Quoted:
We need government to make sure our water and food is safe. We need government to help prevent disease and control outbreaks.

Quoted:
I believe in government. I believe in government serving its people. The American people have currently chosen poorly when it come to their elected officials.

Quoted:
This girl wants absolutely no government, no laws, and any laws she disagrees with, she doesn't feel the need to abide by them. That is fine. That is her choice. But those choices can and will have consequences. She then poo poo's those consequences by saying that JBT have no morals by enforcing laws she doesn't agree with, equating them with Hitler's Brown Shirts.

Quoted:
By agreeing to be part of society, you have agreed to be governed by society's rules. You have the opportunity to try to change those rules through the political process and your elected representatives.
Don't like it, move to an unoccupied island with no territorial claims on it. You can then be King of your own land and do as you please.

Quoted:


You have never been in a Stateless society.

Quoted:


Lol. I'm no fan of our current government, but it could be worse. Much worse. See any third world shit hole, then rethink your answer.

You come off as having the worldly view of a person who has had his head in the sand for the last 6 decades.

Quoted:


So now we circle back.  You believe that men are so immoral, that without laws there is no way they can be societal.  If this is the case, then why do you believe these types of men cannot infiltrate a government and do the same things?

Quoted:


So you dont trust government, but you think the principles that you probably carry yourself arent valid because of what they call themselves? Take away what she calls herself for a second.  Now again, tell me what about her message you disagree with?

Quoted:


So now we circle back.  You believe that men are so immoral, that without laws there is no way they can be societal.  If this is the case, then why do you believe these types of men cannot infiltrate a government and do the same things?

Quoted:


So you dont trust government, but you think the principles that you probably carry yourself arent valid because of what they call themselves? Take away what she calls herself for a second.  Now again, tell me what about her message you disagree with?

Quoted:

We wouldn't be discussing it, had it been "Outlaw Joe."

Quoted:


So you mean folks like Hamilton? Or Adams? Or Washington?

Quoted:


So the messenger does matter?  If its not the message, what particular issue do you have with a woman making these statements?

Quoted:

The message is common.  We hear it here and elsewhere everyday.  She does not present it in any way that is unique or even extraordinarily eloquent.  But because she has breasts and a vagina, the ARFCOM window lickers get super excited.

Quoted:


Or, maybe because its presented in a way that people like me (who agree with a lot of the points shes making) think this particular messenger will have a better chance at getting the message out there to others, sex irregardless; rather than have it written off by people like you who look at the messenger and shoot down the message before its even presented.   You still havent answered what, of the points she makes, you disagree with?

Quoted:


So the messenger does matter?  If its not the message, what particular issue do you have with a woman making these statements?

Quoted:

I don't care what points she's making.  She's essentially just another anonymous 13'er running off at the mouth.

People say all sorts of stuff, everyday.  Why should I care what she says? Who is she, that it matters?  There are bloggers and message board posters and YouTube people that say similar things every, single day.  

Quoted:


So by discounting that message by attacking the messenger, I can assume you disagree with said message?

Quoted:

I have not attacked the messenger.  I just don't care what the messenger has to say.

You cannot assume that I disagree with her message, because I did not listen to more than a minute.  I just don't care what she has to say.   She's just another 13'er with a long winded opinion she read from a script.  

Quoted:

The message is common.  We hear it here and elsewhere everyday.  She does not present it in any way that is unique or even extraordinarily eloquent.  But because she has breasts and a vagina, the ARFCOM window lickers get super excited.

If a 13'er posted a massive libertarian treatise in the GD, no one would care.  If that 13'er also posted pics of herself, the usual suspects would swarm.  This is no different.

Quoted:


So a '13er (being used in a negative connotation) cant have an intelligent thought?  Since you dont know, what if she was reading directly from the Constitution?  Would she still just be a stupid 13'er?

Quoted:



Hey, if it gets more people to listen, I'm all for it.

Quoted:


I've read the Constitution quite a few times.  Why do I need a 13'er to read it to me on YouTube?

Why are you saying she's stupid?   Just because I don't care what someone gas to say, does not mean I'm calling them "stupid."

I'm sure there are all sorts of brilliant people on YouTube about whom I care even less.

Quoted:


So if youre indifferent to it, why the need to comment?

Quoted:

You are dishonestly attempting to suggest that I called her stupid.  Shame on you.

Quoted:

Proof read that part in red, rewrite it, and post the question again.

 What you call yourself when it involves Government can't be taken away. It's a statement of your intent to govern. If it isn't then it's a bald faced lie. If they Lie about their title they are lying about everything. So I tend to just expect that they are scum. I'm seldom wrong.

Quoted:


I could not have been more clear.  Why does this confound you?

I am showing her more respect by treating her like any other nobody on the Internet, compared to those who are listening to her because she has breasts.

Quoted:

Wazeristan, Haiti, Mountain regions of Honduras..... You have no Idea of what you gibber.

Quoted:


Comparing her to the crazy guy down on the corner.  How "respectful" of you...

Quoted:


You sir a Donkey.

Quoted:


Well said, genius.

First you lie and claim I've said things I have never said or even suggested, and then when called on it, you inarticulately resort to slinging childish insults.

Oafish and dishonest; not very impressive.

Quoted:


You sir a Donkey.

Quoted:


Why do people always compare Stateless societies to failed States?

You went to areas where governments failed or were failing, of course there was turmoil.

When the mass depends on government and it collapses what the hell do you expect?

Quoted:

What government ever had control of Waziristan? Your turn, Name one place where there is no state, or never was a state.

Aside from Antarctica....

And the moon which you bonnie blue flags and skinnys believe we never landed on.

Quoted:
One might think that some posters are attempting to derail the thread.
One might wonder what the motive for such behavior might be.  

Quoted:
got bored a minute into the first video

Quoted:


Well that is about the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while.  I don't even know where to begin.

Quoted:


Uhmmm no.. No state entity showed up in Waziristan except for tribal leaders. Probably until about 2002/2003 some families had no concept of Government other then random bandits with which they fought. Yes some of it is in Pakistan, That ends their control. Except around the Border Checkpoints. The native people of the united states had a tribal system of government and were in a constant state of warfare, that's one reason we beat them and why it was so hard to do. Irish history that fits your narrative must be this time period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland
Or maybe this time period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protohistory_of_Ireland
Or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(400%E2%80%93800)

It seems to be a long line of failed states or Glaciers.

Quoted:
Yeah mk262 is right, if it wasn't for all those rough men and F22s we would have to put up with some ruling class of assholes who extort money from us and shoot us if we don't go along with it...oh wait!!!

honestly I am so far out of the delusion of believing that the government is here to protect me I really don't give a f*** weather the gang of assholes claiming the right to use violence without being resisted is from among us or from another country.  honestly maybe it would be better if foreigners were here starting to think that the American Revolution was a not very pragmatic decision.

Quoted:




 don't forget those fuckin' drones

Quoted:

It's so much different when you add the whole concept, isn't it?

Ya'll should get off your ass and hook up with some fine middle eastern folks or some Russkies and just get to shooting then.
I reckon some EFPs at your local PD or Sherrifs office should start you off great. Don't forget that most Army and Marine bases are dang near unarmed from 0600 to 0900 Hell just drag the old lady at the DMV out into the street and put two in the back of her head. Everything will work out just as you've masturbated to I'm sure.

Quoted:


They held off a super power for quite some time. Pretty impressive in my book. Even if they were finally conquered (which is not a failed "State" as you put it). Medievil princedoms and serfs make a state, unless having a King or chief is your Anarchist eutopia. Being conquered either way makes your way of governing...failed

No, it just means that a more powerful entity took you over. If you say 2 + 2 = 4 and I say 2 +2 = 5 and I kill you does that make me right? Might does not make right, it just makes right now.

Not all Native Americans were in constant warfare. Which still has nothing to do with your assertion of there never being a stateless society. Each tribe was it's own state

A tribe does not equal a State. A state is a political entity under governmental control, a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time. There was no one in charge of the tribe. The Tribal leader was not a monarch with ultimate authority.

Waziristan became part of Pakistan in 1947. Doesn't matter as the Waziris consider themselves part of their family clan and nothing else other then muslim. The Paki government is constantly having shootouts about it. The Afghan government doesn't even bother.... But What would I know with my having lived there amoungst them? So the government interfering with its territory makes it stateless? you even admit to the government having shootouts about it.

So your argument still holds no no merit.

Monday, April 29, 2013
Tyrants beware. 4th Generation Warfare: How the next civil war will be fought.

“Direct military operations” are precisely what the 4GW insurgent seeks to avoid. His target is the mind and the will of the political leadership of his enemy -- to be specific, the few inches between their ears which are filled with brains to be influenced or, if not, popped like a grape with an unanswerable rifle shot from distance as an example to the others.
Excerpted from the non-fiction introduction to Absolved: A cautionary novel of the Three Percent and Fourth Generation Warfare by Mike Vanderboegh.


“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.” ~ John Locke, 2nd Treatise on Government.


So reads the plaque on Phil Gordon's wall in his Sipsey Street home the moment before all hell breaks loose. In 'Absolved', I try to explore the depths of Locke's belief to discover where it might lead the United States in a civil war set in the near future. . .

Another civil war in this country is the last thing I want.
--------------------------------------------------
              major snip
--------------------------------------------------
Decapitation, I have tried to explain to people, works both ways in 4GW.  I continued:
Johnston is as wrong as he can be when comparing past history to 4th Generation warfare, distributed networks and leaderless resistance, especially as will be practiced in the United States if it ever goes to war with itself.

He is wrong, but the powerful men and women he is writing for think he's right.

Unfortunately for them, in the situation the administration would find itself after Waco Two, the "decapitation" strategy would for them more resemble Russian Roulette played with an automatic pistol.

Hypothetical: They kill some of (the Three Percent), at first accidentally perhaps, but almost immediately thereafter intentionally. The spasm of defensive killing begins, targeted at their leadership. They spasm in return. They would not be able to scuttle into their "green zones" fast enough. For each clumsy attack on (the Three Percent), they receive a lesson in the 500 meter war, one bullet (or many bullets) at a time. They commit "collateral damage" of our innocents, (the Three Percent) stay(s) within the rules of engagement and kill only war-planners and war-wagers.

I have asked this question before. They will fight to the last ATF agent or to the last oath-breaking soldier. Will they fight to the first senior bureaucrat, the second Congressman, the third newspaper editor, the fourth Senator, the fifth White House aide? Can they stand Bill Clinton's rules of engagement?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                      snip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again we hear demands for bans on semi-automatic rifles and for federal control of all private transfers of all firearms (the so-called “gun show loophole).  This time, it is said, there will be no “grandfather clause” of existing weapons and that confiscation of all military-pattern semi-auto rifles is intended.

Yet the Three Percent will not obey such laws and they will defy the federal government to do anything about it.

I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.  Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?  I began to give him a reasoned answer and he cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”

It was true then, it is true now.
The “arbitrarians” believe that they can continue to encroach upon the liberty and property of their fellow Americans without consequence to them.  They cannot.

When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote -- with his rifle.  Any grasping would-be tyrant who ignores that truth does so at his or her own peril.
I pray, then, that Absolved is viewed as a useful dire warning in time to prevent the Fourth Generation Civil War it describes.
Posted by Dutchman6

Quoted:
would smash

Quoted:

FiFy