Thursday, March 15, 2018

Christopher Dorner Dindu Nuffin' Wrong

I have at various times expressed my complete contempt for the police and military branches of the United States government (as well as foreign governments, though they don't pose as much of a direct threat to me). The bourgeoisie nerds in the libertarian movement (much less the boot-licking 2nd Amendment queers) are often at pains to avoid discussing this subject, both because they're legitimately afraid of being convicted of a 'crime' of holding an opinion against the thugs in power and because they're just pussies who don't like to get into the nuts and bolts of 'how do you actually get rid of state power when they don't just magically surrender.'

To contrast some of my more typical hyperbole I should state that my general legal opinion is that you can't use lethal violence against anyone except to defend yourself against a plausible threat against your person - this does not mean the violence must be proportional, rather it needs to be the minimum necessary to stop the attack. You do not have to condescend to drawing a kitchen knife when attacked with one. Likewise as kidnapping is indistinguishable from attempted murder anyone who tries to drag you off by force can be treated as a murderer. On the other hand once someone is no longer credibly threatening you you can't just kill them - even if they have committed serious criminal acts. One can take the property of criminals, but the only case when execution is appropriate for a non-threatening criminal is when the criminal has actually murdered someone. In this case it's an option of the victim or his heirs to claim any and all property of the offender, including his head.

Police and military personnel who are just sitting around eating donuts and collecting welfare as not even necessarily doing anything criminal. There's nothing wrong with taking money from a gang of thieves, only in helping them steal it. On the other hand take a situation in which a soldier or police officer is engaging in 'active duty': using and threatening violence against non-violent people in order to ensure compliance with the edicts of a criminal agency such as the Marine Corps or parliament of the United Kingdom. They are in the exact same position as someone who breaks into your house at 3am with a gun (often the police and military do exactly this). A foreign army engaged in invasion operations in the vicinity of your person is a self-admitted threat, they are performing activities indistinguishable from that of any other criminal thug or barbarian raider. Thus they may be all considered to be directly threatening your person, even if they haven't seen you or said a word to you. By their affiliation with the organization in question and their apparent compliance with its hostile, destructive and murderous activities they have by their own hand painted themselves as attempted murderers.

Because of this I regard an attack on the police and military engaged in such activities to be entirely legitimate. A soldier who is simply collecting a residual for his services to Lockheed-Martin on a base in Texas can not usually be regarded in such a way - to kill him would be criminal, and excessive. On the other hand a soldier in Afghanistan is an announced affiliate of an organization whose intention there can only be to seize the life and liberty of the persons who reside there. Any Afghan is therefor entirely justified to kill American (or British, or Russian) soldiers who are engaged in operations in his vicinity. This is simply self-defense.

What about the case of the soldier who has killed in the past? Take the easiest case: where it is admittedly so. As American soldiers have no right to do what they do in Afghanistan their having killed someone in operations there - whoever that person was (and even criminals have the right to protect themselves from attempted murder, except at the hands of a legitimate representative of their victims) - they and their heirs have a right to take the life of such a soldier. However, persons who are not in possession of the right to exact such compensation can not simply kill said soldier as he's sitting in a hammock twenty years later.

But there is another consideration of legal principle in order: the outlaw. If a man has been engaged in murderous activity and has either been convicted or has plausibly admitted to his guilt (for example, by having confirmed kills in Operation Desert Storm, a matter of record that both the soldier and his commanders must agree on in order for it to be established) but refuses to offer compensation to his victims then he is in abeyance of legal status. He has chosen not to acknowledge the principles of civil justice and compensation for his crimes and by the principle of estoppel cannot be regarded to be able to legitimately object to others taking this same action against him. Effectively he is transferred from the status of a person at liberty acting in accordance with the law and becomes merely an animal with no protection. Like any dangerous beast he may be killed by anyone, at any time, and has no recourse.

Therefor it is my position that as many soldiers and police will not acknowledge - much less compensate - their victims (victims who they have publically admitted to committing murder and attempted murder against, i.e. by arresting a heroine merchant and sending him to prison, or shooting an Afghan fighter who was attempting to defend his home agains a no-knock raid) they can legitimately be considered as outlaws, persons with no legal status and no claim to complaint against anyone whoosever that treats them in precisely the same fashion.

Because of this there are a great many active duty and retired military persons who can be killed in the commission of their acts, or at any point afterward, by anyone - even a criminal or murderer.

Just because something is legitimate according to a certain theory of justice, of course, does not mean it is prudent. Shooting police, even in obvious self-defense, can get you kidnapped, robbed and killed by swarms of armed men - not to mention the moron lemmings of the public who prefer an authorized assassin with a uniform to a righteous man taking what he has a perfect right to (i.e., the life of a man who has murdered his brother). Simply threatening the police or military can get you killed. There is precedent for being imprisoned or summarily killed on the grounds of statements of belief or intent (such as this one) being declared 'terrorism'.

As I generally regard personal well-being as superior to any consideration of ideological or legal purity I would generally consider it ill-advised to engage in a one-man war against the agents of the state. But I also do not consider people who do such ill advised things to be in any way committing a criminal offense. When the issue in question is one of great personal grief I in fact find it perfectly understandable - while my normal caution and preference for cat-like cowardice is overwhelmingly in favor of simply avoiding the police and invading armies people who have their lives destroyed and loved ones killed by these tax-funded assassins may quite understandably take a different view.

Another question is whether the police have a right to kill violent criminals. The answer is, obviously, yes: anyone, including a violent criminal, may use violence to stop a person engaged in serious violence. Likewise, police and soldiers who are not engaged in violent acts or confronted with the heirs of former victims likewise are at liberty to defend themselves with violence. Where this creates an interesting issue is when there is a combination: a soldier engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan encounters a murderous thug of an opium magnate. In this case both may be considered to be violent criminals and neither of them has a right to complain. Personally, as I find state agents to be the worse danger on the whole I would root for the jihadi. Better yet if they kill each other.

And while I'm sure the NSA would love to send this post to the DA's office for some trumped up terrorism charges there is nothing here that is not a particular interpretation of libertarian legal theory. Simply replace 'soldier' or 'cop' with 'terrorist' or 'serial killer' - which is in fact what many police and soldiers (of whatever allegiance) are. There is no non-arbitrary difference between the cases, merely one of euphemisms and psychological conditioning.

There are some libertarians who are pacifists (such as Bob Murphy or Robert LeFevre). I simply do not agree with this view. My position is much more derived from common law and primitive Germanic jurisprudence than any of the moralistic libertarian ideologies, and I regard the right of self-defense to be simply a fact of animal existence and civil legalities than any sort of transcendent claim on absolute ethical values. Other libertarians are functional pacifists, in that they regard violence or escalation of violence to be undesirable. They often point to the poor record of revolutionary courts of justice, and think that encouraging peace rather than countering violence to be more pragmatic. This is a somewhat more nuanced position, but I think it is only situational. Most of them would acknowledge that it may be prudent to carry and use a firearm against armed robbers. But the difference between the armed robber and the USMC is mainly one of scale and social support. If the view of soldiers and jihadis sharply deteriorated and a willingness to defend oneself were heightened it might actually be practical to physically defend oneself against aggressive agents of the state. And while revolutions do have poor track records so do enduring states - and if it is a question of one's own life, I would say it is better to risk being tried and convicted than to definitely be killed by some meathead with a Glock and a berzerk button.

What I think is probably more practical than trying to raise an ersatz army to fight the actual army - as such attempts will, at present, result in total annihilation with little accomplished - is simply making it acceptable to think these things.

Thoughts by others in a similar vein:
To Break a Tyrant's Chains by Duncan Long, a discussion on how guerilla warfare might be employed to defeat various imperial state armies.
 How Non-Violence Protects the State by  Peter Gelderloos, a left-anarchist's view on how the ideology of non-violent resistance undermines both the will and capacity of anarchists to undermine and defeat political power.

Friday, March 9, 2018

Real Talk on Guns

It is a good idea to both own and be proficient with at least one firearm. The most important factor is that you are comfortable shooting it, and that you practice a lot. Do not buy into bullshit like 'stopping power', 'hydrostatic shock' or cults of particular weapons. It is important that your weapon and the ammunition be reliable, and effective. But the truth is that pistols are shitty weapons, and are only to be used because of the ability to carry them easily and deploy them quickly in close quarters. If it were practical and legal you would be better off carrying a submachine gun on a 3-point sling.

Unless you have no other options do not use tiny guns - they have significantly more recoil due to the laws of physics. If concealment and weight is not a factor for you in pistol choice it is better to use a full-bodied pistol. They have more ammunition, have less felt-recoil, a better sight radius and carry more ammunition. Additional ammunition in itself reduces felt recoil because of its mass.

Use automatic pistols - preferably double-action automatics. They can be fired more quickly, and reduced trigger pull results in better accuracy. There is no earthly reason to use a revolver. If that's what you have - practice with it. A .357 revolver can still be an effective handgun, and is cheaper to shoot than the equivalent 10mm Auto. But if you have the budget, hand-size and option it is always better to choose an automatic pistol (unless the automatic is in very poor condition or a very poor design in general).

Do not use tiny rounds - they are less effective at penetration and leave smaller holes, which is the main kill factor of a firearm. Do not use gigantic rounds, either - a .44 Magnum may be more dangerous than a 9mm auto round-for-round, but if you can't carry it, can't aim it and can't control the recoil it isn't going to matter. And if you do have the option and ability to use a big hulking magnum you'd be better off using a smaller caliber with a lot of rounds that is easier to shoot and shoot rapidly with. If you truly have no restrictions on the size and recoil - maybe you're on a farm field, or maybe you're just a strong dude with good coordination - then use a long gun. Almost all long guns are superior in almost all ways to any pistol. A .44 rifle beats a .44 revolver.

When you practice, don't just do target shooting. Target shooting is fine, but many of the habits you develop from target shooting are actually counter-productive to real-life self defense. You will probably not have good lighting and the time to aim your pistol down the sights. Instead, practice point shooting and shoot-and-move excercises. Point shooting is where one quickly draws a weapon and aims it as though you were pointing your finger. You ought to practice drawing, pointing and shooting as quickly as you can - over and over. Eventually you will develop the ability to hit a man-sized target at close range in short order. The failure to practice point shooting is one of the reasons cops can't hit shit. While there are other factors (slack enforcement of practice requirements, stress) that factor into the inaccuracy of the police a very important factor is that they are taught to shoot wrong. Police largely practice firing in a low-stress environment, with good lighting, aiming down the sights in a range. This is excellent if you intend to be a competitive target shooter. When you're in a cluttered hallway at 3am firing at someone who's ten feet away it is too slow, your coordination will be hampered and you may not even be able to see your sights. Point shooting from the hip or chest level is much more practical for most pistol self-defense situations.

Practice with the weapon and ammunition you will actually be carrying. It may be cheaper and easier to practice with light FMJ slugs, but it's going to throw off your shooting when it really matters. Being a great shot with 115g rounds at the range is cool, but if you're using 135g +P+ hollowpoints you're not practicing the right way.

Not that using the sights is a bad idea - if you have the time. There may be a situation where a hostile is at a range of several yards but is threatening you or someone else. In this case - especially in an environment with non-hostiles - you want to be as accurate as you can. At longer ranges point-shooting may lack the accuracy you need to effectively and safely dispatch a target. You absolutely should practice firing your weapon using good form and sights. But even here you shouldn't get all your practice on stationary paper targets in a shooting range.

What you need to practice is the shoot-and-move exercise. Practice running, leaping, ducking and firing rapidly in cluttered, low-light environments against moving targets which appear suddenly from varying locations and at varying times. Do this both with point-shooting and aimed shots. Within this context try to keep cover - even if it wont stop a bullet it will slow or deflect it, and make it harder for the hostile to accurately target you. But I must emphasize that you must practice doing all these things quickly. Whether you are aiming down the sights or firing from the hip you need to be able to get into the appropriate posture and take your shot quickly while dealing with unexpected targets and unexpected obstacles. Practice firing after running yourself ragged - you may not be perfectly awake, rested and relaxed when you have to defend yourself. I can almost guarantee that you will not be.

It is a good idea to practice with the use of long guns, too. A shotgun is by far the most important self-defense long gun. Shotguns are very powerful and fairly easy to aim and control. But don't practice skeet shooting - your assailant will not be a bird or a frisbee flying through the sky on a sunny day. Apply all the above advice for shoot-and-move with a pistol to practicing with a shotgun. Practice using your shotgun in close quarters, while moving, against unexpected targets, from behind cover.

The rifle can also be important. You may face an opponent who is at range, and if you have to shoot someone at range a long gun is always better than a pistol. Rifles have very good sights and superb accuracy, but make sure to practice rapid shooting and point-shooting with the rifle as well - if you take a rifle out to deal with an intruder on your farm you may be unexpectedly confronted at a closer range than you expected. You need to be able to use your rifle not only for precision shooting against a person hidden in brush, but also at close range in your barn next to a haystack that doesn't give you the time or room to do a well-heeled, braced shot.

Practice switching between weapons. If you are concerned about encountering a hostile, however he is armed, you may find yourself in a situation where the long gun or pistol are not appropriate. If you are outside and may be facing an armed thief at a range of a dozen or more yards you want to bring your long gun. But if that opponent is hiding in your tool shop you may be forced to switch to the pistol quickly. The same applies in reverse. It is also important to practice this because you may find yourself deprived of ammunition. If your gun runs of ammunition before you are certain all your threats are down it is faster to switch from one to the other to reload.

When you do get into a life-or-death situation do not afraid to fire, fire, fire until your opponent goes down. You don't want to 'spray-and-pray', but with consistent and rigorous practice you can learn to aim and control your guns in the two ways I've outlined here. An opponent may be armored, especially tough, or you may just miss. It happens to the best commandos, and it could happen to you. You want a gun with a large a magazine as is practical (for weight and size concerns) in case you miss, or run into multiple bad guys. When you run into a deadly threat you want to aim as best you can, but do not hesitate to pump extra rounds into the target until you are certain he is out of the fight. Do not shoot to wound, to scare, etc. Shoot to kill, every time. If you are not willing to kill someone you should not be shooting at them - end of story. Whatever your uncle or libtard friend thinks about 'knee-capping' people or other such fantasy tactics, they are full of shit and should be ignored. The only proven way to get rid of a lethal threat is to kill him as quickly and effectively as possible, and that should always be your goal when discharging a firearm against another person.


Obtain pistols, shotguns, and rifles you are comfortable with. Use weapons which are designed for defense and combat, not target shooting (if you have the option - a poorly optimized gun is better than no gun). Guns that you can shoot accurately, with as much mass and velocity as you can handle, and with as much ammunition as you can handle, are the guns you want to practice with and keep at hand.

Practice in difficult environments, practice for speed, practice for accuracy, and practice some more. No matter how good you are you are never good enough.

When you suspect a deadly threat shoot quickly, shoot often, and never put yourself into more danger - by exposing yourself or spending a lot of time trying to be a dead-eye - than you have to. If it is possible to escape and assailant rather than get into a gunfight with him you ought to. But no one can outrun bullets - it is important to assess whether it is better to run around the corner or unleash a fusillade of lead in his direction. If possible, do both. The fact that you may have to be running and weaving - toward or away from your assailant - means that you need to practice shooting in both conditions.


There are many quality firearms of varying caliber, pricing and size. I strongly recommend against getting cheap-ass Norinco pistols and that sort of thing. However, if you do not have the money or legal access to get superior weapons it's better than nothing.

Pistols with decent ammunition capacity, a moderate caliber and a size that fits your hand and strength are what is to be desired. For most people this is somewhere between .380ACP and 10mm Norma. Economic considerations being what they are a 9mm Auto is the best bang for your buck - they have large capacity magazines, controllable recoil, cheap ammunition and a huge variety of pistols can be tried before deciding upon a particular model. I personally favor somewhat larger pistols in the range of the 10mm auto, but this depends on you, not me.

If cost and weapon size are not significant obstacles I strongly recommend getting full-sized semi-automatic weapons in all cases - whether a pistol, shotgun or rifle. They are simply superior for purposes of killing other human beings, which is the entire purpose of self-defense pistols.

Glock, Heckler & Koch, Beretta, Smith & Wesson and Sig all produce excellent full body pistols. There are many more beside, but this is a good place to start. A laser sight may be desirable - but always practice with it if you intend to use it. Also, practice without it. You never know if it may break, or the batteries may run out. You need to be able to fire it with the laser, with the sights, and from the hip with as much speed and accuracy as possible - all while tired, moving and in the dark. A flashlight may also be desirable, but again practice both with and without the flashlight on.

Short, high-capacity semi-automatic shotguns are ideal for self-defense in most circumstances. Heckler & Koch produces excellent, reliable semi-automatic shotguns. Other companies doubtless do, as well. If you cannot afford a semiautomatic military-style shotgun then a slide-action shotgun can be obtained at low prices. Though the recoil is worse and the firing speed is inferior such weapons can be very effective and easy to use (but ALWAYS practice!). Among the cheapest is the Mossberg 500 series of shotguns. Some exotice pump shotguns - such as the Serbu Super Shorty or Neostead 2000 - have much to recommend them because of their small size. They may be difficult to obtain or use for some people, however.

The shotgun should have a pistol grip as this is more comfortable and natural - it also helps to control muzzle flip while firing. An adjustable or short stock is to be desired (such as an 'M4' style collapsible stock). Because you will may shooting a close range, in close quarters you need your shotgun to have as small a profile as possible, and do not require the added weight and bracing of a hunting-style stock.I recommend equipping them with ghost-ring or holographic sights because these are easier to aim quickly and at short ranges than the bead-sight. A scope is not to be considered. If you are expecting to engage threats at a range where a scope would be practical you ought to be using a rifle, not a shotgun. A laser sight or flashlight may be desired for the reasons detailed above.

The ideal self-defense rifle is a military-style gun - with at least 20 rounds of ammunition (preferably 30-40), of a moderate caliber (at least 5.56mm, but not larger than .308). The AK47 style rifle has much to recommend it - powerful caliber, easy to attain the weapon and ammunition, and ease of maintenance. But it has a bit of a kick, and you will want to replace the sights and probably the furniture due to the general inferiority of the standard equipment it comes with. AR15s are quite common and easy to get accessories and ammunition for. The Sig 550 model of rifle is also quite good, very similar to the AR15 in many ways but superior in others.

The rifle of choice should be of similar furniture and sights to the shotgun, for ease and speed of aim. As you almost certainly will not be sniping your target a scope or 200 yard iron sights is simply in the way. As with the pistol and shotgun practice firing with your sights and without them. Avoid excessive accessories, as this will increase the weight and profile of the weapon.

If you have a firearm but are not in a position to obtain or accessorize it into these specifications then practice with what you have. If your libtard state makes it difficult to obtain certain weapons, or you cannot afford it, then you need to be good with what you have. Though it is far from ideal your grandfather's Mauser 98 or your hunting shotgun is better than nothing. Make sure to practice its use in all of the above ways - in close quarters, at long range, with and without the sights, in the dark and in the glare of the sun, while sleepy, tired, winded, and running.

This may sound like a lot of work. It may sound exhausting, tedious, and difficult. It is. But your other option is to die.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Death Wish's Yankee Homo Critics Can Go Fuck Themselves with a Knife

Death Wish was generally panned by film critics - who are almost all a bunch of weak faggots that are scared of guns. That, and not its content, is the main reason it suffered in the reviews. While Death Wish is nowhere near as cool as the original, it's certainly not bad as far as action movies goes. It eschews slow-motion except for a target shooting scene, and its hero is gloriously unconflicted about his behavior.

Morally unconflicted about its self-taught shooter, “Death Wish” promotes a vision of a city whose streets run red and whose residents run scared. It’s ready-made for an N.R.A. ad campaign.
Although the NRA are occasional defenders of the right to own private firearms, they are also cop-loving gun-control supporters. The NRA does not defend the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment: they defend the military-industrial complex and its corporate commercial wing in private arms sales. This is why the NRA supported so-called 'assault weapons ban' - cheap, imported Kalashnikovs from former SovBloc countries were outcompeting their beloved AR15 and its major producers.
Personally I don't need the NRA to tell me that I have a right to shoot people who threaten my life. And I certainly don't give a shit if the libtard ruling class mouthpiece NYT disagrees. They are welcome to be disarmed pussies depending on government goons to defend them - the more of them who get shot, the better.

Entertainment Weekly
...that problem boils down to this: It’s the absolute wrong movie at the absolute wrong time. With our country currently reeling from the latest in what seems like an endless cycle of sickening school shootings, there couldn’t be a worse moment for a film that not only fetishizes gun violence, but also seems to get off on it.
"Our" country? You can suck a dead donkey's rotting dick, EW. If you weren't sending children to defenseless, state-run propaganda prisons they probably wouldn't have been shot in the first place and there probably wouldn't be so many kids who hate it so much they want to blow you away. The fact is you're not part of any country I would want to belong to: you're a sissy, a coward, a state-worshipping bitch, and a half-wit to boot. While random violence against innocent people is uncalled for I imagine plenty of school teachers deserve to get shot, as do the people forcing children into these hell-holes and the scribblers who insist on sentencing everyone in the USA to twelve years of forced labor.

While Paul Kersey is extremely lucky in this film there is nothing wrong with what he did. In fact I wish more people would "take the law into their own hands" - not only against common thugs, as in the film, but against the subhuman filth that clutter up our streets and cash government paychecks. The cops are the worst thugs of all, and I'd love to see a film which views the police through the same lens that Death Wish does house-breakers.

I am certain the chattering classes will continue to refer to this as 'gun porn' and 'right wing vigilante propaganda', but personally I don't see what's wrong with either one. Indeed, it's interesting to notice that the libtard keyboard activists generally have no problem with Muslim tranny porn, but when it's 'guns' they immediately start their letters to the editor. Why? Simple: just like the school marm bitches of yore who protested against liquor and strip clubs these fake-socialist goons are offended by something that exists outside of their soft, weak, government-managed urbanite lives and the cultic religion that goes along with it.

Death Wish is a decent action movie with some funny scenes, and Paul Kersey is a generally likable character. If I have any criticism it's that he doesn't go far enough. But I've always liked Frank Castle.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Nihlistic Hedonism; or Cyberpunk as Eutopia

I do not believe in objective standards, norms, ends, means or values; but I have a strong preference for the combination of hardass and self-indulgent traits one finds in the mercenary reaver cultures of places like medieval Burgundy. Essentially, I care about what I care about and consider anything else a means to that end. But I don't really believe in 'muhTroof' or anything; I do not (for example) believe in 'natural law', I just believe in shooting thieves on sight. But if you can get away with stealing from defenseless peasants or the fat-asses of the power elite, good for you.

I have a lot in common with LaVeyan Satanism, but more through a sympathy of attitude than any fake-occultist stuff. I tend to favor the most extreme and materialistic aspects of civilization and barbarism, my 'ideal society' would be a bunch of heavily armed autistic stock jobbers who obey and disobey the law entirely based on sociopathic cost-benefit analysis.

What normies accuse libertarians of being (Blue Tribe says they're greed-driven elitists who want poor children to starve; Red tribe says they're drug addled hedonists who want cops to get shot) I actually am. Blue tribe says libertarianism would lead to billionaires with nukes running the world, Red tribe says it would lead to crime-ridden slums where all family and authority has disappeared. The Greens say it would lead to the extinction of entire biomes and the paving over of entire continents. I say "Good" to both, because cyperpunk is actually a pretty decent approximation of what I consider eutopian. I do not want to 'form a country' or 'protect society' or 'help X group', I want to see total flux where all the pretensions, imbecilities and cults of mankind are dissolved in the acid of relentless pursuit of profits and power, with no 'greater aim' than for the people who can to take what they want.

Whereas the populists like sheep and the authoritarians like wolves, I like lions. Individual superiority and a violent self-assertion combined with drop-of-the-hat flight in the face of serious danger; because my skin is more valuable than any cause.

This obviously goes against the grain and possibly the survival of a great majority of people, which I am also OK with. I don't give a shit about them, anyway.

I am, in a special sense, a social Darwinist - but without the mistaken notion of teleology or 'right', but simple relentless processes of creative destruction. But I don't mean pure Darwinism, which is inevitable, I like certain kinds of people and certain kinds of institutions, but I don't see the need or the desire to somehow show that this is what people 'ought' to want or that this is 'good'; on the other hand I would be happy to see the masses convinced of this (even if it were false) because what I want is more important than the entirety of mankind and any other living, non-living or theoretical entity. I am a physical objectivist, a moral nihilist, and a social solipsist.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Drug-dealing welfare classes get your guns, form the army of the unemployed!

The gun restrictions in urban areas don't affect the urbanite middle classes all that much. Most of these people don't own guns, and may be afraid of them. They have never dealt with serious physical conflict in maybe their entire lives.

The people who are affected are the disaffected and policed underclass. The black or mexican 'gang banger' is the leading edge of a community that has so little investment in the state's 'defense', the political class and the economic system that they're resorting to outright black markets in broad daylight, and flaunting their paramilitary status (mostly fantasies) in their popular music. Unfortunately, most of these guys are carrying a handgun at the most. A few own larger weapons, but they're harder to conceal or carry in a car. In a more permissive legal system these 'thugs' and territorial mafias would be able to openly carry large and small arms without need to provide permit or reason. This, obviously, is not acceptable to the Congressional-Police-Prison Union Complex. One can not have organized, funded resistance on the home front!

Something similar is true of the punk crowd. Rowdy, drunken, drugged, detached from the incentives of propaganda warfare, they can cluster together. Their disregard for the law and the politeness of civil society is well known, and often genuine. Yet punks, whether they're brawling with each other or the man, are usually armed with a baseball bat - if anything. I am almost certain that at least some of these guys would have uzis, if it wasn't for the criminalization of firearms and their carry in urban areas. Again, it's not the sheltered middle class that these laws are targeting, it's the people who are able and willing to subvert the elites and their lemmings in the middle class.

Lumpenproles have the most to lose from gun control. The urban garrison state is just the beginning.


If you don't like what we tell you to believe in we'll kill ya.
- Misquotation of G. W. Bush

After 9/11 a lot of 'terrorism' think-tankery poured out of academia and media, most of which was totally garbage. Atheologians and Objectivists wrote fanatical tracts about the need to nuke Mecca to convince those crazy savages that their God couldn't protect them from science. Christian Zionists were no less enthusiastic to point out the barbaric and violent history of Islam.

There is some truth to this, but the overall historical arc of terrorism suggests that it is an actual effective means of achieving certain military and political objectives. It's not always effective, but due to its low cost and disproportionate potential reactions it can trigger it can result in an increased flow of personnel and resources to the 'terrorist' organization and similar networks. Even if terrorism fails to achieve its utopian goals - to create a caliphate, to abolish the Russian government - it can still serve the immediate interests of terrorist organizers, suppliers and the 'enemies' of terrorism who profit from fighting (and typically inspiring more) terrorism.

Terrorism is usually seen as a tactic of weak organizations faced with more powerful opponents, which makes me wonder whether or not the Jacobin models of state terrorism and the strategic terrorism of Hindu Cow Avengers should be considered to be closely related. The British terror bombings in Germany and the Soviet government's bureaucratic murder squads certainly had the upper hand in the physical battlefield, but may represent another kind of weakness - enemy military forces and totalitarian revolutionary states are by default the enemies of existing elites, and have a profound capacity for creating enemies in their occupied territories. Even forces that were initially welcoming - as certain peasants welcomed the Germans in both world wars - will find these organizations to be virtually impossible to deal with. Whether one is ruling over a resentful population with an alien religious cult or invading the ancient homelands of a rural society it's hard to create effective control of a region whose natives do not want you there.

When pointing to the ineffectual nature of terrorism the case of Ireland is often brought up. While its true that some of the political disputes were ultimately resolved by means other than a general military conflict or guerrilla war this only occured after groups like the Irish Republican army had been killing British soldiers, police and politicians for decades. Certainly if the British had been willing to negotiate with the Irish separatist movements before all this they could have. The desire of these groups to separate from the British Empire and the Church of England was well known, and supported by figures from Edmund Burke to Oswald Mosley. At any time the House of Lords could have given Ireland autonomy or independence or allowed it to secede in bits. Yet they only did so after the Irish made policing Ireland a dangerous and thankless job through campaigns of sustained, organized, armed terrorism both in Ireland and England itself. Is this a coincidence?

From Is the Use of Terrorism Rational?
The conventional wisdom of the substantive rationality of terrorism and the model itself are directly challenged, however, by a growing body of empirical evidence disproving the instrumental efficacy, and even suggesting the counter-productivity, of the use of terrorism in coercing the desired policy change outlined by the strategic goals of terrorist organisations. Challenges to the consistency of the substantive rationality of terrorism do not demand, however, that the use of terrorism should therefore be considered unconditionally irrational.
Rather, by incorporating the concept of ‘procedural rationality’, as developed by economist Herbert Simon, the use of terrorism should nonetheless be considered rational since it is the ‘outcome of appropriate deliberation’. This social scientific approach draws heavily on psychology rather than economic scholarship, aiming to incorporate the importance of cognitive effects on human decision-making in rational choice, and is concerned not with the consequences of the use of terrorism but the ‘process that generated’ the decision to strategically employ terrorism as a policy instrument.
An evaluation of the cost-benefit calculations made by terrorist organisations reveals that the decision to use terrorism, whilst generally substantively irrational, is procedurally rational. The logic of the strategic theory behind the deliberation process, and the deliberate nature of the timing, targets and substitution effects of the use of terrorism to maximise the utility of attacks on both tactical and strategic levels, suggests that whilst failing to achieve strategic goals, terrorism is nonetheless the product of a rational cost-benefit analysing thought-process. The use of terrorism is therefore best regarded as often procedurally, though not necessarily substantively, rational.