I do not think it's impossible for things to be reversed in Great Britain. Unfortunately, I think it's going to get a lot worse long before it gets better.
Eventually, as crime skyrockets and their police either continue to refuse to do anything effective about it or are simply no longer able to do anything about it even if they tried (a stage they are already very close to, I think, at least in some of the worse-off areas), people are going to begin to realize that the police can't do anything for them. At that point, they will begin to arm themselves. Illegally, of course, but it will become increasingly common, until a large number of otherwise law-abiding citizens are [illegally] armed and begin to control the crime problems themselves. At that point, I think, they will be able to get their arms controls overturned.
Of course, that's if the British people have any sense left. The other alternative is a slow decline into a state of near-anarchy reminiscent of Somalia.
I think it depends on what kinds of guns and normalization you're talking about in Blighty. Bloggers like An Englishman's Castle and Freemarket Fairy Tales talk about, shoot targets, shoot animal pests, hunt, and enjoy their rifles - but they're more out in the country.
There are other things that the also have to de-normalize, like the global warming three-card monty nonsense, and the Leviathan Eurosphere.
I think it depends on what kinds of guns and normalization you're talking about in Blighty.
He's talking about guns for defense of self. Even gun owners in (Formerly) Great Britain don't talk about using their firearms as self-defense weapons. And again, look at the demographics - less than 1% of the population owns a "firearm" of any allowable type, legally.
First, as much as I salute guys like FMFT and AECastle for keeping the very last flinders of the arms keeper's torch alive in the formerly Great Britain, I have to say that unfortunately, it contributes little to the normalization of arms, as the prevailing the attitude of their countrymen is that these people are engaged in an elite but trivial hobby whose anti-social potential far outweighs its benefits to society. They do not see, understand, or accept the deep connection between personal autonomy and the right of arms. It is a symptom of the fact that most have been utterly alienated from any notion of individual sovereignty.
--==|==--
This also calls to mind Justice Scalia's statements concerning a societies "abiding belief". FGB no longer has an "abiding belief" in the value of individual arms or personal autonomy. Perhaps it will rebuild it, but it's much farther gone, than say, New Jersey, a place I fled after my diligent consideration lead me to deem it to be unsalvageable in my lifetime.
--==|==--
The other thing I'd like to point out to our fine Mr. Redacted is that while his open, analytical mind prompted him to seek out and consider data comparing armed vs disarmed communities, leading him to the conclusion that arms are a greater benefit than hazard, I caution him against accepting this pragmatic model as the actual basis for the right of arms itself.
Your rights are not dependent on statistics, and the behaviors, for good or bad, of your fellow men.
Your right of free worship cannot be justly constrained because most of your fellow men might choose to worship evil. Your right of free speech cannot be gagged because most of your fellow men choose to shout "Fire!" in every crowded theater they find, and your right of arms cannot be suspended because you find yourself surrounded by evil men with bloody mayhem in their hearts.
Your right of free worship cannot be justly constrained because most of your fellow men might choose to worship evil. Your right of free speech cannot be gagged because most of your fellow men choose to shout "Fire!" in every crowded theater they find, and your right of arms cannot be suspended because you find yourself surrounded by evil men with bloody mayhem in their hearts.
Here we go again. "Justly" constrained? No. CONSTRAINED?YES. Gagged? Again, YES. Suspended?ABSOLUTELY. But "Justly"? No.
I've spent tens of thousands of words on this topic, and Scalia is right - when the abiding belief is lost, the right is no longer protected by the society. For all intents and purposes, the right is lost.
One's rights, and one's society's sanction of the expression of those rights are two distinct things.
Consider the most beat down slave in the deepest and darkest pit humanity's history has to offer, when and wherever that might be.
He is surrounded by a society that spits upon him, considers him to be less than dirt. He may even be so thoroughly beaten that he agrees in every detail, without reservation, even in the deepest and most hidden places of his heart.
What are his rights? His society tells us that he has none, and he himself exuberantly agrees, claiming none for himself.
Shall we concede, then, that in his case, all of his conceivable rights have evaporated in a puff of quantum Schroedinger smoke?
In the name of all that is good and right and just, Hell No.
If not for him, then for all of humanity, we assert his rights exist, unjustly nullified by his circumstances.
This poor, hypothetical schlub needs two things. The first is a genuine spark of self dignity; the conception that one is vessel fully worthy of rights. The second thing he needs is either a society that agrees with him, or the equipment and skills of a Grammaton Cleric. ;)
I would prefer that he have all three.
If any man should take you as a slave, it is your right and duty to strike him down.
For while one of the darkest truths I know is that man is enslaveable, one of the lightest truths I know is that the enslaveability of man is enabled by the acceptance of lies concerning the slave's unworthiness to be a vessel of dignity, by both the slaves, the slavers, and the society in question. The fundamental rejection of those lies, the fundamental acceptance of one's human worth and dignity are the keys that unlock the slavery of the mind and spirit, bringing the transformation to free man.
Free men can find themselves lack liberty. Free men can be enchained. Free men can be killed. Many free men have died in chains placed upon them by others, but these men have never accepted the chains as their own.
Thus, has it always been.
In our hypothetical world of justice, there is harmony in the rights of men as they exist, and the rights of men as they are sanctioned and expressed.
The "how to reverse things" question plays on my mind often regarding the situation here in Australia.
And I think you're analysis is correct - attitude to guns (in the UK & here) requires "renormalization".
I am doing my best to get people informated and involved with guns here by being open about owning and using them and I am very surprised that the vast majority of people I talk hold positive views about them.
I am hoping that, as we're not as far down the slippery slope as the UK, things can be reversed here in Australia and guns can become a "normal" part of life again.
Any practical suggestions on how to achieve this would be gratefully received.
The "Arm Britain" discussion group has 46 members. Here, AR15.com - a site dedicated pretty much to one firearm - has 223,674 registered members, and 167,891 are active accounts (recently used by the registered member).
As I noted, in England and Wales only about one-quarter of one percent of the population possess a firearms certificate. Of those, I'd be stunned if half would admit they thought that using a firearm to defend themselves was "reasonable."
I'd venture a guess that EVERY member of AR15.com believes that the use of lethal force in defense of yourself or another is not only appropriate, but laudable.
Dr. Gabb describes what I described, just in a bit more flowery prose: "But what is England now? It is a nation of statist sheep. It is not just guns. Whether with drugs, or healthcare, or education—or increasingly with speech and publication—ordinary people are no longer trusted to behave morally or with common sense. And ordinary people accept their new status, and even glory in it."
You said: I suspect that there are more people here who would approve of the use of firearms than you might think.
That may be so, but it's not enough to reverse your path down the slippery slope. You've gone too far.
"Shall we concede, then, that in his case, all of his conceivable rights have evaporated in a puff of quantum Schroedinger smoke?
"In the name of all that is good and right and just, Hell No.
"If not for him, then for all of humanity, we assert his rights exist, unjustly nullified by his circumstances."
Yup.
Do not confuse possession of a right, which is a property independent of gubmint that one has because one is alive, with the ability to exercise that right, which men and gubmints routinely abrogate.
Julie: I have to say I was suprised when Australia decided to ban firearms. I have always thought of Australians as very self reliant free people. At least every Australian that I have had the pleasure of meeting seemed to see themselves as such.
I believe a movement to take back your firearms rights could capitalize upon that individualism and self reliance that I admired in my Australian friends. A movement with enough inertia to carry Australia back up the "slippery slope" is what you will need.
Mr Redacted: I suppose this could work in the UK too, but you have a much bigger problem. Most of your people that I have met looked at me like I was a three headed baby eating alien when they found out that I'm a gun toting anarchist.
Do not confuse possession of a right, which is a property independent of gubmint that one has because one is alive, with the ability to exercise that right, which men and gubmints routinely abrogate.
DJ, the point I was making (and that everyone seems to miss) is that if you live in a society that has lost that "abiding belief," then you have two choices: submit or die.
Most people choose to submit.
"Give me liberty or give me death" is not a popular option.
For the pragmatist in me, the inability to freely exercise a right is equivalent to the loss of that right. You may protest until the cows come home that the right still exists, but if you dare not exercise it, then what's the damned difference?
Like I said, I've spent literally tens of thousands of words on this topic. Go read the "Rights" essays on the left sidebar for an in-depth exhaustive review.
The difference is that you can still build a rational argument about why things must change. Or put another way, you can convince people (using sound logic and philosophical arguments) that what is being done to people is wrong.
...you can convince people (using sound logic and philosophical arguments) that what is being done to people is wrong.
Which is part of what I'm trying to do here with TSM - prevent the loss of that "abiding belief," because once it's lost, getting it back is often prohibitively difficult.
I believe you are correct in identifying renormalization as the best path for peaceful gains in the ownership of guns leading to the recognition of the right to self defense.
I also believe Britain is too far down the slope for renormalization to occur.
However, that does not preclude Britain (or other nations far down the slope) from showing the rest of the world some pretty spectacular non-peaceful means of bringing the right of self defense back to the fore. The desperation is building and these are desperate times.
However, that does not preclude Britain (or other nations far down the slope) from showing the rest of the world some pretty spectacular non-peaceful means of bringing the right of self defense back to the fore.
There is that, but that's not what I was being asked.
"DJ, the point I was making (and that everyone seems to miss) is that if you live in a society that has lost that "abiding belief," then you have two choices: submit or die."
That's what I understood.
"For the pragmatist in me, the inability to freely exercise a right is functionally equivalent to the loss of that right. You may protest until the cows come home that the right still exists, but if you dare not exercise it, then what's the damned difference?"
There. Fixed it for you.
The difference is philosophical, not functional. I subscribe to the notion that, if rights do not come from the gubmint or society, the neither the gubmint nor society can (for lack of a more appropriate term) delete them.
Thus, when we assert that our right to keep and bear arms does not come from the gubmint, rather we have said right because we are alive, then we have unassailable grounds to assert that the gubmint has no ability to delete that right and ought not to have the authority to prevent us from executing it. It is the belief in the truth of this that we are on the slippery slope of losing. The Brits have already lost it.
I must disagree with Kevin regarding the ability of anyone to convince the voting public that anything to do with guns is acceptable or normal. I personally do not believe that it is possible to peacefully reverse the restrictions and negative image of firearms in the UK for various reasons. Let me start from first principles to outline why I have come to this conclusion.
You must understand the nature of the Politicians, Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations) and the Civil Service (which is neither civil or a servant but a Master). Ministers come and go and are briefed by the civil servants but it is the Civil Service which effectively runs the country.
It is overwhelmingly Marxist/Leninist in its ethos and has been infiltrated so successfully by the left that the average citizen (or even a group of such citizens) does not even understand the rules of the game.
Communism can be simply and easily summarised : “A group of PROFESSIONAL Revolutionaries, taking over the levers of power of a Country and running the country for their own benefit”. How will they mange this? By organisation and eliminating opposition by whatever means is necessary.
Briefly, the left wing intent is to destroy the existing society and replace it with a society of its own design.
Lenin proposed five conditions for successful “Revolution”, namely :
1) The weakening or destruction of the existing State and its institutions
2) The destruction of the existing society so that it can be replaced by the type of society required by the "new" post revolutionary society
3) An inability of the existing institutions to govern or bring about change .
4) The armed forces must be demoralised and rendered ineffective (including the Police).
5) The "proletariat" must be in a mood for change.
He also stated that Freedom and Liberty is precious and therefore must be strictly rationed. All power must be accumulated to the State and freedoms and rights will be permitted ONLY if the State allows.
Once you understand that mindset and these principles, then you can use them as a template to see how many of the trends in society fit the pattern and “advance the cause”. The destruction of marriage, the recent posting on this blog about the way all parents are to be treated as paedophiles, the wrecking of the education system, “equality” legislation, gay and minority rights etc and so forth ad infinitum all assist one or more of the five principles. Try matching the attack to the principle.
Interestingly, Lenin did not prescribe what form the revolution takes or how it is prosecuted. Everyone thinks of the “Revolution” as armed people storming the Winter Palace in St Petersburg (or Leningrad if your atlas is a bit older). However, he also said that ALL aspects of society should be attacked simultaneously and if an opportunity arises to spring the revolution, then it should be taken. If the communists can actually take over the Government of the day and run the country for its own use, then that is also considered as “revolution” and equally valid.
The left wing has infiltrated and hollowed out from within just about every organisation - including the Conservative party (“Right” wing or Republican) which is “Blue Labour” – their policies and attitude is a milder version of the Left policies and attitudes. As a “for example” I will quote from Mary Ellen Synons blog “Euroseptic” (original here http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/ )
Tony Blair promised the British people a referendum on the European Constitution. Then, after the text was renamed the Lisbon Treaty, Blair broke that promise because he said it was no longer a constitution, it was a treaty, and he had only promised a referendum on a constitution.
David Cameron promised the British people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Now, after the text has been signed by President Klaus of the Czech Republic, Cameron has broken that promise -- he has sent out his Tory spokesmen to say there will not be a referendum because Lisbon is not a treaty, it is now European law, and he only promised a referendum on a treaty.
Do you spot the similarities?
In the UK. The brothers Milliband (both professional politicians who have never had a job outside of Politics) and are the sons of Ralph Milliband, an ardent and active communist, are holders of significant power in the UK. David Milliband is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Edward Samuel Miliband is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Ralph Milliband was attacked by David Horowitz in an essay called “The Road to Nowhere” and Kevin blogged this a while back.
Examining the political credentials of the rest of the Government Ministers reveals a similar catalogue of “ex” Marxist/Leninists in significant positions of power and influence.
A revolution? I believe it certainly is and all the conditions listed above have been very largely been achieved.
The Daily Mail newspaper reported that Labour has deliberately encouraged “multiculturism” and unlimited mass immigration to destroy British society and forever change Britain to spite the right wing. As the newspaper concerned has not been sued by the Labour party or the Government or forced to issue a public retraction of the statement that I can only assume that it must be true. (see here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222977/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-outrageous-truth-slips-Labour-cynically-plotted-transform-entire-make-Britain-telling-us.html
And
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222998/Labour-open-borders-storm-Demands-inquiry-claims-migrants-let-Tories-accused-racism.html
for details )
However, there has been a deafening silence from the rest of the press and as the majority of people rely on the TV for news and the BBC (the state sponsored broadcasting organisation) in particular, very few people are aware of this.
This addresses Point 2 above Examining the relentless attacks on marriage from a myriad of different directions (removing tax breaks for married couples, elevating the “single parent family” by favourable benefits so that it is financially more beneficial for a married couple with children to LIVE APART, the elevation of gay “Marriage” etc.) add to this.
Constant change and bogging people down in pointless activities contributes to points 2 and 3 – Markadelphia is expert at this. Consider the amount of time that the readers of this blog have wasted in rebutting in detail his postings – while you are busy researching facts, carefully editing replies and spending your time and effort concentrating on the garbage he writes, you are not concentrating on other, perhaps much more important things. “Make the enemy do useless things” is one of Sun Tzu’s maxims. And while you are doing this, he, like a butterfly, flutters off onto another topic, equally as pointless and you respond …
What you must bear in mind is that for a professional revolutionary, infiltrated into an organisation, IT IS THEIR FULL TIME JOB to work towards the destruction of society. Kevin, all the rest of the bloggers and I must devote our spare time to this – a revolutionary can work 8 hours a day at the office and then go home to carry on in their leisure time.
My point is that, regardless of your arguments, no matter how detailed your research, no matter how much you can demonstrate that your point of view is reasonable, it will be ignored, dismissed and trivialised. Critical Theory so well developed by the Frankfurt school of Communism will be brought fully to bear to render your arguments invalid (“You are wrong”).
The existing State holds the levers of power and they certainly are not going to give it up – remember, rights will be allowed if the State is convinced that it will not be harmed by the relaxation and can be withdrawn at any time.
You might as well try to persuade by sweet reason a hungry grizzly bear to turn vegetarian and not eat you. It is not interested, its mind is made up and you are wasting your time.
Now, having outlined the methodology of the Left and given some examples to illustrate the way that the left operates, let us examine how they have used Critical Theory in particular to shape the way firearms are viewed in the UK.
Since 1920, the propaganda output by all the British media, both State controlled and privately owned, has been that Guns are evil. Gun “Nuts/Fanatics/Crazy” people have been (and still are) the target of all the insidious destruction of their reputation and character which the left practices so well.
Using Critical Theory, firearms and owners are attacked and trivialised at every opportunity.
Rich, upper class people shooting grouse and pheasants (I am neither rich or upper class but have shot both pheasants and grouse on a very modest budget) can be dismissed using the “Class Enemy” approach and vilified as brainless, moronic bloodthirsty destroyers of the environment (when not clearing the peasants from their land so that a privileged minority can lord it over the country for their own sadistic pleasure, of course).
So inculcated are the populace and so selective are the reports presented by the media (“Look what happens in America”) that anyone would think that an intelligent, sober, sensible, law abiding person merely touching a gun would instantaneously be transmogrified into a drooling, crazed murdering chimpanzee on acid and not to be trusted with a gun.
The press and media are so left wing leaning and biased against firearms that getting the message out will be virtually impossible.
The Police have actively campaigned for the restriction on firearms since the beginning in 1920. Their m
The Police have actively campaigned for the restriction on firearms since the beginning in 1920. Their mantra is “We wish to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the population to the absolute minimum” – and if you believe any number north of zero is “the minimum”, then you are as gullible as Markadelphia.
Thanks to the Police, taking anyone to a range to introduce them to the sport is lengthy, tedious, bureaucratic and intended to put people off. Journalists have stated that they want to infiltrate a gun club and “prove” how easy it is to steal a gun. (A few years back, a journalist smuggled a gun into the UK to “prove” how easy it was … and was not prosecuted for breaking the law).
The penalties for having a gun stolen are severe and you can bet your bottom dollar that you will never own a gun again. Any Gun Club where the firearm is stolen will be shut down. More ammunition will be provided to “prove” that firearms owners are a danger. As you must vouch for anyone you take to the club, very, very few people will risk things and even fewer clubs will encourage visitors.
Gun ownership is being attacked and strangled from many directions and few people will be willing to risk introducing anyone to a club, or even discuss that they are firearms owners in case loose talk leads to a break in and theft of a firearm.
Samizdata has a blog entry describing the evolution of the “no right to self defence (link here http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2003/08/the_way_we_were.html ) and it summarises how and why it is impossible to use a legally held firearm in self defence (besides the conditions on the firearms certificate will state “Only to be used on Approved ranges”, or a named piece of land for shooting rabbits etc. so you will be breaking the law by doing so).
So to conclude, the decline in forearms ownership in Britain will only continue, and indeed accelerate as people are forced out of the sport and no new people come into the clubs etc. and those in charge of the system will be quite content to allow this BECAUSE it is what they want. Chairman Mao stated that “Power comes from the barrel of a gun” and there is no way in the world that these people will allow power to be given to the population.
So will there ever be a change in this status? I believe so but as I said at the start of this essay, it will not be PEACEFUL.
There is an interesting book called the War of the Flea by Robert Taber about revolutionary guerrilla warfare. It was published a while ago in the 1960s and the CIA bought up the entire first printing – not because it was so dangerous that the Public couldn’t be allowed access to it but it was so good it was issued as a standard text to their operatives. I often used to see it in second hand bookshops in the UK.
One of the questions Taber asked was “Why do people, when the risks and dangers are so great, both to themselves and their families, resort to armed revolution?”
His answer was quite simple – they cannot get any redress to their grievances either through the ballot box or through the Courts.
In the UK such topics as the Lisbon treaty, law and order, taxation, the deliberate encouragement of immigration to destroy the nature of the country, loss of liberties, ID cards, etc. etc. are occurring at an accelerating rate and the average citizen is bewildered by this. The torrent of legislation and the pettiness and disproportionate penalties for trivial transgressions of the law is proceeding unabated. The labour government, through “Enabling Acts” (i.e. under existing legislation a Minister can introduce a law without it being scrutinised or voted on by parliament) has introduced one new criminal offence for EVERY DAY they have been in power since May 1997. Such legislation has given the state unprecedented power to snoop and spy on the population and now it is more expensive to obey the law than to be a criminal.
The citizens do not understand the rules of the game being played by the left. They try to understand and reason their way to a solution – and while they are trying to address and counter the arguments and problems in detail and try to lobby their “representatives”, they are overwhelmed by the new legislation coming down the pipeline. The representatives will ignore or trivialise the citizens letter or enquiry – they are driving the process – and will divide and conquer using Critical Theory, accusations of Racism, Homophobia, Islamophobia etc. No matter, it helps destroy and fragment society and isolate people, engender suspicion and any “problems” can be sorted later (such as declaring sections of the population as counter revolutionaries, class enemies, etc. The solution involves firing squads or Gulags but it must be kept firmly in mind that the purpose of it all is for a SMALL group of PROFESSIONAL revolutionaries to run the country for THEIR benefit. See any communist country and the way the leaders behave.
Is there any redress through the ballot box? All political parties are singing from the same hymn sheet and Europe is gaining greater and greater (unelected and unaccountable) powers – see the quote by Mary Ellen Synon above.
Is there any chance of the Law Courts siding with the people of the country and reversing the Governments policies? Again, no. Rather they uphold stupid and malicious legislation. And any situation where it costs you more to obey the law than to disregard it is a dangerous situation. Some of the judgements are frankly bizarre and perverse to say the least and discriminate in favour of “minorities” and against the law abiding (as a “for example” search for “Travellers” on the Daily mail website for dozens of examples of this).
The mood of the people when I left in late January 2009 was becoming increasingly frustrated and angry. Society is so fragmented now that there is no longer a sense of national identity and people now have nothing to lose.
If you accept that Taber was correct (regarding ballot boxes and the law courts) then you must conclude that Revolution in the UK is inevitable.
I learned that to avoid trouble, don’t be there when it kicks off and I believe that Britain is heading for a revolution of one form or another because the pressures and change in society are so great that it is at breaking point. What will replace that particular version of society is anyone’s guess but I can guarantee it will be a less benign, harsher and more impoverished existence. Revolutions destroy wealth and stability and I’m getting too old to start from scratch again. That is why I am writing this in New Zealand.
HOW the revolution starts (without guns in the hands of the people it will be difficult, but not impossible) and what direction it takes I would not like to predict. It will be bloody, long and protracted - but sweeping away of the old regime and the replacement with a new form of governance will be something to observe from afar.
You can bet that those people who have put their life on the line to get rid of the corrupt, non representative and self serving system will not meekly hand in their weapons to those in the new authority. Instead, they will be as brutal as the Communists and quite a few of the existing Politicians, Civil Servants and others will meet an untimely end in one form or another.
So is there hope? That’s a strange way of looking at it but perhaps there is.
As usual, you will want to know where the information comes from.
For a concise and easily read summary of the aims and principles of communism, Geoffrey Fairbairn’s “Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare The Countryside Version” is as good as you will get. One chapter on Leninism sums it up completely in 19 pages of a paperback.
Chairman Maos quotes are found in my copy of “Mao Tse Tung – Selected Writings” which is surprisingly readable and well written. Not that I would be persuaded to subscribe to his philosophy.
Lenin’s works are too numerous to list in all their gory detail but the following are worthwhile to understand the way communist organisations are set up, organised and run. Note that Lenin had experience of the Army and organisation so if his writings seem to be written as a military textbook, referring to “This Army”, now you know why. His acceptance and insistence on the use of overwhelming violence stems from his Military Training and may give an insight into the tactics of the left wing political parties. Try these two as a primer.
On Organisation
Selected Works
Incidentally, if Lenin DID write this stuff, he was an excellent technical author ..
Sun Tsu – The Art of War. I prefer the translation by Samuel B Griffiths (an ex- US Marine) but there are plenty more out there.
The Daily Mail is a large circulation newspaper with over 3 million readers per day (see the Audited Bureau of Circulation Website for exact figures. Make sure you enter the full title as there are thousands of newspapers with Mail as part of the title) and covers some of the stupidities of the various laws passed over the last 13 years. Try entering BNP as a search string in the website and read some of the comments under the articles. Or “Travellers” for the way the law abiding are second class citizens in their own homes.
Samizdata is, I find, patchy and does not cover a single topic (as Kevins Blog does) but in the right hand sidebar, you can search under TOPICS for self defence etc. Plenty of British points of view.
I can find no flaw in your reasoning. I will dispute your initial assertion - I said that renormalization cannot occur, i.e., the UK population isn't going to reverse ninety years of anti-gun indoctrination through peaceful means. We agree on that, and I think you must have missed where I said as much.
Welcome to the right-wing paranoid, racist, hate-mongering machine! You have described Markadelphia brilliantly! He is (I am quite convinced) a sterling example of the Leninist "useful idiot," conditioned by his culture to behave precisely as he does.
Again, frakkin' brilliant analysis.
You also illustrate why I call (Formerly) Great Britain "America's Petri dish." It's where things get tried out before they attempt them here.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to take these two posts and put them on the main page.
"Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to take these two posts and put them on the main page."
I got about 1/3 of the way through Phil's [strike]comment[/strike] essay and thought "Kevin should put this on the front page." That is most certainly where it belongs: Phil writes as well as you Kevin. And I hope you'll both take that as a compliment.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/from-across-pond.html (25 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I do not think it's impossible for things to be reversed in Great Britain. Unfortunately, I think it's going to get a lot worse long before it gets better.
Eventually, as crime skyrockets and their police either continue to refuse to do anything effective about it or are simply no longer able to do anything about it even if they tried (a stage they are already very close to, I think, at least in some of the worse-off areas), people are going to begin to realize that the police can't do anything for them. At that point, they will begin to arm themselves. Illegally, of course, but it will become increasingly common, until a large number of otherwise law-abiding citizens are [illegally] armed and begin to control the crime problems themselves. At that point, I think, they will be able to get their arms controls overturned.
Of course, that's if the British people have any sense left. The other alternative is a slow decline into a state of near-anarchy reminiscent of Somalia.
I think it depends on what kinds of guns and normalization you're talking about in Blighty. Bloggers like An Englishman's Castle and Freemarket Fairy Tales talk about, shoot targets, shoot animal pests, hunt, and enjoy their rifles - but they're more out in the country.
There are other things that the also have to de-normalize, like the global warming three-card monty nonsense, and the Leviathan Eurosphere.
I think it depends on what kinds of guns and normalization you're talking about in Blighty.
He's talking about guns for defense of self. Even gun owners in (Formerly) Great Britain don't talk about using their firearms as self-defense weapons. And again, look at the demographics - less than 1% of the population owns a "firearm" of any allowable type, legally.
Coupla random reactions and points:
First, as much as I salute guys like FMFT and AECastle for keeping the very last flinders of the arms keeper's torch alive in the formerly Great Britain, I have to say that unfortunately, it contributes little to the normalization of arms, as the prevailing the attitude of their countrymen is that these people are engaged in an elite but trivial hobby whose anti-social potential far outweighs its benefits to society. They do not see, understand, or accept the deep connection between personal autonomy and the right of arms. It is a symptom of the fact that most have been utterly alienated from any notion of individual sovereignty.
--==|==--
This also calls to mind Justice Scalia's statements concerning a societies "abiding belief". FGB no longer has an "abiding belief" in the value of individual arms or personal autonomy. Perhaps it will rebuild it, but it's much farther gone, than say, New Jersey, a place I fled after my diligent consideration lead me to deem it to be unsalvageable in my lifetime.
--==|==--
The other thing I'd like to point out to our fine Mr. Redacted is that while his open, analytical mind prompted him to seek out and consider data comparing armed vs disarmed communities, leading him to the conclusion that arms are a greater benefit than hazard, I caution him against accepting this pragmatic model as the actual basis for the right of arms itself.
Your rights are not dependent on statistics, and the behaviors, for good or bad, of your fellow men.
Your right of free worship cannot be justly constrained because most of your fellow men might choose to worship evil. Your right of free speech cannot be gagged because most of your fellow men choose to shout "Fire!" in every crowded theater they find, and your right of arms cannot be suspended because you find yourself surrounded by evil men with bloody mayhem in their hearts.
Your right of free worship cannot be justly constrained because most of your fellow men might choose to worship evil. Your right of free speech cannot be gagged because most of your fellow men choose to shout "Fire!" in every crowded theater they find, and your right of arms cannot be suspended because you find yourself surrounded by evil men with bloody mayhem in their hearts.
Here we go again. "Justly" constrained? No. CONSTRAINED? YES. Gagged? Again, YES. Suspended? ABSOLUTELY. But "Justly"? No.
I've spent tens of thousands of words on this topic, and Scalia is right - when the abiding belief is lost, the right is no longer protected by the society. For all intents and purposes, the right is lost.
One's rights, and one's society's sanction of the expression of those rights are two distinct things.
Consider the most beat down slave in the deepest and darkest pit humanity's history has to offer, when and wherever that might be.
He is surrounded by a society that spits upon him, considers him to be less than dirt. He may even be so thoroughly beaten that he agrees in every detail, without reservation, even in the deepest and most hidden places of his heart.
What are his rights? His society tells us that he has none, and he himself exuberantly agrees, claiming none for himself.
Shall we concede, then, that in his case, all of his conceivable rights have evaporated in a puff of quantum Schroedinger smoke?
In the name of all that is good and right and just, Hell No.
If not for him, then for all of humanity, we assert his rights exist, unjustly nullified by his circumstances.
This poor, hypothetical schlub needs two things. The first is a genuine spark of self dignity; the conception that one is vessel fully worthy of rights. The second thing he needs is either a society that agrees with him, or the equipment and skills of a Grammaton Cleric. ;)
I would prefer that he have all three.
If any man should take you as a slave, it is your right and duty to strike him down.
For while one of the darkest truths I know is that man is enslaveable, one of the lightest truths I know is that the enslaveability of man is enabled by the acceptance of lies concerning the slave's unworthiness to be a vessel of dignity, by both the slaves, the slavers, and the society in question. The fundamental rejection of those lies, the fundamental acceptance of one's human worth and dignity are the keys that unlock the slavery of the mind and spirit, bringing the transformation to free man.
Free men can find themselves lack liberty. Free men can be enchained. Free men can be killed. Many free men have died in chains placed upon them by others, but these men have never accepted the chains as their own.
Thus, has it always been.
In our hypothetical world of justice, there is harmony in the rights of men as they exist, and the rights of men as they are sanctioned and expressed.
That is the essence.
Regolith: At least the Somalians have guns. I don't know what bloody-minded anarchy in the UK would look like.
Even gun owners in (Formerly) Great Britain don't talk about using their firearms as self-defense weapons.
Some of us do. For example, the people at this site:
http://www.armbritain.com/
Or, Dr. Gabb:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc004.htm
We are be in a minority but I suspect that there are more people here who would approve of the use of firearms than you might think.
The "how to reverse things" question plays on my mind often regarding the situation here in Australia.
And I think you're analysis is correct - attitude to guns (in the UK & here) requires "renormalization".
I am doing my best to get people informated and involved with guns here by being open about owning and using them and I am very surprised that the vast majority of people I talk hold positive views about them.
I am hoping that, as we're not as far down the slippery slope as the UK, things can be reversed here in Australia and guns can become a "normal" part of life again.
Any practical suggestions on how to achieve this would be gratefully received.
Any practical suggestions on how to achieve this would be gratefully received.
Introduce people to shooting. Take a newbie to the range. Let them experience the fun.
Tell them to tell their friends.
Take their friends.
Knirirr:
The "Arm Britain" discussion group has 46 members. Here, AR15.com - a site dedicated pretty much to one firearm - has 223,674 registered members, and 167,891 are active accounts (recently used by the registered member).
As I noted, in England and Wales only about one-quarter of one percent of the population possess a firearms certificate. Of those, I'd be stunned if half would admit they thought that using a firearm to defend themselves was "reasonable."
I'd venture a guess that EVERY member of AR15.com believes that the use of lethal force in defense of yourself or another is not only appropriate, but laudable.
Dr. Gabb describes what I described, just in a bit more flowery prose: "But what is England now? It is a nation of statist sheep. It is not just guns. Whether with drugs, or healthcare, or education—or increasingly with speech and publication—ordinary people are no longer trusted to behave morally or with common sense. And ordinary people accept their new status, and even glory in it."
You said: I suspect that there are more people here who would approve of the use of firearms than you might think.
That may be so, but it's not enough to reverse your path down the slippery slope. You've gone too far.
"Shall we concede, then, that in his case, all of his conceivable rights have evaporated in a puff of quantum Schroedinger smoke?
"In the name of all that is good and right and just, Hell No.
"If not for him, then for all of humanity, we assert his rights exist, unjustly nullified by his circumstances."
Yup.
Do not confuse possession of a right, which is a property independent of gubmint that one has because one is alive, with the ability to exercise that right, which men and gubmints routinely abrogate.
Julie: I have to say I was suprised when Australia decided to ban firearms. I have always thought of Australians as very self reliant free people. At least every Australian that I have had the pleasure of meeting seemed to see themselves as such.
I believe a movement to take back your firearms rights could capitalize upon that individualism and self reliance that I admired in my Australian friends. A movement with enough inertia to carry Australia back up the "slippery slope" is what you will need.
Mr Redacted: I suppose this could work in the UK too, but you have a much bigger problem. Most of your people that I have met looked at me like I was a three headed baby eating alien when they found out that I'm a gun toting anarchist.
Good luck.
s
Do not confuse possession of a right, which is a property independent of gubmint that one has because one is alive, with the ability to exercise that right, which men and gubmints routinely abrogate.
DJ, the point I was making (and that everyone seems to miss) is that if you live in a society that has lost that "abiding belief," then you have two choices: submit or die.
Most people choose to submit.
"Give me liberty or give me death" is not a popular option.
For the pragmatist in me, the inability to freely exercise a right is equivalent to the loss of that right. You may protest until the cows come home that the right still exists, but if you dare not exercise it, then what's the damned difference?
Like I said, I've spent literally tens of thousands of words on this topic. Go read the "Rights" essays on the left sidebar for an in-depth exhaustive review.
Kevin,
The difference is that you can still build a rational argument about why things must change. Or put another way, you can convince people (using sound logic and philosophical arguments) that what is being done to people is wrong.
That may be so, but it's not enough to reverse your path down the slippery slope. You've gone too far.
I'm not entirely convinced, although I do admit that it doesn't look very promising at the moment.
...you can convince people (using sound logic and philosophical arguments) that what is being done to people is wrong.
Which is part of what I'm trying to do here with TSM - prevent the loss of that "abiding belief," because once it's lost, getting it back is often prohibitively difficult.
I believe you are correct in identifying renormalization as the best path for peaceful gains in the ownership of guns leading to the recognition of the right to self defense.
I also believe Britain is too far down the slope for renormalization to occur.
However, that does not preclude Britain (or other nations far down the slope) from showing the rest of the world some pretty spectacular non-peaceful means of bringing the right of self defense back to the fore. The desperation is building and these are desperate times.
However, that does not preclude Britain (or other nations far down the slope) from showing the rest of the world some pretty spectacular non-peaceful means of bringing the right of self defense back to the fore.
There is that, but that's not what I was being asked.
And it's messy as hell.
"DJ, the point I was making (and that everyone seems to miss) is that if you live in a society that has lost that "abiding belief," then you have two choices: submit or die."
That's what I understood.
"For the pragmatist in me, the inability to freely exercise a right is functionally equivalent to the loss of that right. You may protest until the cows come home that the right still exists, but if you dare not exercise it, then what's the damned difference?"
There. Fixed it for you.
The difference is philosophical, not functional. I subscribe to the notion that, if rights do not come from the gubmint or society, the neither the gubmint nor society can (for lack of a more appropriate term) delete them.
Thus, when we assert that our right to keep and bear arms does not come from the gubmint, rather we have said right because we are alive, then we have unassailable grounds to assert that the gubmint has no ability to delete that right and ought not to have the authority to prevent us from executing it. It is the belief in the truth of this that we are on the slippery slope of losing. The Brits have already lost it.
DJ, very, very well said.
I must disagree with Kevin regarding the ability of anyone to convince the voting public that anything to do with guns is acceptable or normal. I personally do not believe that it is possible to peacefully reverse the restrictions and negative image of firearms in the UK for various reasons. Let me start from first principles to outline why I have come to this conclusion.
You must understand the nature of the Politicians, Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations) and the Civil Service (which is neither civil or a servant but a Master). Ministers come and go and are briefed by the civil servants but it is the Civil Service which effectively runs the country.
It is overwhelmingly Marxist/Leninist in its ethos and has been infiltrated so successfully by the left that the average citizen (or even a group of such citizens) does not even understand the rules of the game.
Communism can be simply and easily summarised : “A group of PROFESSIONAL Revolutionaries, taking over the levers of power of a Country and running the country for their own benefit”. How will they mange this? By organisation and eliminating opposition by whatever means is necessary.
Briefly, the left wing intent is to destroy the existing society and replace it with a society of its own design.
Lenin proposed five conditions for successful “Revolution”, namely :
1) The weakening or destruction of the existing State and its institutions
2) The destruction of the existing society so that it can be replaced by the type of society required by the "new" post revolutionary society
3) An inability of the existing institutions to govern or bring about change .
4) The armed forces must be demoralised and rendered ineffective (including the Police).
5) The "proletariat" must be in a mood for change.
He also stated that Freedom and Liberty is precious and therefore must be strictly rationed. All power must be accumulated to the State and freedoms and rights will be permitted ONLY if the State allows.
Once you understand that mindset and these principles, then you can use them as a template to see how many of the trends in society fit the pattern and “advance the cause”. The destruction of marriage, the recent posting on this blog about the way all parents are to be treated as paedophiles, the wrecking of the education system, “equality” legislation, gay and minority rights etc and so forth ad infinitum all assist one or more of the five principles. Try matching the attack to the principle.
Interestingly, Lenin did not prescribe what form the revolution takes or how it is prosecuted. Everyone thinks of the “Revolution” as armed people storming the Winter Palace in St Petersburg (or Leningrad if your atlas is a bit older). However, he also said that ALL aspects of society should be attacked simultaneously and if an opportunity arises to spring the revolution, then it should be taken. If the communists can actually take over the Government of the day and run the country for its own use, then that is also considered as “revolution” and equally valid.
The left wing has infiltrated and hollowed out from within just about every organisation - including the Conservative party (“Right” wing or Republican) which is “Blue Labour” – their policies and attitude is a milder version of the Left policies and attitudes. As a “for example” I will quote from Mary Ellen Synons blog “Euroseptic” (original here http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/ )
Tony Blair promised the British people a referendum on the European Constitution. Then, after the text was renamed the Lisbon Treaty, Blair broke that promise because he said it was no longer a constitution, it was a treaty, and he had only promised a referendum on a constitution.
David Cameron promised the British people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Now, after the text has been signed by President Klaus of the Czech Republic, Cameron has broken that promise -- he has sent out his Tory spokesmen to say there will not be a referendum because Lisbon is not a treaty, it is now European law, and he only promised a referendum on a treaty.
Do you spot the similarities?
In the UK. The brothers Milliband (both professional politicians who have never had a job outside of Politics) and are the sons of Ralph Milliband, an ardent and active communist, are holders of significant power in the UK. David Milliband is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Edward Samuel Miliband is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Ralph Milliband was attacked by David Horowitz in an essay called “The Road to Nowhere” and Kevin blogged this a while back.
Examining the political credentials of the rest of the Government Ministers reveals a similar catalogue of “ex” Marxist/Leninists in significant positions of power and influence.
A revolution? I believe it certainly is and all the conditions listed above have been very largely been achieved.
The Daily Mail newspaper reported that Labour has deliberately encouraged “multiculturism” and unlimited mass immigration to destroy British society and forever change Britain to spite the right wing. As the newspaper concerned has not been sued by the Labour party or the Government or forced to issue a public retraction of the statement that I can only assume that it must be true. (see here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222977/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-outrageous-truth-slips-Labour-cynically-plotted-transform-entire-make-Britain-telling-us.html
And
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222998/Labour-open-borders-storm-Demands-inquiry-claims-migrants-let-Tories-accused-racism.html
for details )
However, there has been a deafening silence from the rest of the press and as the majority of people rely on the TV for news and the BBC (the state sponsored broadcasting organisation) in particular, very few people are aware of this.
This addresses Point 2 above Examining the relentless attacks on marriage from a myriad of different directions (removing tax breaks for married couples, elevating the “single parent family” by favourable benefits so that it is financially more beneficial for a married couple with children to LIVE APART, the elevation of gay “Marriage” etc.) add to this.
Constant change and bogging people down in pointless activities contributes to points 2 and 3 – Markadelphia is expert at this. Consider the amount of time that the readers of this blog have wasted in rebutting in detail his postings – while you are busy researching facts, carefully editing replies and spending your time and effort concentrating on the garbage he writes, you are not concentrating on other, perhaps much more important things. “Make the enemy do useless things” is one of Sun Tzu’s maxims. And while you are doing this, he, like a butterfly, flutters off onto another topic, equally as pointless and you respond …
What you must bear in mind is that for a professional revolutionary, infiltrated into an organisation, IT IS THEIR FULL TIME JOB to work towards the destruction of society. Kevin, all the rest of the bloggers and I must devote our spare time to this – a revolutionary can work 8 hours a day at the office and then go home to carry on in their leisure time.
My point is that, regardless of your arguments, no matter how detailed your research, no matter how much you can demonstrate that your point of view is reasonable, it will be ignored, dismissed and trivialised. Critical Theory so well developed by the Frankfurt school of Communism will be brought fully to bear to render your arguments invalid (“You are wrong”).
The existing State holds the levers of power and they certainly are not going to give it up – remember, rights will be allowed if the State is convinced that it will not be harmed by the relaxation and can be withdrawn at any time.
You might as well try to persuade by sweet reason a hungry grizzly bear to turn vegetarian and not eat you. It is not interested, its mind is made up and you are wasting your time.
Now, having outlined the methodology of the Left and given some examples to illustrate the way that the left operates, let us examine how they have used Critical Theory in particular to shape the way firearms are viewed in the UK.
Since 1920, the propaganda output by all the British media, both State controlled and privately owned, has been that Guns are evil. Gun “Nuts/Fanatics/Crazy” people have been (and still are) the target of all the insidious destruction of their reputation and character which the left practices so well.
Using Critical Theory, firearms and owners are attacked and trivialised at every opportunity.
Rich, upper class people shooting grouse and pheasants (I am neither rich or upper class but have shot both pheasants and grouse on a very modest budget) can be dismissed using the “Class Enemy” approach and vilified as brainless, moronic bloodthirsty destroyers of the environment (when not clearing the peasants from their land so that a privileged minority can lord it over the country for their own sadistic pleasure, of course).
So inculcated are the populace and so selective are the reports presented by the media (“Look what happens in America”) that anyone would think that an intelligent, sober, sensible, law abiding person merely touching a gun would instantaneously be transmogrified into a drooling, crazed murdering chimpanzee on acid and not to be trusted with a gun.
The press and media are so left wing leaning and biased against firearms that getting the message out will be virtually impossible.
The Police have actively campaigned for the restriction on firearms since the beginning in 1920. Their m
The Police have actively campaigned for the restriction on firearms since the beginning in 1920. Their mantra is “We wish to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the population to the absolute minimum” – and if you believe any number north of zero is “the minimum”, then you are as gullible as Markadelphia.
Thanks to the Police, taking anyone to a range to introduce them to the sport is lengthy, tedious, bureaucratic and intended to put people off. Journalists have stated that they want to infiltrate a gun club and “prove” how easy it is to steal a gun. (A few years back, a journalist smuggled a gun into the UK to “prove” how easy it was … and was not prosecuted for breaking the law).
The penalties for having a gun stolen are severe and you can bet your bottom dollar that you will never own a gun again. Any Gun Club where the firearm is stolen will be shut down. More ammunition will be provided to “prove” that firearms owners are a danger. As you must vouch for anyone you take to the club, very, very few people will risk things and even fewer clubs will encourage visitors.
Gun ownership is being attacked and strangled from many directions and few people will be willing to risk introducing anyone to a club, or even discuss that they are firearms owners in case loose talk leads to a break in and theft of a firearm.
Samizdata has a blog entry describing the evolution of the “no right to self defence (link here http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2003/08/the_way_we_were.html ) and it summarises how and why it is impossible to use a legally held firearm in self defence (besides the conditions on the firearms certificate will state “Only to be used on Approved ranges”, or a named piece of land for shooting rabbits etc. so you will be breaking the law by doing so).
So to conclude, the decline in forearms ownership in Britain will only continue, and indeed accelerate as people are forced out of the sport and no new people come into the clubs etc. and those in charge of the system will be quite content to allow this BECAUSE it is what they want. Chairman Mao stated that “Power comes from the barrel of a gun” and there is no way in the world that these people will allow power to be given to the population.
So will there ever be a change in this status? I believe so but as I said at the start of this essay, it will not be PEACEFUL.
There is an interesting book called the War of the Flea by Robert Taber about revolutionary guerrilla warfare. It was published a while ago in the 1960s and the CIA bought up the entire first printing – not because it was so dangerous that the Public couldn’t be allowed access to it but it was so good it was issued as a standard text to their operatives. I often used to see it in second hand bookshops in the UK.
One of the questions Taber asked was “Why do people, when the risks and dangers are so great, both to themselves and their families, resort to armed revolution?”
His answer was quite simple – they cannot get any redress to their grievances either through the ballot box or through the Courts.
In the UK such topics as the Lisbon treaty, law and order, taxation, the deliberate encouragement of immigration to destroy the nature of the country, loss of liberties, ID cards, etc. etc. are occurring at an accelerating rate and the average citizen is bewildered by this. The torrent of legislation and the pettiness and disproportionate penalties for trivial transgressions of the law is proceeding unabated. The labour government, through “Enabling Acts” (i.e. under existing legislation a Minister can introduce a law without it being scrutinised or voted on by parliament) has introduced one new criminal offence for EVERY DAY they have been in power since May 1997. Such legislation has given the state unprecedented power to snoop and spy on the population and now it is more expensive to obey the law than to be a criminal.
The citizens do not understand the rules of the game being played by the left. They try to understand and reason their way to a solution – and while they are trying to address and counter the arguments and problems in detail and try to lobby their “representatives”, they are overwhelmed by the new legislation coming down the pipeline. The representatives will ignore or trivialise the citizens letter or enquiry – they are driving the process – and will divide and conquer using Critical Theory, accusations of Racism, Homophobia, Islamophobia etc. No matter, it helps destroy and fragment society and isolate people, engender suspicion and any “problems” can be sorted later (such as declaring sections of the population as counter revolutionaries, class enemies, etc. The solution involves firing squads or Gulags but it must be kept firmly in mind that the purpose of it all is for a SMALL group of PROFESSIONAL revolutionaries to run the country for THEIR benefit. See any communist country and the way the leaders behave.
Is there any redress through the ballot box? All political parties are singing from the same hymn sheet and Europe is gaining greater and greater (unelected and unaccountable) powers – see the quote by Mary Ellen Synon above.
Is there any chance of the Law Courts siding with the people of the country and reversing the Governments policies? Again, no. Rather they uphold stupid and malicious legislation. And any situation where it costs you more to obey the law than to disregard it is a dangerous situation. Some of the judgements are frankly bizarre and perverse to say the least and discriminate in favour of “minorities” and against the law abiding (as a “for example” search for “Travellers” on the Daily mail website for dozens of examples of this).
The mood of the people when I left in late January 2009 was becoming increasingly frustrated and angry. Society is so fragmented now that there is no longer a sense of national identity and people now have nothing to lose.
If you accept that Taber was correct (regarding ballot boxes and the law courts) then you must conclude that Revolution in the UK is inevitable.
I learned that to avoid trouble, don’t be there when it kicks off and I believe that Britain is heading for a revolution of one form or another because the pressures and change in society are so great that it is at breaking point. What will replace that particular version of society is anyone’s guess but I can guarantee it will be a less benign, harsher and more impoverished existence. Revolutions destroy wealth and stability and I’m getting too old to start from scratch again. That is why I am writing this in New Zealand.
HOW the revolution starts (without guns in the hands of the people it will be difficult, but not impossible) and what direction it takes I would not like to predict. It will be bloody, long and protracted - but sweeping away of the old regime and the replacement with a new form of governance will be something to observe from afar.
You can bet that those people who have put their life on the line to get rid of the corrupt, non representative and self serving system will not meekly hand in their weapons to those in the new authority. Instead, they will be as brutal as the Communists and quite a few of the existing Politicians, Civil Servants and others will meet an untimely end in one form or another.
So is there hope? That’s a strange way of looking at it but perhaps there is.
As usual, you will want to know where the information comes from.
For a concise and easily read summary of the aims and principles of communism, Geoffrey Fairbairn’s “Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare The Countryside Version” is as good as you will get. One chapter on Leninism sums it up completely in 19 pages of a paperback.
Chairman Maos quotes are found in my copy of “Mao Tse Tung – Selected Writings” which is surprisingly readable and well written. Not that I would be persuaded to subscribe to his philosophy.
Lenin’s works are too numerous to list in all their gory detail but the following are worthwhile to understand the way communist organisations are set up, organised and run. Note that Lenin had experience of the Army and organisation so if his writings seem to be written as a military textbook, referring to “This Army”, now you know why. His acceptance and insistence on the use of overwhelming violence stems from his Military Training and may give an insight into the tactics of the left wing political parties. Try these two as a primer.
On Organisation
Selected Works
Incidentally, if Lenin DID write this stuff, he was an excellent technical author ..
Sun Tsu – The Art of War. I prefer the translation by Samuel B Griffiths (an ex- US Marine) but there are plenty more out there.
The Daily Mail is a large circulation newspaper with over 3 million readers per day (see the Audited Bureau of Circulation Website for exact figures. Make sure you enter the full title as there are thousands of newspapers with Mail as part of the title) and covers some of the stupidities of the various laws passed over the last 13 years. Try entering BNP as a search string in the website and read some of the comments under the articles. Or “Travellers” for the way the law abiding are second class citizens in their own homes.
Samizdata is, I find, patchy and does not cover a single topic (as Kevins Blog does) but in the right hand sidebar, you can search under TOPICS for self defence etc. Plenty of British points of view.
Phil:
I can find no flaw in your reasoning. I will dispute your initial assertion - I said that renormalization cannot occur, i.e., the UK population isn't going to reverse ninety years of anti-gun indoctrination through peaceful means. We agree on that, and I think you must have missed where I said as much.
Welcome to the right-wing paranoid, racist, hate-mongering machine! You have described Markadelphia brilliantly! He is (I am quite convinced) a sterling example of the Leninist "useful idiot," conditioned by his culture to behave precisely as he does.
Again, frakkin' brilliant analysis.
You also illustrate why I call (Formerly) Great Britain "America's Petri dish." It's where things get tried out before they attempt them here.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to take these two posts and put them on the main page.
"Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to take these two posts and put them on the main page."
I got about 1/3 of the way through Phil's [strike]comment[/strike] essay and thought "Kevin should put this on the front page." That is most certainly where it belongs: Phil writes as well as you Kevin. And I hope you'll both take that as a compliment.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>