any rate, unless you're doing competition, it'll take a long while to shoot that many rounds with either rifle. Get it broke-in and sighted-in and then take it out occasionally. Use a scoped .308 to keep the skills honed. With the muzzle break the .338 has about the same recoil as a M14/M1A.

If you ever do have to change out a barrel, the nice thing about the AR-30 is that it uses a V-block bedding. You can take the action off, throw it in a vise, get the barrel replaced and then put it back without worrying about the bedding throwing off the sights. Just run 10-20 rds through it to check the new barrel for variation. The 50 is the same. I wish more rifle makers would do this and get away from the Remington 700 action. It is a great action but the bedding requires careful fitting. Maybe Remington could redo that aspect. Doubtful.

Regardless of barrel life, the .338 has superior ballistics. Nice to know when you might be counter-sniping a .300-equipped sniper. The only rifle that I know that has longer range at a flatter trajectory (besides wildcats) is the .408 Cheytac. But those jerks "dumb" down the civilian version so it shoots less accurately. That really pisses me off. But I suppose their precious LEO clientele requires the edge to make up for their lack of skills and commitment. Somebody should take their cartridge and make an even better rifle.

[Hirudinea]

I think the key to asymmetric warfare against a larger foe with far more resources (weapons, communications, surveillance equipment, etc.) is twofold: (1) sniping and (2) assassination of the system's thugs.

Actually the key to asymmetric warfare against a larger foe is onefold, you, the weaker simply have to make is to painful/inconvienent for your enemy to keep fighting you like America in Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan or a dog attacking a skunk all the larger combatants had the power to subdue the smaller opponents, IF they had had the will to push home their attack, but the pain of continuing the attack was to much for them to stand, Vietnam brought civil strife to American streets, Afghanistan helped bring down communism in Russia and well the skunk made the dog all stinky. :) So if you want to conduct a sucessful aysmmetric war you must 1.) Figure what will hurt your enemy most, 2.) Figure out how you can inflict that harm, with what you have at hand most easily, most damage to your enemy with least risk to you, and 3.) Commence the attack until the enemy reaches its pain threshold and retreats, whatever toll that takes on you. And remember, even a skunk gets eaten every now and then ;)

[Hirudinea]

May I suggest these readings:

1. -----------------------------------------
2. The Soviet Partisan Movement 1941-1944, by Edgar M. Howell (Government Print office)
3. Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies, Department of the Army Pamphlet 550-104. (Don't let "pamphlet" fool you, it's a full 291 pages.)
4. -----------------------------------------


http://rapidshare.com/files/16664230/Human_Factors_Considerations_of_Undergrounds_in_In surgencies_Department_of_the_Army_Pamphlet_550-104.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/16664551/The_Soviet_Partisan_Movement_1941-1944.pdf

Both files are Pdfs

[nbk2000]

Such exotic weapons as .338 Lapula's would be probably be difficult to keep feed in an extended war, since reloading supplies and equipment would be amoung the first things to be banned.

It's better to use weapons that use the enemies ammo. ;)

Such exotics would be best used against very high-value targets, who can be expected to be surrounded by bullet-resistant glass in the middle of a security cordon with counter-snipers at the ready.

For use against common drones, using the cheapest ammo and a disposable rifle, along with a disposable drone of your own, would be the best.

If the disposable drone lasts long enough, and racks up enough kills, he might be worthy of an upgrade. :)

And there's no need to wait until you can afford one. The revolutionaries of the 60's and 70's would rob gunstores and National Guard armories and take their shit. If a person (or persons) was serious about revolution and didn't want the hassle of robbing banks to buy the guns, they would steal the guns themselves.

Using the example of the jihadhi's, sniping would be a low priority compared to IED ambushes, which allow your limited forces to continue attacking over and over again.

And it's true the that Vietnam and Afghanistan 'won' their wars, but Vietnam lost several million to our 50K and is a toxic wasteland of Dioxin mutated offspring. Afghanistan had what little civilization they had annihilated and left to deal with millions of landmines.

So, yes, third world shitholes can 'win' against superpowers, but its a pyrrhic victory.

If a nuclear superpower tears itself apart in a spectacularly messy fashion, what will happen to it's neighbors during its death throes? You'd have to assume some nukes, and the means of delivering them, will fall into the hands of all sides.

What would nuclear armed mexicans, niggers, and Nazis target, besides each other?

Nazis>Israel+China, Niggers>Europe, Mexicans>Europe

[LibertyOrDeath]

I've read some boards that complain about barrel life on both calibers. But I remember reading (maybe Boston's Gun Bible) that the .300 Win Mag can burn out at around 1000 rds. or less. The .338 Lapua something like 2000-3000. There are heated discussions on this.Thanks for that info. Yeah, I'm sure it depends a great deal on rate of fire as well as on the specific load used. But that's still reasonable barrel life, as I would be practicing with something smaller and cheaper most of the time, as you suggested later in your post.


It has a lot to do with the types of rounds shot. Barnes solids would be great for penetration, but might be a little rough on the rifling.I'm not sure if Barnes or other solids are harder on rifling than ordinary jackets, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they were. I'd probably practice with ordinary lead core jacketed bullets (when not practicing with the .308 or other smaller round) and save the good stuff for that rainy day -- after having established that my practice load was ballistically similar enough to the high-penetration load, that is.


And to be honest the .300 win mag is a step below the .338 lapua in terms of distance and size. Apples and Oranges I guess. Get both? Right.One nice thing about the .300WM is that it's been adopted by some military snipers, so there's a lot of good ballistics info out there -- wind drift charts, etc. And there are affordable rifles in that caliber that often shoot sub-MOA right from the factory (the Savage 110FP is only $621 MSRP and gets great reviews).

Still, I think I'm going to go with the AR-30 in .338 Lapua first. I want that tremendous penetration capability in my possession ASAP.


At any rate, unless you're doing competition, it'll take a long while to shoot that many rounds with either rifle. Get it broke-in and sighted-in and then take it out occasionally. Use a scoped .308 to keep the skills honed. With the muzzle break the .338 has about the same recoil as a M14/M1A.Yup, that's a good plan, and that's exactly what I'm gonna do.


If you ever do have to change out a barrel, the nice thing about the AR-30 is that it uses a V-block bedding. You can take the action off, throw it in a vise, get the barrel replaced and then put it back without worrying about the bedding throwing off the sights. Just run 10-20 rds through it to check the new barrel for variation. The 50 is the same. I wish more rifle makers would do this and get away from the Remington 700 action. It is a great action but the bedding requires careful fitting. Maybe Remington could redo that aspect. Doubtful.I wasn't aware of this -- thanks again for the excellent info.


Regardless of barrel life, the .338 has superior ballistics. Nice to know when you might be counter-sniping a .300-equipped sniper.Definitely. And at 600 yards, where a torso shot is much easier than a headshot, the .338 is more likely to get through a steel or ceramic rifle plate that might stop even the .300.


The only rifle that I know that has longer range at a flatter trajectory (besides wildcats) is the .408 Cheytac. But those jerks "dumb" down the civilian version so it shoots less accurately. That really pisses me off.Are you serious?! God, I hate it when companies go out of their way to provide better equipment to the pigs than to us "peons" even when the law doesn't require it. Assholes! They can rot in hell! :mad:

As an aside, Ronnie Barrett deserves a lot of credit for refusing to sell rifles to CA pig agencies or even service the ones they already have because of CA's .50 BMG ban. And that new caliber Barrett is introducing, the .416 Barrett, might even be superior. I wish more gun companies had Barrett's balls.

Such exotic weapons as .338 Lapula's would be probably be difficult to keep feed in an extended war, since reloading supplies and equipment would be amoung the first things to be banned.This is very true, and that's why I think it's really important for any rifleman who might one day "stand up and be counted" to have a good stockpile of either factory ammo or reloading components.

It's better to use weapons that use the enemies ammo. ;)Well...I'd have to differ with you somewhat on that. While there are advantages to having a weapon that shoots the enemy's ammo, if you can capture his ammo, you can always simply take one of his weapons if you need it, too. But even more important IMO is that if you're outnumbered in the first place and (at least initially) lack the firepower of your enemy (e.g., belt-fed weapons), it's important to stay out of the effective range of his weapons as much as possible. Otherwise you can end up getting surrounded by their "suppress and maneuver" techniques. Better to pick off one or two of the enemy from a well-hidden position a long distance away, then escape to fight again another day while they radio and wait for reinforcements.

The other thing I worry a lot about these days is new body armor that will be able to stop any assault rifle round. They may soon be able to even make lightweight full-body armor suits that can stop 5.56 or 7.62 NATO without much blunt trauma -- shear-thickening liquids (which harden suddenly when hit by a projectile) have already shown some promise for doing this, and if carbon nanotubes ever get off the ground...well, you get the idea. I really, really think that we who have the balls and brains to resist the JBTs if it ever comes down to it (e.g., people on this board) should at least be equipped with one massive-caliber rifle, a good supply of ammo, and solid marksmanship skill -- just in case individual JBTs become too well protected for our AKs, ARs, FALs, and M14s.


Such exotics would be best used against very high-value targets, who can be expected to be surrounded by bullet-resistant glass in the middle of a security cordon with counter-snipers at the ready.

For use against common drones, using the cheapest ammo and a disposable rifle, along with a disposable drone of your own, would be the best.If body armor doesn't end up advancing too much, then I'll agree that rounds like the .338 Lapua shouldn't be wasted. I'm just worried about what future developments in that area will bring. If it turns out that when the SHTF a .308 will do the job nearly all of the time, then that's what should be used -- especially since a .308 battle rifle like a FAL gives you rapid fire capability just in case you need it. But if the jackboots all end up wearing something like Dragon Skin from head to toe, we'll have to keep our distance and use stuff like the .338 almost exclusively. (Of course, locating and busting into the JBTs' houses for the occasional payback raid can be done with much smaller weapons.)


Using the example of the jihadhi's, sniping would be a low priority compared to IED ambushes, which allow your limited forces to continue attacking over and over again.There's no doubt that IEDs are at least as valuable as sniping, especially when you're contending against armored vehicles. And I hope that's where the chemists on this board (alas, I'm a physics/materials person who's just getting into the chemistry of explosives) will really shine. But I think any future civil war in this country will probably be a lower-intensity conflict than Iraq -- mostly fought with small arms to avoid friendly casualties and damage to infrastructure that the gov't depends on. In particular, the government isn't going to be able to bomb entire neighborhoods when there are government employees living in those neighborhoods among the rest of the citizenry.


And it's true the that Vietnam and Afghanistan 'won' their wars, but Vietnam lost several million to our 50K and is a toxic wasteland of Dioxin mutated offspring. Afghanistan had what little civilization they had annihilated and left to deal with millions of landmines.Right, but what .gov is willing to do to other countries, it can't do to the US. After all, they have to live here too. :) Asymmetric warfare on US soil would be a lot more "symmetric" than a guerrilla war on foreign soil.

[nbk2000]

Martha's vineyard and Kennebunkport are as much a part of America as Tel-Aviv is a part of palestine.

Since Jews, and their goyim servants, are disproportionally present in our government, let us see how they do things in israel for a glimpse into the future.

Today they are called Gated Communities. Tomorrow, they'll be called a Kibitz, and that's where all the state drones will live.

Today there is a park around the gated community. Tomorrow there will be a security exclusion zone, complete with minefields and razor tape.

Today you have a Social Slave number and passport. Tomorrow you'll have a Social Slave RFID implant as your internal movement passport because nobody get a passport to anywhere outside the country unless they're part of the apparatchik.

Today your children go to school. Tomorrow they'll go to State Indoctrination Facilities.

Today there's nothing in the deserts but borax mines and salt flats. Tomorrow there will be Soylent Green factories where terrorists will be 'rendered'. ;)

Today you believe you are free. Tomorrow you'll know you are a slave.

There will be carpet bombing of cities, if not just outright nuking. There will be terrible new weapons used against disarmed civilian populations.

Why?

Because the only thing keeping Them from doing it now is that the masses are still placated by the idiot box circus and welfare bread.

Once the velvet glove ceases to tame, the iron fist will be revealed.

[FUTI]

Such exotic weapons as .338 Lapula's would be probably be difficult to keep feed in an extended war, since reloading supplies and equipment would be amoung the first things to be banned.

It's better to use weapons that use the enemies ammo. ;)

Using the example of the jihadhi's, sniping would be a low priority compared to IED ambushes, which allow your limited forces to continue attacking over and over again.

What would nuclear armed mexicans, niggers, and Nazis target, besides each other?

Nazis>Israel+China, Niggers>Europe, Mexicans>Europe

I agree about ammo issue...if you look up well USSR army had similar reasoning for posible conventional conflict with NATO (that was dumed to go the way of nuke clouds). USSR used mortars in 82mm caliber only because USA made it in 81mm caliber - you can guess yes it is posible to fire 81mm shell out of 82mm mortar while other way around isn't posible, they did similar thing with guns when they went converting it from 7,62mm to NATO-ish like caliber they made 5,45mm ammo&gun (instead of 5,56mm) so that enemy can't use their ammo&guns in any posible combination if they capture it. I guess they reasoning was that capturing of infantry weapons was very much likely in war so they wanted to make sure that it isn't of much use to the enemy (since appropriate ammo will dry very quickly).

IED or landmines or any explosive device is a poor man cruise missile - only the target is cruising instead (on second thought more like CAPTOR torpedo I guess).

If Japan goes again the way of nazi they would hit China other way I doubt the Germany or Italy or any of other countries that had Nazies would go half a way around globe to hit them. Even Israel is doubtfull for the Nazies since they are rather far away but I guess they would hit it anyway just for revenge. African Niggers would have the motivation to hit former masters in Europe, but you forgot to mention that lazy asses want to steal from those who had the most assets and since they had "landing party" in USA ghetto's that shouldn't be left out as option. As for Mexicans you missed completely it was, it is, and it will always be only one target - USA. They slowly outnumbered white population in south of USA so you now have:
1. protests of illegal immigrants against walls on the south border (I wonder why?) while they carry Mexican flags on squares of USA cities.
2. One of the larger chains of pizza-restaurants on south put out the table "we accept the Mexican peso"
I could go on numbering more things but this two should make some people thinking.

[hatal]

If today you believe that you are free, you will most likely believe it even tomorrow.

[shooter3]

Did anyone else see the photos of the Iranian directional mines? A picture is worth a thousand words. You could print a copy and measure the angle of the self forging projectile plate (very shallow), use a strong, mallable steel, fire it top dead center (measure the length of the casing).

That will go through any type of body armour and most vehicles and limit peripheral damage.

Never forget, ONE INNOCENT victim and you've lost the war!

[LibertyOrDeath]

Martha's vineyard and Kennebunkport are as much a part of America as Tel-Aviv is a part of palestine.

Since Jews, and their goyim servants, are disproportionally present in our government, let us see how they do things in israel for a glimpse into the future.Hey -- this board is looking even better all the time! I'm glad to see that you, too, are aware of the Jewish/Zionist occupation of "our" government. Not many people are, though that is changing due to the way the neocon Jews (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Shulsky, Abrams, etc., and their media counterparts) overplayed their hand in Iraq and are continuing to do so with Iran. Their goal is to bleed the US dry in service to Israel by making Israel's enemies America's enemies.

In addition to the Israeli agents who've infiltrated the US government, the Israeli lobby has an absolute stranglehold on Congress, and presidential candidates are carefully vetted for loyalty to Israel prior to each election. That's why we never hear anything in the mainstream media about Ron Paul, for example -- because he's pro-freedom and puts America first. Every major presidential candidate puts Israel first.

Anyway, for the above reasons, the scenario you paint of America as the next Palestine is something I've thought about quite a bit. I've long suspected that that's why most of the major figures in the gun control movement are Jewish: Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Waxman, etc.

I certainly don't hate all Jews, but there's no doubt that many of them think of themselves as a Chosen Tribe whose job is to parasitically gain from -- and eventually enslave -- the goyim.


Today they are called Gated Communities. Tomorrow, they'll be called a Kibitz, and that's where all the state drones will live.

Today there is a park around the gated community. Tomorrow there will be a security exclusion zone, complete with minefields and razor tape.Fortunately, we'll see that starting to happen well in advance. They won't be able to get all the thugs living in protective isolation overnight. It will have been time to act before then.


Today you have a Social Slave number and passport. Tomorrow you'll have a Social Slave RFID implant as your internal movement passport because nobody get a passport to anywhere outside the country unless they're part of the apparatchik. [snip]Well, I'll die and take a few bastards with me before accepting any such implant. I'll give them cranial implants -- of lead!

Like I said before, I'm quite willing to die if I have to, since one day I'm going to die anyway, and it might be from something much worse than bullets (say, being slowly burned up in a wrecked car after a crash, or maybe Alzheimer's or inoperable cancer). Of course I want to keep living for as long as possible, but I will NOT be anyone's slave. I get the impression that you and others here are of the same mindset -- I mean, the subject matter of this board says it all -- and that's a ray of hope.


Because the only thing keeping Them from doing it now is that the masses are still placated by the idiot box circus and welfare bread.

Once the velvet glove ceases to tame, the iron fist will be revealed.I don't believe the government is currently strong enough to suppress the population wholesale. Not even close, in fact. But they're working on it! New body armor, new surveillance technologies, new weapons...yes, there IS a danger that the government could become that strong, and I worry about it. That's exactly the reason why I've been collecting things like rifles, body armor, and gas masks for years, and it's also the reason why I joined this board. There's hope, but it comes down to the few people who have the brains and the balls to do something instead of watching stupid-ass shows on the telescreen.

[TreverSlyFox]

Never forget, ONE INNOCENT victim and you've lost the war!

That's not really true, many innocents have been killed during revolution and the revolution succeeded. Our own American revolution being one of them, you can't bombard a city with cannon fire and just hit military targets and personnel, Collateral Damage is a fact of warfare.

The biggest advantage a modern government has is it's technology, it's also it's Achilles Heel. As an example, the U.S. government is the most technological advanced government in history. But within it's countries borders it's the most at a disadvantage. Now why is that you ask?

Because the U.S. government's technology relies on infrastructure, mostly the electric and communications grid but you could also toss in transportation. Two of these grids, electric and communications, are vulnerable because of their area of coverage and the electric grid is old and barely able to cope with the current power needs.

Dealing with just the electric and communication grids a small force, spread across this country, could take both grids down and keep them down for extremely long periods of time. The electric grid is the easiest to target as it is spread over vast distances with much of it in remote areas but still easily accessible with nothing more than a 4 wheel drive vehicle.

The electric grid is composed of two parts, the Transmission grid which is between the power stations and where the power is used, and the Distribution grid within the area where the power is used. The Transmission grid is the easiest to target simply because it covers long distances between cities but no matter how remote, road access is provided by the power company to service the towers. These are the huge, 100' tall, steel towers you see while your tooling down the freeway outside of towns.

Now some homework would have to be done, checking out several towers to find out how thick the steel is. Then developing a time delay thermite charge that was reliable that would cut each of the tower legs. Now you just make up a bunch of charges, 4 for each tower (though 2 charges taking opposite legs may do it).

Now lets say we have 10 teams of 3 people, one to drive the vehicle and two to set charges. Each of these teams takes a different State but start setting charges on the same Saturday night. Good night vision would be handy so your headlights didn't give you away at 3 AM in the morning. Each team has a dozen charges so they can take down 4 to 8 towers and the charges are set to ignite at 6 PM Sunday evening. Shouldn't take more the 2 hours for each team to set the charges, then drive say 100 miles to another town get a room and spend the rest of the week making more charges.

Now there are between 40 and 80 Main Transmission towers laying on the ground and the cities they feed are blacked out. The next week, only on Monday they do the same thing and on Tuesday at 6 PM another 40 to 80 Main Feed towers come down and now at least 20 cities are without power and our teams have moved on to more cities. Those towers can't be fixed in one week and more likely a month or more, but in that month you've taken down between 160 to 320 more towers. Now there are at least 40 cities without power across the country and at some point, since the power grid is all tied together, the entire power grid shuts down across the country. The time between hitting new towers is only dependent on how fast each team can make up 12 new thermite charges, which could be only 3 or 4 days.

Today there are about 3,195 Electric Utilities in the U.S., but less than 1,000 of these Utilities actually generate electricity. The Transmission Electric grid is composed of 160,000 miles of power lines. There are 3 separate grids in the U.S., the Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect and the Texas Interconnect. (source Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Report for 1996-2004).

The possibility of your teams getting caught is fairly remote since the 160,000 miles of Transmission lines are impossible to guard. Plus the fact that at any time, the teams could switch to the Distribution grid or they could change to hitting Electric Sub-Stations or move on to Telephone towers and Sub-Stations. All of these targets are vulnerable to the same Thermite charges.

You haven't shot anyone, the country is without power, Soccer Mom can't watch the soaps, Soccer Dad doesn't have cold beer or NASCAR and Soccer Teenager doesn't go to the Mall because the Mall is closed. No phones, No internet which means most big stores can't order anything and the werehouse can't deliver what isn't ordered.

Gas and Diesel can't be pumped at the local gas station and the refinery isn't running to make any more. Hospitals are running generators to keep some equipment running, no MRI's or CAT scans, they just take too much power to run. No street lights, no street signals to control traffic even if there was some, Rail Roads stop running, factories shut down. Cell phones work as long as the back up generators at the towers keep running, maybe a week. The phone company is in the same boat as long as their sub-station and towers are up. If they ever get the grid back up, you just go back to hitting the towers again.

How long could the U.S. government or any modern government stay in power in this situation? Now you know why this is the greatest threat modern governments worry about, but haven't been able to solve. The people hate you, but then again the people don't know who you are. Must be those nasty Muslims Terrorists and that's who they'er going to be looking at for the first few months. :rolleyes:

[nbk2000]

If they decide to use the actions of internal seperatists as an excuse for action against external enemies, than you've gained nothing.

The masses need to know who is doing it and, more importantly, why.

[TreverSlyFox]

NBK,

In most cases I would agree you need the support of at least a portion of the masses (one third at least) if your looking to overthrow the existing government and make a fairly smooth transition to a new government or more likely a reformed old government.

What I have proposed here is a situation where you don't care if it's smooth or not. Your objective is the collapse of the existing government and it matters not who gets hurt in the process.

In this case your using the masses against the PTB because once the power goes off and stays off, the masses will not tolerate the sitting governments inability to control the situation and restore the grid and all that goes with it.

Your looking at a very short time period of most likely less than two years with a very small force to bring the entire country down. Without electricity this country or any other modern country can not survive. No banking, no business, no manufacturing, no stock market, little food production and almost no transportation within four to eight months. It's doubtful the sitting government could hold on for another four to eight months beyond that.

Plus it takes down quite a bit of the rest of the worlds governments with it, the way our economies are so tied together throughout the world. Which could be seen as a plus because that could very well keep other countries off your back while your trying to put things back together once it falls.

The part about Muslim Terrorists is strictly that's who they would first suspect rather than internal forces, which for awhile means they're not looking at you. It's also possible they may never find out who did it if they don't find out before the whole thing falls. Once it falls no one is looking anymore and if your picking up the pieces you could probably keep it that way.

It is definitely a hard assed approach because a large number of the masses are going to die before it's all over, along with who knows how many around the world. There are probably a lot of "ifs" that would need to be covered and Murphy always rears his head, but I think it could be done.

I think causing the collapse is the easy part, the picking up the pieces after would be the hard part.

[shooter3]

One shot, one kill. You fade away. No innocent victim. Knock the power grid out, say during the Super Bowl, and you've alianated all the bubba's out there. They're the guys I want on my side.

Explosives are a bad weapon in this kind of war. You would piss off all the people that would potentially be on your side.

Moral people distain the "to whom it may concern" type of attack.

What if Mcvey had blown up a swat truck full of the agents that murdered all those people in Waco. Do you think anyone would have given a shit? They would have said "so what, good ridence", and the Feds would have been a little more reluctant to do something as stupid as that again. Instead, he murdered a whole lot of innocents. The dumb shit set back liberty far more than the patriot act did.

You don't want to mess with our Military. They're our brothers, friends and cousins, the fight is not with them and practicly speaking, they'd kick our ass.

Our bitch is with the "Tyrants". Tyrants should be the ones who pay with their life.

One shot, one kill, get away, no innocents!

[nbk2000]

The reason they are Bubba's in the first place is because they're slaves to the Indoctrination Box (TV) and want nothing more than the shiniest life-size HotWheels truck and their beer.

More fuel for the ovens, IMO.

It's good strategy to show how ineffective the government is to protect its infrastructure, the infrastructure that the Sheeple have come to depend on.

With no power, they'd start dying and killing each other in a month. The ghetto's within days.

Like the Charles Manson quote someone has as a signature here, half would go immediately crazy, the other half would sit waiting for it to come back on.

[defiant]

Shooter3:

You don't want to mess with our Military. They're our brothers, friends and cousins, the fight is not with them and practicly speaking, they'd kick our ass.

They are out brothers, friends, and cousins - and the fight is not with them. But I told a US soldier getting ready to deploy for a 3rd tour in Iraq that I'd rather see the troops redeployed in the US to fight the enemy within. He knew exactly what I was saying and we parted friends.

Nor would they kick "our" ass any more than they've domesticated Iraq. Its exceedingly difficult for a standing army to dominate an armed population that fights back. The corporate media simply isn't telling that most of Iraq is not secure (i.e. the red zone) - thus the profits keep rolling into the military industrial complex.

With regards to other comments:

People wouldn't truly care if explosives or incindiaries are used against inanimate objects or parties that are obviously guilty (i.e. most of our democrat and republican representatives and affiliates). But they wouldn't understand why the power grid was knocked out or why they couldn't watch TV unless it was explained to them.

Demonstrating the ineptness of government to protect the status quo is one thing - but in order to garnish popular support some sort of message about a better altenative has to be disseminated.

Destroying power grids would certainly knock out surveillance measures to some extent, but its doubtful that in and of itseld it would topple a government. The gov. would spin it to their advantage.

In any case, I'm not entirely convinced that we the sheeple don't have exactly the government we deserve.

[nbk2000]

Every empire falls.

Whether from external enemies conquering them, or internal enemies destroying it from within, our empire too will fall.

Years or decades, who's to know, but it will happen.

The more things are in turmoil, the greater the acceleration of the end. Chaos brings change. :)

It's hard to believe the news about how the government has things under control when you're listening to it on a battery powered radio by candlelight because the power has been off for the last week. :p

[defiant]

True, every empire is eventually conquered or rots from within.

But what concerns me more than empire (economic and/or military might) is basic freedom. Where’s the manure???

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. …. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

- Thomas Jefferson, “Tree of Liberty” letter (November 13, 1787)


It’s also true that disruption, such as knocking out power grids, can contribute to the government losing face and the people’s desire for change. But I doubt it would in our culture. Those who could afford them would simply buy generators. The government would spin power outages as some enemy trying to destroy the people's freedom, and instruct the people to go shopping...

Knocking out power grids would probably prove more useful (at opportune moments in well co-ordinated attacks) for disrupting electronic surveillance, communications, and for diversionary purposes.

[Gerbil]

The main problem, IMO, is that the police and military in general try to do a good job. Yes, there are the egotistical facists who abuse their position, but they turn up everywhere.
Politicians make the laws, and it's the politicians that need to be got rid of if the laws are going to be changed. Unfortunately, they also control the media, and control of the media = control of the sheeple.

In a theoretical revolution, the last thing that you'd want to do is to target innocent civilians. Apart from turning them against you, it buys into government propaganda about your side being a bunch of ignorant terrorists who want to destroy civilisation for their megalomaniac ideals. It would be possible to work around the population, but an even better strategy is to get them on your side (not least as cannon fodder :D )

From this perspective, it might also be possible to get the police/military on your side if you had enough support. A military coup guarantees success. But with armed forces being stripped of their traditional role as law-enforcing citizens, and turned into products of the machine, reaching out to them would be substantially more difficult.

And even if you're fighting for freedom, it does need to be remembered that the sheep don't want to be freed. You can't explain to them the idealistic benefits of revolution, you need to tell them why they need it.

[defiant]

Gerbil wrote:

The main problem, IMO, is that the police and military in general try to do a good job. Yes, there are the egotistical facists who abuse their position, but they turn up everywhere. Politicians make the laws, and it's the politicians that need to be got rid of if the laws are going to be changed. Unfortunately, they also control the media, and control of the media = control of the sheeple.

Politicians make the laws - true - but they also control the police in order to enforce the laws they make. Some cops don't like it, but exceedingly few sacrafice their pensions to buck the system.

Like us, they know the system is corrupt. They know it better than most of us. The bottom line is that they want their paycheck and a pension down the line.

The bottom line is, an individual with integrity wouldn't ruin peoples lives enforcing bullshit laws for a paycheck and a pension.

[nbk2000]

Once you know what's going down, you recognize the police as the enemies of freedom that they are, for you can't have a Police State without police, now can you? ;)

The Police State Road Map, 1.4MB PDF
http://www.policestateplanning.com/download/psrm.pdf

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America, 2MB PDF
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

[knowledgehungry]

Do you guys ever think that with a complete overthrow of the FedGov that logically the people with the most resources will get control again? And this time with no pesky constitution to be bothered with. Corporations have the money, have the power, and have the men(Blackwater/Halliburton), if one ever succeeded in overthrowing the government in America you would be ruled by the corporations outright, instead of them just having a disproportionate amount of influence...

Unless you have the majority of people with you, revolution will get you nowhere. You will just end up with a dictator/oligarchy of the rich.

The American people must be awakened, but if they are awakened violent revolution will hopefully not be nescessary because as the people our government will be forced to listen to us and resotre our freedoms. If the FedGov is faced with destruction or repentance, they will turn back and find their constitutional roots as the goal of any government is to keep itself alive.

[Gerbil]

In an anarchic revolution, it's likely that the population would split into tribes. It's basic mammalian behaviour.

Just out of interest...nbk: do you oppose the police as they are at the moment, or the idea of having any police at all?

[nbk2000]

Obviously there must be some local law-enforcement to keep the peace and allow for civilization, but a universal police state is oppressive and a tool of the kakistocracy that we have now.

Every town should have it's own sheriff, but not a global network of universal enforcers...unless they're Sturmhuhn. ;)

[defiant]

It's a catch 22.

Local law-enforcement has its advantages if well implemented, but the mechanism of financing is always dictated by the "kakistocracy." Therein lies the problem.

Where corruption exists, the police are perfectly aware of its origins.

In my small world, a cop told me that someone from City Hall ordered him to arrest a guy who had broken no law. The cop asked what the guy did, and was told to make up something.

Another cop told me that they are directed to target people less financially well off, because they can’t afford a lawyer or to take off work to fight the citation/arrest. This honorable officer said he’d deny what he said if I reported it.

Another cop shared how he and some other cops tried clean up a residential neighborhood that was infested by drug dealers and related violent crime. According to him they were very successful (getting one dealer to turn on another) - but that the Chief of Police intervened – directing them to back off the drug dealers and concentrate on traffic violations. The officer’s said the “war on drugs” was a total joke – and that the system was intended to perpetuate the problems and increase police budgets.

Without a doubt I’m jaded living in Miami, FL. Here the police state exists, and is affectionately referred to as the “Miami Model.” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4270917811249129823&q=Miami+Model&hl=en

[LibertyOrDeath]

Some form of law enforcement is necessary to have a functioning society. But law enforcement should never be given too much power. It should always be kept highly accountable to the citizenry and should never be given weapons that aren't legally available to ordinary citizens. That is far from the case today.

If the pigs get out of line and start to violate peoples' rights, and if the system fails to punish them severely for doing so (which is almost always the case), then I'm a firm believer in citizens taking it upon themselves to kill or otherwise punish the offending pigs.

If a pig ever seriously victimizes someone close to me, then he WILL die from rifle bullets when he leaves his house one day, regardless of any later consequences to me. The first slug will go into his kneecap or groin; the second one will go into his skull. Lesser offenses (e.g., insulting a family member during a traffic stop) might be punished by his car being destroyed or his house being burned to the ground.

If more citizens had this attitude, then the pigs would be a lot more careful about acting like human beings. Their only legitimate function is to go after REAL criminals like murderers, rapists, and robbers (not drug-using hippies or peaceful protestors) and to do so using the minimum force necessary. And the police should never be allowed to punish crime (actual or suspected) themselves; that's the job of the courts.

It wouldn't be necessary for the whole government to be overthrown for there to be meaningful change in the system. All that's needed is a return to small, Constitutionally-limited government; the elimination of laws that don't actually protect people from being victimized by others; and the prescription of severe punishment for government agents who abuse their positions. If those things don't come about through legal means, then again, I'd like to see people start taking justice into their own hands.

[Gerbil]

If a pig ever seriously victimizes someone close to me, then he WILL die from rifle bullets when he leaves his house one day, regardless of any later consequences to me. The first slug will go into his kneecap or groin; the second one will go into his skull. Lesser offenses (e.g., insulting a family member during a traffic stop) might be punished by his car being destroyed or his house being burned to the ground.


If the guy's had a bad day and is a bit abrupt, you want to destroy his home and all his property? Wow, talk about irony.

In the nicest possible way, in such a society, someone would very quickly put a bullet through your head :) .

[LibertyOrDeath]

If the guy's had a bad day and is a bit abrupt, you want to destroy his home and all his property? Wow, talk about irony.I'm not talking about someone being a bit abrupt. I'm talking about some pig being extremely and deliberately rude without provocation (and my gentle, elderly parents would never provoke anyone). This sort of thing has happened to people. Most cops are assholes, but some are downright psychotic.

Besides, how do you think the typical pig would react if someone insulted one of his family members in front of him? Pigs have gone ballistic with far less provocation. (They've also harmed people who were completely innocent, but that's another matter.) Basically, I'm an advocate of citizens treating law enforcement in the same way law enforcement treats citizens.


In the nicest possible way, in such a society, someone would very quickly put a bullet through your head :) .If I went with a gun and a Taser, bullying people and insulting peoples' mothers or fathers for no good reason, then I'd expect someone to put a bullet in my head -- and I'd deserve it. So do pigs who masturbate their own egos by abusing the authority they've been entrusted with. But since I treat everyone with respect until they give me a reason to do otherwise, I have little fear of being targeted by anyone.

[Gerbil]

I hate sadistic police, although they seem to be more of a problem in the US. But my point was that killing someone is just a little extreme, and, more to the point, is going to do more harm than good. The entire police department would be working night and day to find you, and when they did, you would not be in for a nice time. Sure, you could go down in a hail of gunfire, but that's really not going to solve anything. Creative revenge is much more satisfying :D .

Even burning the guy's house down is OTT. If he's a complete asshole who's immune to official complaints, then sure, he might deserve it. But what if he has a family? They haven't done anything, and you'd be destroying their home as well. And, again...a lot of people would be working to bring you in.

To be fair, my dealings with police have always been on good terms- nice people, albeit rather incompetent. If the ones where you live are different...you're likely to have a different view.

And if one started insulting my family, I would be tempted to put a bullet in him. Tempted :p

[mrtnira]

The anti-police rantings, with all of the attempts at tactful qualifiers, are far below the power of the topic. Theoretical Revolutionary Strategy, as a disciplined study, has a lot more going for it.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Well, if someone pissed me off enough to make me want serious revenge on him, then I wouldn't be too worried about the consequences. If some pig beats up on a family member, he simply must die, or at least be maimed, at all costs. Of course I'd try to keep it anonymous, but if I went down in a hail of gunfire, that would be acceptable. As long as I take a couple of them with me, I win.

This isn't just a matter of personal revenge. It sends a statement to the piggies that they are accountable for their actions. If the State doesn't hold them accountable (and in the US, it rarely does), then citizens should.

The pig's innocent family members should not be harmed if possible (burning down a house is just one option), but then again, any revenge on him is bound to hurt them at least emotionally. He should have thought of that before he decided to victimize innocent people himself.

Your experiences with the police have been mostly positive -- and I haven't had any seriously negative experiences with them, either. But I know that police abuse is rampant, at least in the US. Horror stories abound. My impression of the UK, which may or may not be accurate, is that the laws there are much more repressive but the police are actually a lot more civil. In the US many pigs are constantly trying to prove what "bad-asses" they are, and they have a paramilitary mindset. They kick in doors and stick guns in childrens' faces while screaming profanity. The more such bastards find their way prematurely into the cemetery, the better.

[mike16]

Unless the pig killed a member of your family or a close friend, they are not worth killing and spending a lifetime in jail for it, if you get cought.

I think if you really want revenge on a pig, putting an IED under his car and destroying it in the middle of the night, while not harming anybody, would strike fear into him.

Imagine every morning, when he gets into his new pigmoble, he has the thought in the back of his mind, that there could be another IED under his car waiting to turn him into pork chops.

[nbk2000]

Police are just enforcers of the will of the State. If the State is brutal, so are the police.

However, if the police are the ones who have to die enforcing the States will, then they're not as likely to be too vigourous in enforcing it, now are they? ;)

Take the lesson of the Iraqi resistance...roadside bombs.

Pigs have to drive around on patrols to have any presence. You can simply set up a roadside IED and wait however long it takes for one to drive by.

This happens enough, they'll start going to armored vehicles, requiring larger IEDs. Or, they could start flying around in helicopters like the brits did in Ireland, but that even further reduces their presence. :p

There's also value in not killing the offending pig, but his/her family instead. If you thought they were brutal before, just wait 'till after their family is slaughtered.

Then let them run amok amoungst the masses, creating new recruits for you. :D

[Gerbil]

They kick in doors and stick guns in childrens' faces while screaming profanity.

If that's the case, I don't blame you for wanting to take them out. Of course, if someone commits a crime, they can't expect to be treated with kid gloves, but innocent until proven guilty tends to be a fairer way of dealing with people.

The UK isn't actually that repressive...it's more like, the prerequisites for a police state are being created. From speaking to people I know across the pond, it's actually freer than the US in many ways. The big anomaly is the stupid gun laws.
If someone wanted to take ultimate control of the UK, it wouldn't be that difficult. CCTV cameras...ID cards...and the suggestion of RFID tags and x-ray cameras in public places.

If some pig beats up on a family member, he simply must die, or at least be maimed, at all costs. Of course I'd try to keep it anonymous, but if I went down in a hail of gunfire, that would be acceptable. As long as I take a couple of them with me, I win.

The problem is, if they kill or arrest you, they've completed their mission. A couple of grunts getting shot isn't going to get in the way of headlines such as "EVIL POLICE KILLER TAKEN OUT BY OUR BRAVE OFFICERS". In the public eye, you fail.
Getting killed in a firefight is nice and heroic, but in practical terms, you could do a lot more by staying alive. Egocentric idiots are not worth getting killed over.

Also, a lot of the time, they're just trying to provoke. If you react violently, you're playing into their hands, and they can then arrest you for something else as well.
Yes sir no sir might not be a macho image, but it's far better to give the impression that you're a quiet little sheep, and use that to your advantage.

[nbk2000]

Egocentric idiots are not worth getting killed over.

Dying for, no. Killing, yes.

[knowledgehungry]

This isn't just a matter of personal revenge. It sends a statement to the piggies that they are accountable for their actions. If the State doesn't hold them accountable (and in the US, it rarely does), then citizens should.


Remember Rodney King? Asshole got what was coming to him and the police get in trouble over it. If you are black and a real criminal than the state will hold the cops responsible if they put the cuffs on too tight!

An elementary student was shot in the head at 3:00 PM (not the target, bad aim by gangbanger) in front of the school that is on my block. The shooter was literally 60 feet from my front door. I have learned that the police have to be aggressive when dealing with scum, and you start to appreciate them a little more when you think what would happen without them. I work with one in fact (he works two jobs) and he is a very friendly guy, in fact of all of the guys I work with guess who is the least of an asshole(including myself)?

I agree it is wrong when the police forget that there duty is to PROTECT and SERVE, not punish and profit, but taking out the police will only make enemies in the community, at least in current society. The police can be aggravating, the police can be arrogant, the police can even be too rough, but rarely do they go about raping and murdering like the criminals. Until the police are as bad as the criminals the people will not support action against them.

[hatal]

"Now for something completly different". After the "who to kill" debate, I would like to know what could be the best strategy to get your message to the "masses". And by masses I mean our kind of people or those who are willing to change. How would you organize a broad network of people to be the base for a revolution before any armed conflict?

[mrtnira]

Hatal, please read A Manual For Direct Action by Martin Oppenheimer. It is a place to start for the answer to your question, and it remains relevant as a framework for non-violent grass roots citizen-based action today.

If we want Democracy to work, and to live in its fuller potential, an informed and engaged citizenry is essential. That active engagement by the broad masses is both good for government, and good for the population of the nation. It is an optimized condition.

Also, all of the talk of killing people, and of revenge, is degrading. It serves no better purpose, and it takes away from the better ideas posted in the Forum. Even if people are just "talking" or airing their thoughts, to someone outside of normal Forum useage would read it with a different understanding, and it would sound to them like an advocacy of violence.

Please think about how others would hear your words.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Remember Rodney King? Asshole got what was coming to him and the police get in trouble over it. If you are black and a real criminal than the state will hold the cops responsible if they put the cuffs on too tight!I'm the last person who thinks black scum like Rodney King should be coddled; people like him should be locked up and the key thrown away. But I still have a problem with pigs administering "street justice." If we let them get away with it when they're doing it to niggers, then rest assured, they'll start doing it to everyone else whenever they can get away with it. Like this frail little old woman who didn't want to give up her tiny revolver to the pigs who broke into her home after Katrina -- watch the cocksuckers tackle her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M

What if she'd had osteoporosis? She would have had every bone in her body broken. Too bad most of the other New Orleans folks who had their guns confiscated by the pigs didn't resist. And I've seen other clips of police brutality against peaceful people every bit as bad as that one.


An elementary student was shot in the head at 3:00 PM (not the target, bad aim by gangbanger) in front of the school that is on my block. The shooter was literally 60 feet from my front door. I have learned that the police have to be aggressive when dealing with scumIf they have to be aggressive and use force to arrest someone, then so be it. But they have no business punishing lawbreakers once they're in custody. When the police are allowed to do that, they become too powerful. Punishment is the job of the courts. If the courts are too lenient (and they often are when it comes to real crimes, though they can be very harsh on certain victimless crimes), then that's another problem.


and you start to appreciate them a little more when you think what would happen without them.Well, for one thing, we'd be able to experiment with explosives without fear of arrest. :p

Honestly, though, I have nothing against the idea of law enforcement per se. If the police were just restricting their activities to capturing murderers, rapists, thieves, and others who victimize people, and bringing them in front of a judge, then I'd have no problem with them. What I have a major problem with are the current attitudes and actions of most of the law enforcement community -- not to mention with the many tyrannical laws that they willingly and eagerly enforce. In some areas, law-abiding whites are at the mercy of gang bangers because the former are afraid to be arrested for carrying an illegal gun for protection. And then there are all the people whose lives have been ruined because they were arrested for non-violent offenses such as drug use or owning the wrong kind of weapons. Pigs usually use the line, "If you don't like the law, then get it changed" -- as if average citizens had any say in the law, and as if basic rights such as the Second Amendment were considered to be based on majority opinion anyway. They've gone from being peacekeepers to the willing attack dogs of the ruling plutocrats.


I work with one in fact (he works two jobs) and he is a very friendly guy, in fact of all of the guys I work with guess who is the least of an asshole(including myself)?I've met friendly cops, too, and I don't doubt that some cops at least try to do the right thing. But there are far too many bullies and thugs in their ranks, and I rarely hear the "good" ones ever condemn them. On the contrary, the attitude I've seen among most cops is that every other cop is a brother and is always justified in anything he does.

BTW, I'd be very, very careful about trusting any cop just because he's friendly. Ted Bundy was also friendly before revealing his true colors.


I agree it is wrong when the police forget that there duty is to PROTECT and SERVE, not punish and profit, but taking out the police will only make enemies in the community, at least in current society. The police can be aggravating, the police can be arrogant, the police can even be too rough, but rarely do they go about raping and murdering like the criminals. Until the police are as bad as the criminals the people will not support action against them.I don't believe people should go out and randomly kill cops or anything like that. But I also believe that vigilante justice against the ones who step over the line is appropriate, regardless of what the community or anyone else thinks. If the System won't administer justice, then Joe Citizen should.

Pigs generally don't rape, but they murder often enough -- or at least commit manslaughter by shooting negligently. Far more often, what they do is ruin lives by arresting (kidnapping) people who have victimized no one. And serious physical assault by police is ubiquitous. What's reported in the media is necessarily only the tip of the iceberg, since probability dictates that relatively few incidents will be caught on camera.

If you really think cops are your friends, try carrying a loaded gun in NYC or LA and letting the first cop you come across know that you're carrying one for no reason other than to protect yourself against violent crime. I can 99% guarantee you that he'll pull his gun on you and arrest you. He might even shoot you on the spot. Meanwhile, thanks to his efforts, whites cower in fear, unarmed, in their homes while MS-13 and the Crips are running around armed on the streets.

Again, I'm not advocating getting rid of the police. I just think the System needs a major overhaul, both with respect to laws and enforcers. Above all, the police need to be kept from becoming too powerful, and they need to be held at least as accountable as anyone else when they abuse the trust placed in them.

[Gerbil]

If the police were just restricting their activities to capturing murderers, rapists, thieves, and others who victimize people, and bringing them in front of a judge, then I'd have no problem with them.

Innocent people are inevitably going to get arrested. As I said before, innocent until proven guilty.

Btw, just out of interest, do you really think that in society, all the whites are law abiding and everyone else is a filthy murdering nigger?

But I also believe that vigilante justice against the ones who step over the line is appropriate, regardless of what the community or anyone else thinks. If the System won't administer justice, then Joe Citizen should.

Ah, but the system itself is made up of lots of Joe Citizens, albeit citizens who've gone mad with power.
Also, the idea of vigilante justice, as well meaning as it is, is socially flawed. Once you have lynch mobs, then anyone is a fair target. Just look at medieval witch hunts. Without a soft but firm grip on law and order, society generally descends into chaos.

If there is evidence of police brutality, it should be immediately investigated and the suspect removed from duties on full pay (innocent until proven guilty). If he or she really has been abusing power, then they should be kicked off the force by default, and given a prison sentence if warranted. Treated like anyone else.
Having individuals gunning people down in the streets because of 'disrespect' (just like them niggers) is incredibly flawed.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Innocent people are inevitably going to get arrested. As I said before, innocent until proven guilty.Agreed, and that's another reason why it's especially important that "street justice" administered by police not be tolerated. Arrests should be effected using the minimum force possible.

Btw, just out of interest, do you really think that in society, all the whites are law abiding and everyone else is a filthy murdering nigger? LOL, not at all. Blacks do commit a disproportionate share of the violent crime in the US, but of course there are plenty of decent blacks. I've even met a few intelligent ones. :D Seriously, I don't harbor a blanket hatred of any race, although I do recognize that races tend to compete for their own interests and whites tend to end up getting screwed by their generosity. But I guess that's another thread.


Ah, but the system itself is made up of lots of Joe Citizens, albeit citizens who've gone mad with power.I'd say that once Joe Citizen becomes an agent of the state, he ceases to be Joe Citizen and needs to be watched carefully. Power always corrupts.


Also, the idea of vigilante justice, as well meaning as it is, is socially flawed. Once you have lynch mobs, then anyone is a fair target. Just look at medieval witch hunts. Without a soft but firm grip on law and order, society generally descends into chaos.Well, as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the idea of law enforcement per se (with the aforementioned qualifications). And I certainly don't believe vigilante justice should be dispensed willy-nilly; in fact, I'm against it in nearly all cases except when it's used against the System itself. The reason is that the System can be used to deal with common criminals; but who deals with the System when it steps over the line? Who polices the police? Someone has to do it, and if the System is unwilling to police itself, then vigilantism is really the only alternative.

I'm fully in favor of a peaceful society, but in my opinion even chaos is preferable to a situation where you have a ruling class and its enforcers who can do whatever they want to everyone with impunity. No one has a right to rule over anyone -- ruling and authority are privileges that can and should be taken away in dramatic fashion if they are abused.


If there is evidence of police brutality, it should be immediately investigated and the suspect removed from duties on full pay (innocent until proven guilty). If he or she really has been abusing power, then they should be kicked off the force by default, and given a prison sentence if warranted. Treated like anyone else.That would be nice, but you have to remember that the police are on their own side. The System protects itself, and "officers don't rat out their brother officers." Investigations of police misconduct are generally nothing more than whitewashes. Only the most egregious abuses by pigs are punished in the US, and then only when the abuses are somehow leaked into the public eye. The punishment given is generally much lighter than would be given to Joe Citizen, even though it should be greater for the same offense (because it involves a violation of public trust).


Having individuals gunning people down in the streets because of 'disrespect' (just like them niggers) is incredibly flawed.I agree, and I never advocated shooting anyone over mere disrespect. But take a look at that YouTube video linked above. I wish someone had shot the pig who tackled that little old lady, and for two reasons: (1) abusing a frail eldery lady; (2) violating her Second and Fourth Amendment rights under the US Constitution. That's an example of the kind of grotesque abuse I'm talking about -- not scowling at someone when handing out a speeding ticket.

[nbk2000]

The fact is that the majority of ciminals are black, just like the majority of non-criminals are white.

There are white criminals, yes, just like there are law-abiding blacks, but the majority of violent criminals are black.

And while there are honest cops who are interested in justice, the majority are pigs who lust after the power the badge gives them.

The operative word in vigilante is vigilant, meaning on the alert; watchful.

If police know that citizen vigilates will kill them for abuse of their power, on the streets or in the jails, than they might be more circumspect in their behaviour.

It's when they think that there is no one watching, especially in the jails and prisons, that the sadist comes out of the pigs.

The gun seizure video is just one example of the corruption of the police to serve the politicans agenda. Do you think they cold have gotten away with that 5o years ago? HELL NO!

There wouldn't be any blacks on the police force to start with, the whites would all have their guns, and the blacks would know better to try the shit they did after Katrina because they'd be shoot on sight by the whites.

But now...a black mayor has federal troops going door-to-door to disarm the whites, leaving the niggers to rampage. You didn't see many black cops around though...not because there weren't plenty of them in the New Orleans PD, but because they deserted their posts to leave or loot, as seen on CNN.

[defiant]

The fact is that the majority of ciminals are black, just like the majority of non-criminals are white.

Ghetto killers get a lot of press - but governments routinely commit far greater violence(torture, slaughter, and general ruination of lives) over the course of a few months than any serial or ghetto killer has committed throughout their lifespan.

The greatest difference is that street level violence is viewed as "criminal violence" whereas institutionalized government or corporate violence is considered "white-collar crime".

[nbk2000]

State violence is called law enforcement or foreign policy.

Corporate violence is called lawsuit or business.

:D

Truely, Governments are the largest threat to freedom and lives of the masses, since they have the most power to enforce their borganistic will upon the proletariat.

But I'm far more likely to be physically assaulted, or just plain hassled, by any negro scum in my proximity than by a Government decree.

[megalomania]

If a see a group of senators on the street corner I will not lock my doors and pull out my firearm. Senators may tax us, and steal from us, and make things difficult, but I don't fear for my life and physical well being when I see them.

Niggers on the other hand are dangerous. Law abiding job holding African Americans do not loiter about on street corners. Niggers do. Only criminals walk up and down the streets at night; they are not out for exercise.

I beg to differ that ghetto killers get lots of press. There is more press devoted to the evils of the government and corporations than any other kind. In fact almost all of the news is about politics or some scandal. An important rule of journalism is you don't publish "dog bites man" stories. Niggers are always killing, raping, stealing, and scamming. It's not news unless they do something truly horrific or exceptional, like beat and rob a 101 year old woman , or kill a school bus full of kindergarteners.

You think any of the press about Bush is glowing or positive? Do you ever see those pictures of Boy Scouts shaking the President's hand? Ever see an article saying "The Oil Companies are Doing a Good Job. Attaboy!" Hell no, you don't. Ever read about Paris Hilton's charitable work? Chari-what? The news is all about people screwing up so bad the whole town/state/country/world should hear about it.

I turned on Fox News just now to see what the headlines of the day are to prove my point, but I may be proven wrong. Top story: The cops are hunting a nigger serial rapist in Chandler/Phoenix Az who stalks and rapes little girls. Quoth the news man "this predator, this child rapist might live right next door to you." See there, a criminal nigger, but one that hunts down and rapes white girls, young white girls, is the kind of thing that keeps people scared. It's not news that niggers rape children, but it is news that a psycho nigger serial child rapist is on the prowl.

Other news? The police tracking down criminal illegal aliens. Not just criminals because they trespass in our nation illegally, but criminal because they commit crimes while here. Time for that long bus ride home amigo. Ooh, the forced roundups are not just in Kalifornia (too easy), but a major effort in middle America. Kali may be lost to the brown avalanche, but the rest of us don't take kindly to criminal tresspassers who don't pay taxes, but do steal our benefits.

Ever accidentally tune into Err America on the radio? I bet they don't care about child raping serial raping niggers (a good black man only getting his reparations). They will have something to say about Bush, most will be lies, some will be inaccurate, and none of it will be nice.

[defiant]

The local news in my area covers ghetto crime more than government crime, but national reporting is a bit different, and (you're probably correct) that government crime gets more coverage (nationally).

Nevertheless its all propoganda.

The media's portrayal of the ghetto or common criminal generally involves a manhunt and law enforcement apprehending the despicable criminal when the story concludes. In fact, Hollywood (tv/movies/news) in the 50's wasn't allowed to report a criminal besting law enforcement and getting away. The message was that if you commit a crime you're going to get caught, and the news media continues to follow this format (generally).

The news media's portrayal of government crime (nowadays) sends an altogether different message - namely, that no corrective action will be taken or in extreme cases some flunky will be prosecuted as a scapegoat. And its no secret that those responsible for violence institutionalized through political means will get away with their crimes. In fact that's the message - that there's nothing that can be done about government corruption and that its a black hole quagmire that's best avoided. The desired result of this message is apathetic sheeple, and its an extremely effective approach.

But I'm probably all fucked up in the head, and in some respects think the nigger who robs or kills putting his own life on the line in the process is more honorable than the politician who's shielded and plays others to do the dirty deed.

... not that I wouldn't kill a nigger if he crossed the line.