Friday, February 20, 2004

The Pathetic Resistance Movement

I have heard folks boast that there are millions of average citizens who would take up arms against a tyrannical government if it "came down to that". I believe this to be a gross overestimate. I would be shocked if there are even as many as 200,000 "average citizens" willing to face the "police state" in an armed conflict. Even if they dare, the superior weapons and tactics of our trained law enforcement troops would slaughter them mercilessly.

However, if some 200,000 chose to act "independently" with no computer messages, no phone calls, and no one to rat them out - they could wreak incredible havoc and literally scare the crap out of all those who have become so comfortable taking liberties with our liberties.

I remember watching a movie called "Scared Straight" when I was a kid. The idea was to show high school students the unvarnished truth about what prison life was really like in hopes that it would deter them from a life of crime. I think the independent citizen movement might have the same effect on politicians.

Obviously, I would never advocate such behavior, but I don't believe that anyone could argue with the effectiveness of such actions.

If those responsible for the vilest acts against our inalienable rights began having 'accidents' after particularly egregious violations - I believe that it could have an almost immediate impact on others in the political community. Of course, I doubt that such freethinking men exist. Most citizens have too much respect for life and fear of hell to even contemplate such an idea. Only governments seem capable of such atrocities. But, that appears to me to be the most effective way to turn the situation around with a limited number of resisters.

In regards to "give up and hide" I don't consider "creating a free zone" or finding 1000 acres and creating a community with like-minded families, 'running and hiding'. I call that embracing freedom. How long are 'freedom fighters' willing to risk their freedom for people who have repeatedly expressed to them in no uncertain terms that they trust the government, that they want the government to take care of them, that they want stricter gun regulations, that they think freedom fighters are extremists and nuts for condemning the public school system and gun regulations. If you want me to be brutally honest, the world might be a far safer place and have a much brighter future if we left these folks to their own devices. If a handful of freedom-seekers created a place (or places) where they could live free, them might act as a beacon to others seeking freedom and might inspire other groups to emulate their efforts. If fellow travelers are sincere and come to join them to the benefit of the community, all are better for it. If some come with the intent to jeopardize that "free zone", then force sufficient to stop them in their tracks would be justified.

Because these communities would be largely self-sufficient, a good percentage of that populace would not be required to pay taxes and have no need of government funding. They would therefore be 'invisible' or unimportant to the government.

I have nearly conceded to the idea that the majority cannot be saved. Why do I want to go down with the sinking ship at the peril of my own family? My first obligation is to myself.
Just as I am opposed to welfare - something for nothing - I am opposed to risking my well being for those who don't deserve - or desire - it.

I am only too happy to help those who are willing to try to help themselves, but I have only distain for those who feel entitled to the fruit of others' labors. When the sheeple realize that the freedom fighters are right, it will be too late to help them anyway.

I think that the truth is that people have become too comfortable planning and complaining to ever get off their butts and defend themselves. But, I could be wrong.

- Anonymous '04

No comments: