—“I’m gunna be a d__k for a moment. Wouldn’t a reduction in furthering this movement due to you having to take care of your mother be considered “not bearing the cost”? its not bearing the cost of “losing mother” in order “to fight”. Not meaning to make this personal – only pointing at the bullshit of these types of “do it for the cause” virtue/purity signals. … its really just a subtle “no true scotsman” and a kick in the teeth when done in the absence of acknowledging the costs already born by those that support your vision.”—Wayne Righton
Good and honest question.
I have no problem making that hard choice, and no problem dying for the cause. The truth is it’s strategically optimum to live in country, to maintain an out of country residence, have no assets in-country, to have no ‘entanglements’ and to be able to go fully mobile on a moment’s notice from within country. Otherwise I would have brought a certain ukrainian woman here, or returned to ukraine – because i’d be a lot happier doing biz and living a normal life, than working on this revolution and house-sitting the elderly from a backwater.
At present I have a pretty concrete plan.
We need enough gov’t employees back at work. (they are)
We want some men still out of work (they will be).
We want the president fearful of losing the election (he will be).
We want stress from that anxiety to spread (it will)
I need a ‘dramatic’ way of issuing the ‘proposal’ of settlement, but will seize any opportunity I can (three options).
And I need enough people to show up so that the first phase works, and escalates to the second phase (that’s your problem).
Aside from that: What evidence do you have that I don’t think things thru? 😉 Nothing is perfect. Nothing is fail safe. But we can make sure many people know the ‘offer’ ahead of time, then we’re fine. We don’t want to go early. We want to go at the last possible minute seizing the greatest opportunity for stress prior to the election.
The optimum arrangement would be that we get enough traction to get a few players in the conservative media on board with the plan so that they voluntarily or out of necessity explain our ‘just’ position.
What’s the worst that will happen? First try won’t be successful but will have been the most successful publicity action since Boston’s fight with the Redcoats.
What’s the best that will happen? it will work and the entire world will shake, and the chaos that results will bring everyone to the table.
What’s better than that? The conservatives adopt the platform.
Now flip it around:
I’m paying a huge cost (and so are my investors by the way.)
If you’re dumb enough to both be in a vulnerable position AND use your real name so that you can pay some external loss then that’s your choice. Plenty of people don’t.
If you think I’m writing another ideology, then you’re wasting your time and mine. If you want emotional, moral, and intellectual sedation by some narrative that makes you feel justified then you’re wasting your time and mine.
I switched from intellectual to revolutionary when I was divorced raped, then procedurally nearly put out of business by manipulation of the court, then when the state sold my company’s bank but guaranteed the loans, so that the bank was incentivized to put us out of business, then Obama made it clear he was out to unify the left against my people, and then my own government tried to criminalize having made and honest living, by shutting down overseas banking, and then when for a simple error on a tax form where the state owed me hundreds of thousands, they nearly killed my business.
I’m tired of lack of juridical defense. I’m tired of a genocide against my people. I’m tired of the second destruction of western civilization by the same means. And I’m tired of an enemy among us reveling in our naivety and tolerance.
So man the F-k up. Shut the f-k up. Show the F-k up. And if you’re not here for the revolution, don’t waste the time of the men who are.
Restoration of our rights as ‘Englishmen’. The rights made and rights we have fought to maintain for centuries.
And if you don’t man up, shut up, and show up, then you don’t deserve those rights.
One response to “Rights Aren’t Cheap – the Plan”
From Sartre’s “Existentialism is a Humanism”:
“As an example by which you may the better understand this state of abandonment, I will refer to the case of a pupil of mine, who sought me out in the following circumstances. His father was quarrelling with his mother and was also inclined to be a “collaborator”; his elder brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940 and this young man, with a sentiment somewhat primitive but generous, burned to avenge him. His mother was living alone with him, deeply afflicted by the semi-treason of his father and by the death of her eldest son, and her one consolation was in this young man. But he, at this moment, had the choice between going to England to join the Free French Forces or of staying near his mother and helping her to live. He fully realised that this woman lived only for him and that his disappearance – or perhaps his death – would plunge her into despair. He also realised that, concretely and in fact, every action he performed on his mother’s behalf would be sure of effect in the sense of aiding her to live, whereas anything he did in order to go and fight would be an ambiguous action which might vanish like water into sand and serve no purpose. For instance, to set out for England he would have to wait indefinitely in a Spanish camp on the way through Spain; or, on arriving in England or in Algiers he might be put into an office to fill up forms. Consequently, he found himself confronted by two very different modes of action; the one concrete, immediate, but directed towards only one individual; and the other an action addressed to an end infinitely greater, a national collectivity, but for that very reason ambiguous – and it might be frustrated on the way. At the same time, he was hesitating between two kinds of morality; on the one side the morality of sympathy, of personal devotion and, on the other side, a morality of wider scope but of more debatable validity. He had to choose between those two. What could help him to choose? Could the Christian doctrine? No. Christian doctrine says: Act with charity, love your neighbour, deny yourself for others, choose the way which is hardest, and so forth. But which is the harder road? To whom does one owe the more brotherly love, the patriot or the mother? Which is the more useful aim, the general one of fighting in and for the whole community, or the precise aim of helping one particular person to live? Who can give an answer to that a priori? No one. Nor is it given in any ethical scripture. The Kantian ethic says, Never regard another as a means, but always as an end. Very well; if I remain with my mother, I shall be regarding her as the end and not as a means: but by the same token I am in danger of treating as means those who are fighting on my behalf; and the converse is also true, that if I go to the aid of the combatants I shall be treating them as the end at the risk of treating my mother as a means. If values are uncertain, if they are still too abstract to determine the particular, concrete case under consideration, nothing remains but to trust in our instincts. That is what this young man tried to do; and when I saw him he said, “In the end, it is feeling that counts; the direction in which it is really pushing me is the one I ought to choose. If I feel that I love my mother enough to sacrifice everything else for her – my will to be avenged, all my longings for action and adventure then I stay with her. If, on the contrary, I feel that my love for her is not enough, I go.” But how does one estimate the strength of a feeling? The value of his feeling for his mother was determined precisely by the fact that he was standing by her. I may say that I love a certain friend enough to sacrifice such or such a sum of money for him, but I cannot prove that unless I have done it. I may say, “I love my mother enough to remain with her,” if actually I have remained with her. I can only estimate the strength of this affection if I have performed an action by which it is defined and ratified. But if I then appeal to this affection to justify my action, I find myself drawn into a vicious circle.”
I think this is a very interesting test case for morality, and many analytic thinkers have also debated it, for example Alasdair MacIntiyre’s “What morality is not.” from 1957.