Re: Zombie Patriots and other musings
At 10:12 PM 12/11/03 -0500, An Metet wrote:
Given small numbers and absence of any other grouping factor there
needs to be an "obvious" place for ZPs to refer to. Any obvious place that becomes even remotely attractive to ZPs will be immediately raided. Because ZPs have potential to be actually dangerous to the gang in power, as opposed to everything else I've seen so far.
So we're back to square one - effective anonymous publishing is
When I say "effective" I don't mean posting a message to Usenet via WiFI-ing into some sucker's open AP. No one gives a fuck for Usenet
prerequisite for the regime change and executing post-natal abortions. And it has been for centuries. You need to think about the "lone warrior" scenario that the Gang worries about. McVeighs and Rudolphs. They were influenced by memes which were not immediately suppressed. Look at Al Q, Inc: you don't need explicit instructions from the Boss to motivate folks to do things. You see who is the enemy, you see opportunity. You don't need permission. There is also the "copycat" phenom ---remember how school shootings reccurred after the first big one? So the memes can get out. As Tim has mentioned here, the talkers can't be the doers. And watch out for COINTELPRO. postings, blacknet etc Well, some do, but its not relevent for ZPs.
. - and ZPs are unlikely to educate themselves and search for them. Effective means untouchable web site with untouchable DNS entry.
Fuck the web. The web is 0wn3d by the feds and run by largely spineless fedsucking sheep. The web is for talkers, not doers.
Effective means something doable by average determined person. Like tuning to Radio London from occupied Europe in WW2.
I don't listen to shortwave, but I understand some of it can be fairly strong. I could easily see some lunatic fringe suggesting that deathbed xians blowing up medical clinics as a holy thing. (And I understand that shortwave is popular among lunatic xians.) As the US descends into statism, perhaps some agitators will pick better targets, like the oppressors. Perhaps some will simply begin to act, the news reports it, and others will clue in and repeat.
At 9:19 AM -0800 12/12/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Look at Al Q, Inc: you don't need explicit instructions from the Boss to motivate folks to do things. You see who is the enemy, you see opportunity. You don't need permission.
Yup. That's the way Reagan operated, too. I'm just finishing up "Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency". The middle and last of which is a President's Counsel-eye view of his role in the Iran/Contra thing, but the beginning of which makes exactly the point you're making. The troops really did take their cues from public pronouncements at things like the State of the Union speech, and he really did run things with, shall we say, as little attention to detail as possible. Keep your message simple, say it a lot, and people can make up their own stuff without too much supervision. Ollie North as the extreme example, but you can bet that Reagan certainly didn't have to tell people like Schultz and Weinberger how to do their jobs. George Will's comparison of his management style to that of a Turkish Pasha's was not a bad one, hmmm? Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
At 09:19 AM 12/12/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: ...
You need to think about the "lone warrior" scenario that the Gang worries about. McVeighs and Rudolphs. They were influenced by memes which were not immediately suppressed.
One interesting property of the lone warriors is that they can't actually make peace. With large sets of them, there's not only no way to force them to surrender, there's no way to even surrender to them! The demands of different lone warriors are different. Because they're not under anyone's authority, you can't negotiate a truce that's worth anything with them. You've executed the FBI and BATF agents involved in the Waco disaster, and so Tim McVeigh has made peace with you. But Randolph still blows things up, because he wants abortion clinics and gay bars shut down. And the Unabomber wanted (as far as I can tell) technology shut down. Of course, there's a more fundamental problem with surrendering to the lone warriors. Imagine that there's such a wave of pro-life terrorism that we finally agree to ban abortion. You're a fanatically committed pro-choice activist. What's your next move? --John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, John Kelsey wrote:
Of course, there's a more fundamental problem with surrendering to the lone warriors. Imagine that there's such a wave of pro-life terrorism that we finally agree to ban abortion. You're a fanatically committed pro-choice activist. What's your next move?
Two moves possible. The violent, far less effective and possibly somehow counterproductive one: attacking the ones who enforce the measurement, by letal or nonlethal means, to act as deterrent. The nonviolent one: developing and deploying the technology necessary for underground clinics to provide higher quality service, and for their clients to find, order and pay for the services without being likely to trace down by the Whateveriscurrentlythelaw Enforcement. Causing bad press for them, keeping public awareness that alternatives to the law-compliance exist. Learning from countries with similar bans in action, both from the present and from history, how the alternatives developed there, and building on this knowledge. Direct attack is not always the best route, however tempting. A house can be brought down from the outside by a bomb, or from the inside by white ants. Insect survival strategies are distributed and largely successful; I am pretty sure we can learn a lot from there. One "Patriot Ant" doesn't have to fight in any big way, doing heroic deeds or big sacrifices; enough people who just provide "samizdat" for few friends, know what files to mirror, when to look away, what to be "unable to remember" when questioned by the Authorities, who know the newsbits that aren't officially reported and tell their friends can make big difference. The strength of Patriot Ants isn't in their individual strength, they don't make headlines - they just eat the System from the inside, one bite at time.
participants (4)
-
John Kelsey -
Major Variola (ret) -
R. A. Hettinga -
Thomas Shaddack