A (not-so) quick thought on the situation in Oregon

A lot has been said about the standoff going on right now between militia and government authorities in Oregon in response to the feds’ treatment of a local ranch family. Nothing I say will be particularly original, but might as well get it out there.

Of course, the question is which part of it are we looking at? Who’s in the right? Is it a good PR strategy? Can the militia withstand a siege or a fight?

All I can say is that while this type of confrontation might have worked three to four centuries ago, fourth generational warfare has changed all that.

People keep thinking in terms of the last war, the last conflict.

If there’s going to be a war of resistance against the feds, my estimation is that will be no organized resistance the way we think of it. There won’t be battles fought on fields or urban combat. There will be no “leader.”

The conflict will manifest itself at first in discreet, subtle, seemingly unnoticeable actions. Small acts of defiance, tiny choices. Non-PC hashtags on Twitter, voting with one’s feet or changes in behavior. Or we’ll see just how compromised the online security of the United States government happens to be. An overweight kid sitting in his mother’s basement can wreak more havoc than two thousand militiamen.

A pinprick does nothing. A thousand pinpricks will slay a beast.

And nothing will be official. This part will be hard for people to grasp. There will be no “opening salvo,” no formal declarations. It will just be.

Fred Reed has speculated on this, and I think he is correct. Armed secession didn’t work, and so it will be done through other means, mainly by people just not cooperating and overloading the system.

What can Washington do if states and regions simply go their own way? If large numbers of people stop paying income taxes, say? One tax evader can be arrested. Fifty thousand cannot. A problem for the feds is that if a state’s police decline to enforce federal laws, the feds have to do it themselves, and they don’t have the manpower. Passive resistance is hard to prosecute, gradualism offers scant pretext, rising generations seem less concerned about immigration than their elders, and a forcible response from Washington would entail frightful political risks.

Governments can put down armed rebellions and kill combatants, but they can’t send troops to fight people who vote to nullify drug laws. All politics is violence, but it is incumbent upon the state to maintain the pretense in order to preserve its perceived legitimacy. It can’t order the National Guard to shoot people for posting things online.

Fourth generational warfare will be interesting to watch. We’ve seen the mightiest military forces in the world locked in standstills against primitive cultures, and yet they’ve learned nothing.

I’m not saying that there won’t be violence; who knows what will happen? My point is that this isn’t how a conflict against the government, when it comes, will be waged. Gun rights aside, their use will come later, when the odds are evened out.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Central Government, civil war, doom and gloom, federal government, military, Second Amendment and Gun Control, War and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A (not-so) quick thought on the situation in Oregon

  1. I have so many mixed feelings these days about all this. Sometimes I think we forget about an earlier armed secession movement, one that saw the defeat of the largest empire of the world, the American Revolution.
    What the militia is Oregon is doing is a completely different situation than the Hammonds. Two different situations. The Hammonds have been wronged and tyrannized for years. AS a believer in Self Ownership, I think they absolutely have the Right to resist and protect their property and lives from the federal government.
    The militia men, if they can really be called this in it’s purist form of the word, don’t have the right to act to act for the Hammonds unless the local ranchers invite them to act for them.
    Similar to the Syrian aggression by the United States. The U.S. has no right to act in the way they are.
    Russia on the other hand, does, as they have been invited by the Syrian government to act for them.
    On the other hand, I don’t think that the militia is doing anything ethically wrong, as they are just homesteading a previously unowned resource with this federal building. A smart move? Depends on what they want their end goal to be. Unfortunately, the end state will probably result in their deaths.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      Well put. It’s why I won’t get involved in something I’m not directly affected by or have firsthand knowledge about. Even when someone is in the right, their strategy might not be practical. I’m not afraid of what may come, but I won’t throw my life away needlessly or later find out vital information was missing that paints a different picture.

      My guess is there are a lot of militia who doom and gloom and are looking for a chance to legitimately confront the feds. They may get it, but they may not like it.

      BTW: Listened to your interview with Tom Woods. Very nice!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s