SEDITION SUBVERSION AND SABOTAGE FIELD MANUAL: Part 1, Section 4

in #anarchy7 years ago

cover

Part 1: PEACEFUL SEDITION

Sections 1 and 2
Section 3

4. THE THREE PART ATTACK

Imagine a scorpion. It has two independent claws opposite one another used to agitate, distract, injure, and subdue its opponent. The scorpion has a third very different weapon: a long tail with a venomous stinger that it uses only at the right moment to delivering a paralyzing and debilitating blow. The two claws almost compete in the same area, badgering its enemy from opposite sides. The moment the claws have the complete attention of the enemy, the stinger suddenly delivers the deadly injection, ending the struggle. The scorpion gives us a battle plan to emulate. We need to have the aboveground anarchist network as one claw and we need the underground sabotage network on the other side as a separate claw. Then seemingly unrelated to either is the stinger with its irregular warfare, always present, waiting for the right moment to strike a selective blow.

Consider the scorpion as more than a three part killing machine. The adult scorpion will have as many as 12 eyes, 10 of which may operate independently, and in addition it may have areas of its body that are not considered eyes, but still detect light and motion. So you could say the scorpion has a variety of viewpoints all processing different types of information. The scorpion lacks the kind of central nervous system, so it has nothing like the decision making brain we see in mammals. Rather it has a series of nerve bundles attached to specific muscles and organs sending impulses independent of other muscles and organs. So one or more eyes may send messages to a pincer directing its motions and actions in a fight, without input from other eyes that may be sending messages to the other pincher directing it independently during the same fight. This direct connection between its pincers and its eyes can communicate messages much faster than in mammals where all messages have to travel to the brain for central planning of all actions. In a very real sense, the scorpion possesses a decentralized and even to a certain extent, a distributed decision making system, making it far more of an effective fighter than a mammal of equal size limited by central planning.

Considering the scorpion example, it is my intent to bring together lessons learned from 150 years of anarchist writings, established military strategy, and balanced wisdom in order to guide a disjointed, disorganized, and confused movement to become a more focused cause for freedom. It has been said, “When I was a child I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, and I acted like a child. But a time came in my life when I was no longer a child, and it became prudent for me to put away childish things.” That old saying is not a condemnation of childhood, it is an admonition to be the grownup that we are. The wise remember the foolishness of their childhood and grow from it. When that time comes an operational field manual such as this one, will come in handy. That's not to say this manual is perfect nor exhaustive. It is simply a step towards leaving behind childish thinking and childish beliefs, and embracing the facts of adulthood.

Santa Claus (or insert your favorite Great Man here) will not magically appear to bring you secession, a night-watchman government, a gold standard, full-reserve banking, or a miraculous redistribution of wealth for all the workers of the world. Fantasies and dreams, no matter how carefully formed, will not set you free from the deeply evil men who profit from the State. Waving signs that say "End The Fed" will not inspire the men to whom governments of the world owe some 57 trillion dollars to play fair. The men who control and profit from the current system will not one day realize the people of the world don't want to be their slaves, and close up their banking cartels and slip off into the good night on their yachts.

The hard reality is those with power will murder on an unimaginable scale to maintain and expand their monopoly of power. That those powers-that-be control nuclear arsenals and have proven the propensity to use them on civilian populations, it is childish to expect humans will ever achieve freedom while those men of power live. When you add into the equation the fact that these powerful men possess underground bunker systems, and they have openly published their desire to control or drastically reduce the human population, why would any clear-thinking adult entertain the notion that simply winning an election, drafting a new constitution, passing/repealing a law, or demanding governments behave will stop these monsters or the Beast they serve? It is pure cowardice to accept some slight pacification of one kind or another while passing this slavery on to your children and grandchildren. In fact, the over 250 million humans murdered by their own governments during the last century (NOT including wars) could not have happened had our grandfathers and their grandfathers stood up and killed the State, rather than take the same path used today by the current liberty movement and all those who attempt to make the State kinder, gentler, and more palatable to the masses.

I stated earlier that I respect pacifists, and I stand by that, but I don't agree with their philosophy. I do recognize that there is a consistency in the philosophy of many pacifists, e.g. Jainism and a very few Christians seem very consistent, but in most pacifists that I have encountered there are glaring inconsistencies. Unfortunately, pacifism of the glaringly inconsistent type has influenced many of the more famous liberty personalities. Of all people, students of libertarianism should understand the relationship between rights and responsibilities. I have a right to my property, including my life, so long as I respect that same right of the property of others. However if I fail to respect the property rights of another person, I relinquish the equal right of my property. Libertarians usually understand this and recognize it as the basis of the morality of self-defense. So if someone attempts to murder me, thereby attempting to destroy the property of my life, I can rightfully destroy the property of their life because they relinquished their right when they attempted aggression upon me. Most people understand this naturally even without pondering its philosophical basis. Where many people have fallen is in their own responsibility to maintain their rights, and I believe this is where many libertarians have become confused by their exposure to inconsistent pacifists.

The libertarians I am referring to here theoretically agree that self-defense is morally acceptable, and most do not call themselves pacifists, but they fail to properly arm themselves, and if they were forced to defend themselves they would have no idea how. What they fail to realize is that there is a responsibility to self-defense that works hand-in-hand with their right of property. Inconsistent pacifists and waves of propaganda from the State have systematically taught people to expect protection from some outside authority or entity, rather than the individual being responsible for their own security. This is what I was referring to when I said that, had our forefathers responded correctly to the advance of the State, the twentieth century would not have been a century marked by constant wars and genocide. That doesn't excuse those acting on behalf of the State in the murders of hundreds of millions of people. It only means that there was a responsibility to stop the State and our forefathers failed in their duty to protect us, their posterity. We now hold that responsibility. If we fail to take the actions required to protect ourselves, our property, and our posterity, that doesn't justify State actors who steal and murder, but it does place shame on our heads for the future generations we have failed to protect.

Having established these uncomfortable facts, the grown-up anarchist is no longer left with the option to play nice and hope for the best. And yet, true anarchism is and must be a philosophy of peace. This seemingly contradictive position has but one solution. Since the zero aggression principle allows for violence in the pursuit of self-defense, those who are suited for such action must train and prepare for selective ethics-based decapitation of the Beast. Those acting on behalf of their State masters who actively murder, rape, rob, and extort have relinquished their right of property in proportion to the amount they have aggressed, and those of us with the knowledge and the skill have a responsibility to do something about it. But their actions must be principled, patient, and carefully directed.

Immature stunts are not becoming to men of action. A true warrior will not be found parading about boasting of his prowess, waving flags and pronouncing lines-in-the-sand, demanding marches on Washington or occupying some park bench or ranger station. The real warrior knows that fortifying sand castles while playing army games in the forest are as childish as chalking sidewalks, yelling through megaphones, and whining about conspiracies. So if the riflemen expect to take a place at the table with the adults they need to grow up and begin earning that place. They need to stop following self-glorifying leaders who entice them into open confrontations. They need to understand the purpose of camouflage and stop metaphorically decorating themselves in flashing neon while screeching their intentions like a drunken redneck on party boat.

Likewise the aboveground liberty activists will need to grow up and stop acting like spoiled children arguing over who is being mean to whom on social networks, while expending their energy and resources trying to get governments to give them permission to use cannabis. There are more important things than arguing with communists about the meaning of the word "capitalism", and debating fascists about the veneration of flags, while whining about "social justice warriors". The time has come to put aside the games of your childhood and get into the battle that is about to sweep across humanity. It's time for the aboveground network to embrace its seven part job, and begin the heavy lifting it will need to do to survive what the State will throw at us before it gives up the ghost.

Childish thinking and obsolete methods may have served a purpose at some time, but one thing is clear; we have moved on and childish thinking and obsolete methods are, or should be, dead. Once a thing dies it must be disposed of quickly or it will rot, stink, and spread disease. Thus we build the fires and throw the past into the flames so that we may leave behind the pain and failures of days gone by, and embrace the onslaught of challenges that the future brings.

The State will not die easily! Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely selling you snake oil while fishing for a monthly donation to their feel-good cause. The State will thrash about, wail, and strike out at anything it can reach before it dies. It will eat its own children and burn its own house before it accepts its demise. When it dies, its death will burn a memory in the minds of humans that they will not quickly forget. The death pangs of The Great Dragon will scar not only humanity, but the Earth itself in such a manner that a thousand years of erosion will not heal the wounds, and the longer we put off this fight the more powerful the Beast becomes and the more devastating those wounds will be.

(4-1) Aboveground Activists

The peaceful aboveground activists are now, have been, and must always be the backbone of our cause. They are our public voice and our public image. They range in description from the quiet elderly lady who has humbly supported peace and freedom for years, to the college professor who will likely never reach a level of real influence in the university system due to his dedication to truth and freedom. The podcaster faithfully sharing his voice with any who will listen, and the freedom fighter who uses every opportunity to film the police or other authoritarians as they beat down the innocent. The independent journalist who refuses to kowtow to authority, to the grandfather who uses wisdom and his own peaceful life as an example for his family. These and others are all examples of the activism that provides the model of the world that we can someday possess. These activists are our sales force in the marketplace of ideas, offering a better worldview and a better product than our enemy the State.

Ultimately it's the market that will choose the timing of the death of the State. Currently there's a thriving market demand for the State. Most people don't understand the alternatives, and can't imagine a world without monopolized aggression. People tend to be loyal to brand-specific products, and the State is the brand Mother trusted, the brand Gramps fought for during the war, and it's the only brand they ever hear about on their television. Most people have little exposure to the violent, bloody, monster that is hidden under the surface of every encounter with government agents. Many people are either employed directly or indirectly by governments, or they have close friends or relatives who are. The process of voting, along with the propaganda that goes with it, exists for the purpose of convincing the individual that when they vote they create government. So when they think of government they think of themselves or their uncle or their neighbor. When they hear about some cop beating a pregnant woman to death, or shooting an old man, or choking a child, they assume that person did something to deserve such actions. How could they think otherwise? How could they condemn government when they believe they are government? This is what I mean when I say there is a market demand for the State.

This explains why, when someone finally feels the fangs of the Beast in their own flesh, they are shocked and horrified, and they don't understand why their precious government is behaving like it is. They'll repeat; "I have faith in the system. I'm innocent and I'll have my day in court." They'll chant their mantra, trying to change reality through their faith. Or they'll insist that it's just this instance that's the problem and if we could just let someone in government know about this mix up, then government would fix this problem. Most of the time these sad people will maintain their faith in this myth right up to the point that the obedient government servant ends the life of their innocent child. This process is very much like what happens when a powerful predator grabs a weak animal, and the animal goes limp and seems to faint. It's our job to wake them up and encourage them to bite back.

The State, for some 600 generations, has taught humans to act like a herd rather than individuals. We see the predator grab one of us and rather than brave people instantly falling upon the predator to beat him senseless, we pull back and bleat or run away. We close our curtains. We change lanes. We blame the victim. But there are some slowly remembering who we are. There are those among us who are remembering we are not a herd to be sheared or eaten. We are individuals capable of empathy for our fellow humans, and we are beginning to stand up to the predators. Currently this involves things like filming police thuggery and exposing that thuggery on social media. Things like picking through news stories from the mainstream media, and exposing the lies. Like pointing out to coworkers the travesty of taxation, and the inefficiencies of central planning. Like speaking out against wars and the criminals who run the military industrial complex. Simply teaching others about the invisible tax called inflation, and how fractional reserve central banking is a scam. Parents raising unregistered, unschooled children who understand the Trivium, and can explain Diocletian's problem-reaction-solution. These people are springing up around the world. They are the aboveground network of activists and they are no longer allowing themselves to be herded. Instead they are making themselves heard.

The aboveground activists predict the failures of the State, advertise the lies and failings of the State, and guide those who wish to learn about a greater understanding of peace, liberty, and a free life.

But wait. Doesn't that mean that they're evangelists?

Not at all. You see, there is a vast gulf between evangelism and advertising/sales. Many of the tactics are similar and they share certain characteristics, but the similarity is superficial. First, there is always a level of fanaticism involved in evangelism. High emotions and dynamic personalities, topped off with just a shot of over-the-top showmanship, and you have an evangelist. Your typical evangelist can sing a good song, tap out a spiffy dance, but is rarely founded in consistent principles, logic, and reason. They almost always know the basic talking points, but have almost never delved deeper than the surface on any doctrine. They seek the big emotional conversion. Shouting from the stage and passing of the collection plate, they swoop their congregation off its feet and impart a miracle of the emotions that will hopefully last until the next performance, and the next passing of the collection plate. These people should be avoided, no matter how they make you feel.

The second problem regarding evangelist is his tendency to be a proselytizer. He tends to not be satisfied by simply helping those who are looking for directions, but he seems to want to rush out onto the highways of life and stop traffic so he can tell everyone the way to get to the location he thinks they should be heading towards. Typically the evangelist's flamboyance and showmanship are only overshadowed by his incredible assumption of self-importance. He doesn't just want to sell his goods, he wants everyone to want him. His primary product is himself, and his message is secondary at best, although usually the message comes in a distant third in importance after his stage performance. We don't need these people. They are cheerleaders, having little understanding of and no effect on the actual game.

One may ask; if we don't emphasize evangelical recruiting, how will our numbers ever grow to the point that we can have a real impact?

This question assumes two fallacies. The first and worst is the fallacy that we need a majority or vast numbers to "win". We don't. Democracy be Dammed! We will never have a majority, we shouldn't care about a majority, and we don't need a majority! Market thinking isn't about majorities. We only need a better product, and we already have that. The second fallacy is the assumption that it's our job to recruit anarchists. Humans are born anarchists, and it's our true nature. Tricks fool people into believing in the State, and as long as those people are comfortable in their pods clicking the feed bar, you will never be able to truly "convert" them to freedom. And again, we don't need to. The failings of the State do a far better job of waking up the anarchist spirit in people than any preacher ever has or ever could. Selling a product to those who are looking for that very product is vastly easier and more rewarding than evangelism. We're talking about the difference between religious fanaticism and market demand.

The hard truth is that we don't need any Beloved Elderly Leader and former politician from Texas selling us more politics as a path to freedom any more than we need a Great Philosopher from Canada to enlighten us and indoctrinate us into his internet hate-your-mother cult. Politicians and cult leaders of any kind are worse than the cheerleading evangelists. If your version of "liberty" depends upon a weekly message from any Great Man, you are doing it wrong and this book is not aimed at you.

The State is the great recruiter of anarchists. Having a stimulating conversation with your fellow polo players at the country club on a Sunday afternoon, or the internet version of that scenario on social media, may create a theoretical anarchist. My experience has consistently shown that these theoretical anarchists get a big thrill out of changing their on-line profile to include an anarchist flag and adding some phrase to their header that includes the word "voluntaryism" or "agorism". But the moment there's a boots-on-the-ground test of these theoretical anarchists they'll start to puke statist blather like beer spewing from a freshman on frat pledge night. The reason for this phenomenon is complex, and unnecessary to evaluate here. For the purpose of this manual all we need to keep in mind is that the State does the job that rhetorical hoop jumping simply can't accomplish. Telling a person about the boot of the State may stimulate them intellectually. But when Officer Friendly actually drags their child out of a car and beats him half to death, the change of heart is real and permanent. Our job is to guide that change of heart, and encourage others to be empathetic. The State is its own worst enemy. It will kill itself. The question is; will we let it live long enough to take all of us out with it when it goes?

Right now you should be asking; short of having everyone's child sacrificed to the State to prove we're right about the State, what can we do?

(4.1.1) The Seven Part Job

The aboveground network's seven part job, in order of priority:

  1. Provide for yourself and your family. Dependence is the opposite of independence. The optimum situation is to secure an income stream that doesn't depend on the State. However, if providing for your family means a government job that doesn't require you to directly aggress upon the innocent, then you have to do what you have to do to survive. Not everyone has the luxury of an optimum situation, so first provide as best as you can.

  2. Strive for consistent principled behavior in your own life. Rather than focusing on the splinter in your neighbor's eye, you should make sure there's not a log in your own. If you believe what you say, you will live it. If you aren't living what you say, you don't believe it. Living a principled life is a reward of its own. When you look in the mirror and you know the person looking back is genuine, and when you close your eyes at night knowing you have been true to yourself, you will live a happier life.

  3. Prepare for the systematic failure of the State. Beans, Band-Aids, Bitcoin, bullion, and bullets. Survivalists and preppers have endured concentrated defamation by believers in the State. This fact alone means we should take note of their activities, because they're doing something that scares statists. That's not to say we should believe every foil-hat wearing wacky-doodle with a survival web site or podcast. Some of them are seriously disjointed and some of them are pure con men running scams on the gullible. But being connected to the prepper community and being prepared for a variety of natural or man-made disasters is never a bad idea. Having a disaster plan, and having a Get-Out-Of-Dodge plan should be standard operating procedure. Also having a skill set that includes some survival and do-it-yourself abilities is never a bad thing.

  4. Help those you can help and let-go of those you cannot help. Emergency workers are trained in triage so that they may assign the priority of treatment based on the degree of injuries or illnesses of a large number of patients. For me, the most difficult part of triage is when you recognize the patient’s condition is such that you cannot save them, and helping them will prevent you from helping someone else. You don't want to walk away, but you can't stay. Some simply cannot be saved. That's not to say you must shun family or friends. It means you must come to grips with the fact that some of them will never leave the mental comfort of slavery. They will cling to their chains to their last breath. Accept it and move on with your life. It's not your job to force slaves into freedom.

  5. Expose the evil and lies of the State as you speak truth in the face of power. Speaking truth in the face of power indicates that we are speaking in spite of the threat we face. We are not speaking “truth to power,” we are speaking truth to posterity, and the powers be damned!

  6. Publicly disassociate yourself from the underground, denouncing all acts of aggression. This requires a delicate balance. There are times when we can carefully take a lesson from our enemy. Politicians over the last few thousand years have turned double talk into an art form. By that I mean, answering a direct pointed question by talking around the topic while boldly announcing some ethical point that is very similar to the question but doesn't directly address the question. In doing this one can avoid telling a lie while avoiding the question. For example; if the topic of violent anarchists causes someone to accuse you of supporting violence you can explain the Zero Aggression Principle and that some people who call themselves anarchists are actually communists and socialists and they do tend toward violence and destruction, since they don't respect property ownership. However, peaceful anarchists embrace the Zero Aggression Principle so we reject all initiation of aggression, and we respect the property of peaceful people. When you take that path, deception may be employed. Some say there is no difference between deception and a lie, but that is a matter for the individual to decide for their situation. However, if you actually discipline yourself to avoid acts of aggression and commit yourself to peaceful means, this task of disassociation becomes much easier. But no matter the method, there must be a public disassociation between peaceful activism and the underground.

  7. Safely engage in direct activism. Things like filming police, podcasting, or other activities, or quietly providing support for the underground, according to your abilities and resources. That "support" doesn't necessarily require money or direct contact. There are many things the individual may do to support the underground without directly interacting with those activists. Again, your imagination is a required tool in this endeavor. Or, if you have carefully examined yourself and you are one of the few uniquely suited for direct involvement in the underground movement, then pursue that path with care and wisdom.

(4.1.2) Film the Police While You Can

Filming police in America is an important form of activism right now but this is temporary. Governments worldwide, including the American government, have or will shut this window the moment they think they can get away with it. Currently there are several great organizations emphasizing the importance of filming the police, and they're training more and more people on how to safely do so. In America, these activists have given the State its most serious bloody nose of modern times. Right now the US government is stuck with old legal decisions and definitions that force it to not only allow the recording of police, but to actually protect those who are bold enough to do so. But that will rapidly change. Either courts will simply shift their legal protection away from those doing the filming, or more likely, some grand tragic event will take place and the media with the full force of its propaganda wing will descend on the activists to demonize them. This tragedy may be real or staged. An aspect of the "solution" to this terrible tragedy will be a federal level government emphasis on police forces filming themselves. Vast amounts of federal funding will assure a "solution" to this horrible event, maybe even a whole new department of federal employees will be hired to film the police for us. In reality, government filming themselves only means more surveillance on the public and more police control of the actual recordings produced. Police will get better at producing fake videos, and the bulk of the public will buy the ruse without question.

The two action items here are: One; get as many activists filming police as possible while preparing those activists for the propaganda storm that will hit when the false flag event happens. Two; prepare for the time to come when it will be illegal to film police. The filming must continue after it becomes illegal, but it will need to take on a more clandestine approach.

If you just read that last paragraph and thought to yourself; "If we know a false flag event is coming and will likely be staged or orchestrated, why not just expose it as fake when it happens?" Fear not friend, there is already an army of activists waiting with baited breath for each new false flag event, so that they can be the one exposing its fraud. We are well represented in that field of battle. For more information just do an internet search for the phrase "crisis actor". However, the bulk of the public will believe the government lies no matter how poorly constructed and no matter how carefully debunked.

What about filming after the State forbids it? The black market exists only because the white market has become dangerous or forbidden. The same is true with activism. We can't allow laws and thuggery to determine our path. We must do what must be done.

(4-2) Fictional Beings and Their Property

Join me in a thought exercise.

The Setup: We understand that according to consistent libertarian philosophy every human has the exact same rights as every other human. So a child has the same right of property as an adult. Humans own themselves and have the right to own other property that they have rightfully come to possess. We believe that two people may engage in a voluntary transaction, transferring the rightful ownership of property from one party to the other, and no one else may rightfully interfere. Libertarians also believe that unowned property can rightfully be homesteaded. This is not an exhaustive explanation of libertarian property theory, but it is suitable for this thought experiment.

Phase 1: With the above being the case, let us consider Sally, a child who owns a ball. Sally was given the ball by her mother Betty, who purchased the ball from a market. The ownership of the ball has not been in question up to the time that Sally decided to give the ball to her imaginary friend, Canada. Sally imagines Canada as an intelligent nine-foot-tall half-zebra-half-ape creature wearing a clown outfit. Sally deeply believes in Canada, believes she has relinquished ownership, and believes she no longer owns the ball. It's Canada's ball and Sally won't touch it.
Question 1: Can the fictional creature Canada, rightfully own the ball?

Phase 2: Every aspect of the above still remains except Sally is joined in her fiction by Billy, her real life neighbor who also believes in Canada.
Question 2: Does the union of Sally and Billy in their belief in the fictional being Canada change the ownership of the ball?

Phase 3: Every aspect of the above still remains except that Sally's mother Betty, also believes in Canada.
Question 3: Does the authority of Betty, along with the union of Sally and Billy in their belief in the fictional being Canada, change the ownership of the ball?

Phase 4: This phase has a dramatic change. Sally's mother Betty stole the money she used to buy the ball. She is an outstanding pick-pocket, and over the course of a day of theft she stole money from seventy-three people, totaling $418. Betty has no idea who those people were and it's impossible to find out who they were or return their share of the stolen money. With that money Betty purchased groceries, gasoline, the ball for Sally, and she ate lunch at a restaurant, tipping the waiter generously. Upon leaving the restaurant Betty saw a homeless man picking through a trash can, so she gave the man $20. Every other aspect of the story remains the same. Sally gave the ball to Canada, while Billy and Betty both believe in Canada.
Question 4: Who owns the ball? Let me rephrase the question: Can a unrealistic fictional non-human entity own property purchased with untraceable stolen money, and does Betty's charity affect the question of property ownership?

If, at this point, you would argue that the fictional person Canada actually owns a ball, then our conversation would be over. I wouldn't bother attempting a debate someone who believes such outlandish fantasies. However, if you don't believe Canada can rightfully own property why would you believe an equally ridiculous unrealistic fictional non-human entity called the United States Government can own property?

...but wait! There's more!

Phase Crazy: Canada is no longer named Canada. Canada is now named General Energy. Sally, Billy and Betty believe they work for General Energy or GE as they call it. The US Government has issued a slip of paper that declares GE a legal "person". GE receives millions of dollars in stolen money (taxes) from the US Government every year in government contracts, and in return Sally Billy and Betty make guns that GE sells to the US Government. The US Government then uses those guns to collect the taxes that it pays to GE for more guns. Betty, using the legal authority granted by the US Government, uses GE's money to buy a ball for GE.
Question 5: Now who rightfully owns the ball?

The consistent libertarian should always have the same answer: The ball is unowned property. Anyone may rightfully homestead it and do with it as they please because imaginary fictional beings can't own property in the real world. This principle is not changed by the number of people believing the fiction, nor by the authority of the people believing the fiction, nor by their acts of charity. And just because some old farts who call themselves "justices" (or any other gang of delusional people with made-up titles) use enforcer-thugs to beat, cage, or kill anyone who disagrees, it doesn't change the reality of what is right and what is wrong. Nor is reality changed by the passage of time, so if your father and his father before him believed in a nine-foot-tall half-zebra-half-ape named Canada, that doesn't make it so.

Some attempt to argue that somehow the ball belongs to all of us. These people believe in "public property". They will use convoluted collectivist property rights theories to show that since we were all robbed then we all have ownership in the ball. To make this argument you must abandon libertarian principles and logic itself. You have to create an imaginary world where you can theoretically own something without ever having seen it, touched it, or possibly even been aware of its existence. You would have to be able to own property that you can't possess or interact with in any way, and that you have no influence as to whether others may or may not interact with it. So then the question becomes, “Can you own a ball that you don't know exists and that someone else can play with or destroy at their will, while you have no say in its destiny?” If you believe so, do you also have a special friend named Canada?

At this point I should address the property of corporations that are not in a crony or codependent relationship with governments. Let us say an old man and an old woman have a little shoe sales/repair shop and have been running this humble business for years. Lately the neighborhood has changed, property values have skyrocketed, and their little niche business is expanding daily. They have had to hire employees, expand their shop, and have added a little tea shop in the building next door. For years they have been running their business as a simple "DBA", but now their accountant advises them that their business is at great risk if they don't form a corporation to protect it. Their actions to protect their business are morally very different from the actions of a corporation that is dependent upon its relationship with government. Whether there is magic paper or not doesn't create the moral difference between the Mom-and-Pop shoe store and some corporation with an exclusive shoe supply contract to the prison-industrial-complex. The old man and the old woman are reacting to the threat of theft by government or government assisted entities, whereas the other corporation is facilitating and profiting from that theft. Every moral anarchist should understand this difference in the same way that we understand that it is immoral to rob people to pay for roads, but it is not immoral to use that road once it is built. The difference being active robbery and a reaction to a robbery after the fact. To blame a victim for their reaction to a crime is shifting the responsibility away from the criminal and onto the victim.

If I have done my job here, then we can agree that property in the possession of fictional beings is rightfully unowned, in spite of the fact that there are people willing to kill on command for that fictional being. So rightfully, all State property, including the property of governments, their crony churches, their crony corporations, the banking cartels, the main stream media, all of it, is unowned and rightfully open for homesteading. Once homesteaded, the new owner may rightfully do with it as they please, so long as they don't initiate aggression on the rightfully owned property of another real person. An example could be a window of a government vehicle. I could homestead it and immediately decide I wanted to break it. I could do so without violating libertarian property rights and without violating the zero aggression principle. However, the odds are the window is protected by a violent nut-job that believes in Canada and will shoot me down like a rabid dog, given the opportunity. Yes, he would be the aggressor and yes, I could rightfully protect myself, wisdom provides the balance between what I can rightfully do and what I should do.

Most freedom-loving activists should not engage in violence, even justifiable violence. Most people are not very well endowed to deal with the challenges, and the responsibilities that come with violence. The wise activist who is naturally suited for violence but is still dedicated to the zero aggression principle has a choice of the types of activism to engage in. Simple sabotage is such a wide field of activism that the friend of freedom can carefully and safely choose the level and type that best suits their individual situation. On the other hand, ethics-based irregular warfare requires a high level of self-discipline coupled with a very special skill set. Not every gun owner, for example, or former military, in spite of what they may think, is suited for the challenges of the early stages of irregular warfare. Near the end of the life of the State we may not have the luxury of choosing to be involved in war or not, but today while we can plan, and cities have not yet become glowing ashen craters, it is critical that the actions of the irregular warriors be wise, carefully planned, and be executed with extreme caution and secrecy.

More specific details on ethics-based irregular warfare and simple sabotage can be found in Sedition Subversion and Sabotage Field Manual No.1, Parts 2 and 3.

(4-3) The Aboveground and The Underground

When the aboveground activist considers getting involved in the underground, discretion is the greater part of valor. If you're not careful in who and what you support, you may be taking far more risk than you should. Consider the case of Samuel Mudd, the physician who set the broken leg of John Wilkes Booth. There were very loose connections between Booth and Mudd, and little to no connection between Mudd and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and yet in a frenzy to convict, a military court found Mudd guilty of aiding and conspiring in the murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, escaping the death penalty by one vote. Lori Fortier may have narrowly escaped a similar fate after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Apparently she helped Timothy McVeigh laminate a fake driver's license that he later used to secure the rental truck that carried his bomb. Any more involvement by Lori Fortier is based on conjecture at best. However, rather than see her railroaded through a kangaroo court and punished for something she had nothing to do with, her husband flipped and became a government stooge. The hard and ugly lesson: supporting underground activists can be extremely dangerous. Know who you support and get some kind of idea as to their activities. Otherwise, if they fail or botch their get-away, you may suffer for crimes you had nothing to do with.

In the vast majority of situations, the aboveground activists should have no association with the activities of the underground, and at some time in the future even knowing who they are will be extremely dangerous. The best course of action will always be to disassociate yourself from the underground in every way. Publicly disavow them, and publicly renounce them. And never allow yourself to have financial connections with them as this will be an easy route the State will use to track down the underground and punish all involved.

(4-3.1) The Sabotage Pincer and The Aboveground Pincer

Hackers and friend-saboteurs should work to agitate the State by seeking out weaknesses in its security, transportation, manufacturing, and communication infrastructures, then exploiting those weaknesses to cause systemic failure, or at least confusion. At the point of systemic failure the hackers' and friend-saboteurs' work is done and the aboveground becomes the point of agitation by consistently advertising the failures of central planning and forced compliance, while trumpeting the advantages of spontaneous order and peaceful voluntaryism. This is the essence of the duel pincers of the scorpion. This type of agitation causes the State to overreact, and that overreaction is always some kind of violent authoritarianism. When you only own a hammer every problem looks like a nail, and with the State that means every problem becomes an opportunity for the State to pound someone. This violent overreaction by authoritarians presents the second opportunity for the aboveground activists to point out the evil nature of government, and again advertise the advantages of spontaneous order and peaceful voluntaryism. Therefore if done correctly, every successful action of the hackers and friend-saboteurs pays off twice for the aboveground: opportunities to bring shame on those who still support the State, and offering a moral solution.

This is the metaphor behind the term "Lego Distribution Network". The idea being that as soon as the State is asleep we slip in and spread Legos on the carpet. Then in the middle of the night when the State gets up to go to the bathroom, he will step on them. Hopefully he will stumble and fall down the stairs, but even if he doesn't fall, we will know that we are bringing him pain and aggravation.

The aboveground and the underground can also work separately to reveal as much information as possible about specific State supporters of aggression. This can involve public revelations of the inner workings of the so called "shadow governments," "double governments,” or “the deep state." These public revelations can include information about how double governments work, how politicians are actually powerless and are simply a show for the public, and how foreign and domestic policies are created to control the masses, not to keep them safe. In addition to this critical work, the aboveground and the underground can also work separately to reveal private and personal information about key figures in the double government so that the stinger of the scorpion can have the sufficient information to facilitate the decision process when a stinging strike is required. The aboveground and the underground can be the eyes of the stinger.

Of course the obvious warning has to be inserted here. Whenever the State reacts to such agitation, activists of all kinds should be as far out of the reach of the State as possible. This is why invisibility and security are so critical to all components of the underground networks, and it's why the aboveground must have no direct ties to the underground. Consider the case of the journalist Barrett Brown who boldly and bravely supported the hacker collective Anonymous while writing news releases about their exploits and helping to build a wiki to facilitate analysis of their hactivism. Even though Barrett never did any hacking, when the US government and its crony cohorts at Stratfor suffered an embarrassing email leak in 2011, Barrett became a convenient whipping boy to be singled out and punished as an example for the rest of us. Journalists like Brown, and others who have suffered even worse for their profession such as Michael Hastings and Gary Webb, walk a narrow tightrope balancing their drive to expose the truth and the tendency to become part of the story, all the while standing in the open completely exposed to the slings and arrows of the State's fury. But for the rest of the aboveground, the best defense against being punished for the actions of the underground is to have no discoverable connections to the underground, and of course, a consistent public history of denouncing them won't hurt your case either.

(4-3.2) The Stinger: Natural Law, Defense, and Aggression

I am intentionally being vague in this section of this manual in reference to ethics based selective irregular warfare, as it is covered more completely and carefully in Part 3: Ethics-Based Selective Irregular Warfare. Among the reasons for being imprecise in this regards, in addition to the obvious reason of avoiding redundancies, is because at some point this manual may be physically divided into its three parts and those who need to read this section will have no need of being associated with those who have a need to read that section.

That said, by embracing The Prussian Education System, western governments have systematically stymied the ability of many people to examine an ethical dilemma, break it down to its core questions, and develop a consistent logical solution. For that reason, a simple transitive equation such as the following, can confuse some people: If A>B and B>C then the equation A>C can be assumed to be true without separate analysis. What one sees when interacting with many otherwise intelligent people is that they have, for example, adopted AB and B>C. This is often the source of the problem we face when attempting to explain questions of ethics using grammar, logic, and rhetoric, while contradicting tradition and authority. Many otherwise-intelligent people simply cannot wrap their minds around concepts that are contradictive to what they have been taught.

There are laws throughout nature, waiting to be discovered on an as-needed basis. In and of themselves, they are neither good nor evil. Gravity, for example, is not good or evil. It simply is. We wouldn't say that the man who falls to his death is a victim of evil gravity. That would be absurd. Yet when we see something that seems to defy natural law we quickly recognize that something is not quite right, and we tend to want to know why. We literally discover law through investigation and the resulting understanding of how things in nature work. This can be demonstrated by showing a simple slight-of-hand magic trick to a human child or even some other animals. A well-known internet video shows an orangutan viewing a magic trick. The ape is both amazed and humored. The reason he shows such interest in the trick is because he knows something has happened that seems to defy what he understands to be natural law, and his curiosity drives him to fascination with the phenomenon.

All animals have a certain built-in understanding of their role in nature and in the limits of nature. The same goes for the behavior of any animal. The lioness is not evil for providing her cubs with the flesh of a gazelle. She is simply following the law. Her behavior is required to preserve the lives of her offspring. If the gazelle had been able to escape the jaws of the lioness and the cubs had gone hungry, the gazelle would not be considered evil for starving the cubs. The lioness is following natural law, as is the gazelle when it seeks the opposite result of the encounter. In such an encounter natural law is not contradictive, it is beautifully consistent and a source of life and true peace. Evil, then, is what humans perceive when we see natural law violated in an unjust way by a human. Specifically when one human unjustly uses violence or threats of violence on another human, we know this is wrong the same way the orangutan knows something is not right about the magic trick. The difference being that at times, humans choose to violate natural law through unjustified violence, and this is why self-defense must enter the equation to fully understand the relationship of natural law and peace.

Since self-defense is a reaction to the breaking of natural law, not an original action in and of itself, it is exempt from law, and its execution is at the discretion of the person acting in self-defense. So for example, if Man A initiates violence on Man B by punching Man B in the nose, we may hope or expect Man B to retaliate by punching Man A back in return. However we may not see justification for B if he sprayed gasoline on A and set him on fire. Most people would perceive the fire as an overreaction. But do we have the natural right to make that judgment? Did we feel the pain, the fear, the trauma? Have we lived B's life? Do we know what it means to be B and to be attacked by A? This is the difference between natural law and civil behavior, and some have argued it is the basis of civil law. Natural law says that once A initiated the confrontation, the judgement of what is just punishment is rightfully in the hands of B, and he alone. Only B knows what it is like to be B and suffer that specific assault by A. Where civil behavior enters the equation is in the fact that the rest of us may or may not want to live around someone who would burn a man to death over a punch in the nose. So we rightfully may exclude B from association, but there is nothing in natural law that would condemn B for his chosen form of retaliation.

In the last five thousand years or so, judgments in civil behavior gave rise to agreements which eventually became codes of acceptable civic behavior. Eventually limits were placed on both self-defense and retaliation, and governments became the so-called authority of justice. In the case of Hammurabi's code, retaliation was unnaturally enforced by government at the arbitrary line of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, bone for bone", and as all government programs tend to do, agreements in civil behavior became incredibly intrusive laws enforced at the point of a spear, controlling everything from contract law, to sexual forbiddances, to wage and price controls, and government began dictating punishments that depended upon the social ranking and wealth of the offender and the victim. All of this within the scope of Hammurabi's code. So what we see when we compare natural law with civil behavior is that natural law is never arbitrary, is fair, and always pushes us towards survival of our species, while civil behavior tends to be based on secondary observations by those who have no natural right to judge the matter, and tends to drift toward unfairness and intrusions based on social standing and wealth, where punishments are handed down from government officials.

In other words, civil rules of behavior and second party judgments must never supersede natural laws and primary party judgements, otherwise natural laws get replaced by government edicts and even the original civil rules become null and void as tyranny replaces freedom and justice become a commodity to be purchased at a government set price.

This leads us to consider self-defense and possibly discover an aspect of natural law. Remember the aggressive Man A and his violent attack on Man B? Is it possible that B's overreaction to the punch in the nose could have been avoided had he spotted the threat A presented and acted in preemptive self-defense? If B had recognized A's intent to punch, and once there was no doubt the event was imminent, if B had struck first, would B not have been more evenly tempered to judge the follow-through retaliation against his attacker, having not been subjected to the disorienting effects of the nose punch? In other words, perhaps if B had acted in preemptive self-defense there would be no need for the naysayers to wag their fingers in civil judgement of his actions because he very likely never would have set A on fire. In all likelihood the event would have ended with A being taught a quick lesson by way of a few bruises, and with B avoiding humiliation, pain, and the judgment of his peers. Natural law drives the species toward survival, as both men come out better for the encounter. Thus we see that preemptive violence can be an act of self-defense, and is consistent with natural law. If, on the other hand, A simply can't learn this lesson, perhaps we are all better off without him in the gene pool. But that is not for us to judge, it is for his next victim to decide.

This leads to our next step in discovering natural law regarding self-defense. If you have knowledge that a man is stalking your child with the intent to harm her, you are following natural law when you interrupt that man's aggression before he harms your child. And if that man has a history of murdering innocent children, you are under no moral obligation to spare his life in the defense of your child, before he has a chance to act. In a situation such as this, preemptive defense is not only wise, but within the natural law definition of ethical action. Many adherents to the Zero Aggression Principle argue that we may not defend ourselves until after the physical aggression has been initiated by the attacker. This is illogical for several reasons, the first of which is that true defense, by its nature, involves the presentation to the potential attacker the prospect that an attack will have a price, so that the attacker can choose to avoid the confrontation to begin with. Otherwise we could be considered baiting the attacker if the attacker has the impression that he may have the first strike "free". Remember, almost every dangerous or poisonous animal in nature has clear markings to warn its attackers. After all, in many situations the attacker who has his first shot free often leaves the victim incapable of self-defense after that first strike. For example, I am about 6 feet tall and weigh around 240 pounds; additionally I have trained in pugilism. If I, or someone of comparable size and skill, were to get a totally free first punch in a fight, the fight would likely be instantly over, no matter the size, strength, or training of the victim. That is clearly not a natural law situation that advances our species or promotes peace. So then, natural law provides for preemptive self-defense while remaining within the constraints of the Zero Aggression Principle.

Now consider the following: According to the FBI, in 2014 burglary losses in the US topped out at $3.5 billion. In that same year, according to the Institute For Justice, US "law enforcement" stole $4.5 billion using asset forfeiture laws. Don't be confused by such a huge number by thinking that massive amounts of money was taken from big time drug dealers, because that didn't happen. The median forfeiture amount in 2014 was less than $500. Now ask yourself how you would treat a known burglar? If half of all burglars wore uniforms with a clearly displayed badge indicating they are a burglar, how would you treat them? Would they be safe walking down your street? Would they be safe sitting in a clearly marked car in your neighborhood? Now consider that there were roughly 20,000 no-knock raids in the US in 2014, and that number is rising every year. The largest crime gang in the world already wear uniforms, carry military grade weapons, and steal more from peaceful people than all of their competitors combined, and that doesn't count what is stolen in taxes and through inflation.

That being the case, if we have clearly demonstrated that a specific institution is based on intimidation, violence, and theft, and if we have demonstrated that specific employees or representatives of that institution have a proven record of using intimidation, violence, and theft to advance that institution and themselves, and if we have demonstrated that said representatives of said institution are both willing, capable, and at some point in the future, likely to repeat such aggressions upon ourselves, our loved ones, or other equally innocent victims, then we are not under obligation to wait until that specific aggressor strikes the first blow against us or our families. And if both the institution and the representative of that institution are known to kill the innocent, we have no obligation to limit our use of force when defending ourselves and family from that aggressor. Actually, much like the lioness above, it is our natural responsibility to preserve our family and remove threats before they can do harm, and like the law of gravity, the natural law of defense cannot be logically described as evil. It simply is.

They are in our towns, they are in our neighborhoods, and they are daily entering our homes and having their way with our property and our loved ones. They don't think we can or will do a thing about it. But they are wrong. We can and we will stop them. But we must do it wisely! We cannot foolishly play into their hands through open confrontation.


This post has been edited and abridged from the original SEDITION SUBVERSION AND SABOTAGE FIELD MANUAL by Ben Stone.


logo

For more articles and podcasts on liberty, the zero-aggression principle, and property rights, go to badquaker.com, and thank you for reading.

Sort:  

I'm still very impressed with this manual. Thank you for sharing.
A seriously useful resource.
Steem On!
Imgur

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70351.33
ETH 3563.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.72