Wednesday, August 18, 2010

"Spanking the Monkey": Bob Wright on Tom Baugh's speech.

I am appalled at the foolishness and self-serving delusion this speech represents and disappointed that any Three Percenter would not recognize it for exactly what it was.

First let us address the clearest indicator of this miscreant’s lack of integrity. If he believes that the rallies are of no value and they are just not his cup of tea then he should have stated that at the time of his invitation and politely declined. Rather, he chose to accept the invite to come and mock the attendees and their cause, thereby wasting their time and taking up speaking time that rightfully belonged to supporters of the rally. This in my mind makes him a thief, who through deception and with malice aforethought stole the time of the attendees and the invaluable opportunity the time and setting offered. He knew when he accepted the invite that he would betray those in attendance and would not give a speech about restoring the Constitution. His design was in effect stab in the back the misguided individual who invited him and mock all those in attendance.

In addition, in a dispassionate look at how his confused speech has caused such dissension, it is fair to contemplate who actually pays this man for in my estimation this speech is a provocateur's dream. Designed to deceive, discourage, divide and send the movement off on poisonous rabbit trails that will further spread discord among patriots at a time when unity is essential. This treacherous behavior should instantly sour any 3per on this snake, his book and anything he has to say in the future.

Looking through the body of the speech we find more indicators of either an agenda to divide or a stunning level of historical ignorance, tactical foolishness and strategic retardation. Was the author truly so ignorant of human history when he asserted that the first seven articles of the Constitution was not about liberty but about power? Is he unaware of the unprecedented level of control on GOVERNMENT that document represents? To any who defend this … individual, please tell me what he has accomplished in any realm that qualifies him to piss on my Constitution?

Any of you ever see this intellectual giant at a training mission??? Anyone ever see this “visionary” do anything that either furthered the cause or built a stronger movement? Has anything this “genius” said or done put one bean in your pot or one bullet in your bandoleer? Of course not. But his message seems to be that those who are engaged in this struggle are wasting their time. We are foolish “White Hats” and he is the wiser more cynical “Black Hats”? White Hats ??? Black Hats??? In fairness have you ever heard a more childish analogy . . . or is it?

The white Hat , black hat symbolism is deeply rooted in the American psyche and has profound meanings. I have to wonder, if that symbolism is tantamount to Darth Vader’s seductive entreaty to a White Hat wearing Luke Sky Walker to “Join the Dark Side.” Like George Lucas’ epitome of evil pragmatism our author offers an easier way to some as yet undefined goal. All we have to do is throw out our humanity, our love of country and that Constitution that in my humble opinion is the apex of human endeavor. As we continue please keep that invitation to the dark side in mind.

For the most part the rest of his “speech” is at best mindless mental masturbation. It probably made him feel good but accomplished nothing productive. Looking over this . . . mess, I ask you to look at the thoughts and motivations he attributes to those he calls white hats and simply ask your self does this apply to you? Does this apply to any other Three Percenter you know? Doesn’t, does it? It is useful to note that the “Black Hats” remain without form , substance , defined strategy, or corporeal form. Over the years we have seen and heard many like Darth . . . er, excuse me, Mr. Baugh, the further in the shadows they keep their mysterious legions the less they have to produce in order to justify their arrogance. They are the mischievous Scout master, who slips away from the campfire and at the opportune moment sends the young scouts into squealing spasms of giggling terror by standing in the dark and howling OOOOOOOO we are the black hats . . OOOOOOOO be afraid . . .OOOOOOOO. And given some of the dissention resulting from this I would say that Lord Vad.., oops, Mr. Baugh has certainly sent some of our campers screaming into the night, questioning their most deeply held beliefs, the motivations of their brethren, and the very foundation of our great republic. Shame on you.

We must use our minds and not our emotions. Emotional thinking is the realm of old women. This struggle must be populated with grown up men who are willing to set aside all their prejudices, personal grudges, personal satisfaction and personal aggrandizement in order to make decisions based on one criteria only. Each decision must be made on the tactical practicality of that decision as well as the strategic implications of that decision.

I have not read Mr. Baugh's book but judging by the quality of this speech I suspect he is far more proficient at “Spanking the Monkey” than "Starving the Monkey.”

Bob Wright
Eunice, NM
Bob Wright at the RTC Rally, Fort Hunt Park, Virginia, 19 April 2010.


Anonymous said...

Damn straight.

Couldn't make it through STM - there might be something of worth buried in there, but no editor - if there were any involved - cut away enough crowing so as to expose it plainly.

I know that Pete over at WRSA liked it - so the bookmark remains in it, waiting for the day I pinch my nose and make a run at the rest of it.

Rhett III

sofa said...

At first, the founders went to 'starve the monkeys' and built up preps. The monkeys kept pushing and pushing. And when the monkeys used open force - The sons of liberty used their preps to kick the monkeys ass.

Starving the monkeys is a component of a preparatory defensive phase, rather than a method of correcting the problem. At some point, the monkeys must still be removed and order re-established.

Denying the enemy the benefit of your logistics is not a plan for victory. Avoiding 'imperial entanglements' is not a plan for victory. Waiting for others to solve the problem while looking out for yourself is not a plan for victory. Spanking the monkey makes you feel good, but doesn't help anyone else, nor does it solve the underlying problem.

Don't think the monkeys will remove themselves. Serious effort was needed to remove the Torries.

Temnota said...

Mr. Wright, a pleasure to read you, as always.

In fairness, Tom Baugh is a war veteran. I'd have to go find the book to get the details, but he has paid his dues, in my view.

The concept of the "Black Hat" laid out in the speech seems to vary slightly from the ideal enlightened survivor he advocates in "Starving the Monkeys", appearing somewhat more menacing than hitherto described. I'm interested to see where he goes with this, perhaps there is an evolution of his thinking at work.

While I hesitate to ascribe to Mr. Baugh the sort of self-serving opportunism we see in many of the popular "leaders" of the liberty movement, I think his crystal ball is badly flawed. While I agree that the collapse of America as we know it is now inevitable, I don't agree that keeping your head down, working or being prepared to work as a producer of value in a voluntaryist alternative economy, and being passive is going to accomplish what he thinks it will. The US isn't going to just collapse like a house of cards, it will die slowly, painfully, and with plenty of opportunity for the rulers to attempt to shore up their own fortunes at the expense of the "country class". You can't produce efficiently if your tools have been seized, and you can't live as a free man in a labor camp. Where Baugh excels is in his exposition of the economic, political, and social infrastructure of both liberty and tyranny, but after that we part company.

Temnota said...

We also differ on the futility of taking up arms. In this, I think Baugh falls for the same false paradigm that has trapped so many others I've discussed this with, that armed opposition to the State will take some form similar to what has gone before in this country. Some people even expect that threepers and such will shoulder rifles and go slogging about the countryside in proper Napoleonic fashion, like some marpat-themed 21st-century Army of Northern Virginia. Baugh's message is, don't fight the army, they'll all follow orders and you'll all die. He assumes that we will fight in ways that the state wants to be fought, and therein lies his error.

As I have pointed out to others, if it goes to guns, and assuming the State is willing to swallow the final loss of the last semblance of legitimacy entailed in turning the army on the populace, we won't be fighting that army, except by accident. We'll be avoiding the army. The army isn't the target. There aren't enough of them, and if we're successful at seizing and retaining the initiative, they usually won't be where we choose to act. Besides, the army is going to have enough problems of its own to deal with, soon enough.

The target will be the infrastructure of tyranny, the means by which Leviathan's will is imposed on the people, and that means is primarily through the civilian bureaucracy and law enforcement. Shatter that, bog it down, destroy its records and means of communication and coordination, and you render your AO ungovernable, and therefore de facto free. Such actions do not require large forces that can be identified and attacked. Small groups or lone actors can accomplish quite a bit, and without an identifiable target the army can do nothing. Our military has wonderfully lethal battlefield weapons, and against a standing army they will prevail, but those weapons are primarily intended to be used on other battlefield weapons, and have very serious limitations in any other role. Learn those, and learn the opfor's tactics, and you have the blueprint for evading them while keeping your real goals within reach.

Temnota said...

I'm not going to demonize Tom Baugh. I think he's a very smart guy and has a true gift for conveying eye-glazing economic and sociological ideas in compelling, articulate ways. I just think he has a bum prognosticator, and hasn't subjected his former employer to as rigorous a critical analysis as he should have. He also needs to drop the Stormfront idea like a radioactive yam. Don't make common cause with people you will eventually have to shoot. All that said, I'm standing by my recommendation of his book.

Toaster 802 said...

Well said Mr. Wright.

When I read the monkey speech, as with anything, I found some useful things. But as always, I could not fit comfortably in the white hat hole, and I surely am not a black hatted peg. Thus I identified myself as a boonie hat. Like mike said, while it is easy to take off and stick in your back pocket for polite company, It fits well and is very useful in the field.

Once again, all of the speakers on this topic have something to teach. But the biggest lesson is to be true to yourself, your family, your country, your God.

You will do all right in the end.

Anonymous said...

Baugh is a self-serving hack whose only goal is to convince folks to buy his book, and thus line his pockets.

I know.

I made the mistake of buying his book and reading it.

PeaceableGuy said...

Wow, harsh words. I haven't read the book in question, either, so keep that in mind.

I view the Constitution as a trap. The Articles of Confederation was the original federal government established by the Founders. The Constitution came about during a constitutional convention which was merely supposed to address a few key issues with the Articles (chiefly currency and interstate tarifs).

Thus, instead of fixing a few relatively minor issues with the Articles, an entirely new form of government was established while some of the major Revolutionary players were out of town; on top of that, Rhode Island had to be threatended with economic terrorism before they would ratify the Constitution.

So, I don't much like the Constitution and don't think it is the epitome of human political structure on a federal level.

I do think it could work more than well enough while we rally and educate We The People, and I work with this goal in mind.

If we were to arrive at the point where the Constitution reigns once more supreme, however, I'd be the first one suggesting we start planning to implement the Revised Articles of Confederation.

Mr. Wright may be correct, I suppose, in the theft of time by Mr. Baugh... yet are such harsh words and resulting strife worth the three minutes' time in question, in particular because restoring the Constitution may well not be the wisest final goal to have?

Anonymous said...

It would seem that Wright knows a lot about "spanking the monkey" and nothing about the book. I read it and recommend it. Tom and Mike are not far apart, too bad they have a pissing contest, both lose as we do. Mike should read No Treason by Spooner, a contemporary of the founders. Tom has certainly paid his dues, read the book before you bitch.

Holden McGroin said...

May I only say this-
The last paragraph in Brother Bob's piece, those last few lines... are priceless. He gets the LMAO Of the Week Award from me!
Better at spanking the monkey than starving it... best laugh I have had in a long time.

Patriot said...

Baugh is right. Furthermore, the organizer knew what he was getting when he invited him.

There's no such thing as a small avalanche. There's no such thing as a controllable avalanche. An avalanche always starts out small. Then it grows exponentially by taking everything in its environment and using it to increase its own size. You can then no longer stop it. It increases in size and strength until it eventually runs out of surrounding materials to gobble, and finally destroys everything it hits when it reaches the end of its natural course.

And the people mewl once again, "Those first three thousand avalanches didn't work out very well. Maybe this time, we can keep the avalanche small."

The Constitutional Republic was an avalanche. You cannot restrain a monopoly on force once you begin one. The Public Choice theory proven.

Jefferson said of the State they had created, “I consider the foundation of
the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated
to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people [10th
Amendment].’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus
specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession
of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any

Read the page. You'll notice something he says about "monopolies," and "violating the law of monopoly." In other words, he knew you shouldn't give the State a monopoly to do some things. But he didn't take his own logic to its full and logical conclusions. The State is a monopoly! A monopoly on certain types of violence! Aggressive violence rightly prohibited to individuals, but somehow sanctified and rendered moral by a group of men casting ballots! If an individual has no right to take money from a non-aggressor at gunpoint, how on earth do you propose that a group of individuals can bestow a right that they themselves do not have upon a third party?

They took that step beyond the boundaries. Anyone with a drop of understanding of human nature, and the proclivities of men with power, would have recognized that they would do that.

So here we are. They have possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. They do what they want. They ignore the Constitution, and laugh at anyone who complains that they don't adhere to the words written on it. The Constitution was a noble try, but you cannot bind a State with sheepskin shackles.

There will be peace, justice and order only when men voluntarily accept the Kingship of Christ over the reign Ammon-Ra (Mammon), the god of power.

MadDawg308 said...

I agree with most of the points - I was asking some of these questions myself when I saw the video of Baugh's talk. If he thinks rallies are not productive, why was he there?

Pat H. said...

I think Mr. Sofa has the long and short of it.

I'll say this, enough of the rallies already, what needs to begin now are planning meetings.

Let the Committees of Correspondence begin.

In earnest.

pdxr13 said...

I found TB's interviews on Stormfront Radio to be very mild when compared to their usual fare. He probably insisted on turning down the Racialist Progressivism horn of the US National Socialists for the duration of his appearance. Still, I don't want New Black Panthers or White Nationalists known as (or actually) my allies.

TB's ideas about avoiding the current control regime that makes employees expensive and hard to fire are not bad. If that is all that a person finds useful in "Starve the Monkeys", it's money well spent.

The black-hat/white-hat dichotomy didn't work for me. No plan will survive contact with the enemy for long, but decent preparation gives one the option to modify as needed and win when given the opportunity.

Don't shoot at the helicopter gunship with your rifle unless your buddies need bait to bring it in for the Stingers. That is the tip of a very powerful automated spear reaching around the world. Go to work on the rubber grips and wooden shaft, or the box it comes in.


Anonymous said...

Coupla good-humored disagreements:

Baugh was NOT mocking the attendants. To the contrary, he defended them as the last honest good effort to the media and the police, saying yes its uncomfortable, but these worthies still believe they can make a difference through protest, so stand with them.

Second, Baugh is NOT a 3per. He said he would be contrarian and likely told the organizers the same before he showed up. But the organizers felt he would be a good addition despite that, like as not due to his popularity.

Personally I find many of Baugh's ideas powerful stuff but his extended writings are rather flat and at times boring - matters of style. I think Baugh might say that's fair critique, but all the critiquing in the world is not what you need doing. And I can agree there.

All of that said I found the revelation that Baugh may be conoodling with NOI and SF disturbing. I'll watch it play out and make decisions as I see it develop.

Dakota said...

Very well said Bob .... as always Bob seems to have hit the head of the nail squarely.

As I have said many times ... we must restore our country to Constitutional governance .... whatever it takes is what it will take. Side issues by others who analyze to show how brilliant and wonderful they are are just that ... side issues and not of any importance. Whatever hat I wear it will be in the spirit of resistance against these commie bastards that mean to lay waste to my country and kill my children. Well said Bob.

Anonymous said...

I am not a fan of the repetitive, broadly unflattering descriptions of Baugh and his speech in Bob Wright's response.

And what is the big deal about having people hear a different take on the problems at hand? Are the listeners presumed to be incapable of making up their minds, or do they need to held spellbound by a specific and self-consistent message which Baugh disrupted? What'll happen when they go home and turn on Fox or CNN or Alex Jones?

I disagree with aspects of Baugh's book and speech, yet find that he makes plenty of interesting points. I would further opine that his speech is more dignified than some of the responses it has garnered.


Dedicated_Dad said...

I haven't bought his book, and have no other "ties" to baugh except reading and watching some of his stuff online.

I fear this "kerfluffle" is a tempest in a teapot, and born of a basic misunderstanding.

His "black-hat/white-hat" comments were directed to the cops and media present - and intended to make them understand that (1) the attendees were the NICEST of the bunch and (2) hopelessly outnumbered by the folks they OUGHT to be fearing.

Directed to the coops and media - and thus couched in terms they can comprehend.

NOT directed at us, or intended as insults TO us.

At least that's how *I* read his text of "speech" - and 2 subsequent readings did not change it in my mind...

That said, I agree that the LAST thing we need is SF or NoI to be involved -- although a successful attempt to make them work together might produce some benefits of its own...


Anonymous said...

Well ... I can assure you that the empire will not collapse and/or rebuild itself with a whimper. People are going to die. It serves their purpose to CULL the HERD. It HAS to happen eventually. And it will happen. That has been their plan all along. Your job is to make sure it backfires on them.

Unfortunately, as I have said before ... there WILL BE more than on front and competing interests ... all just as deadly as you.

Order out of chaos. May the best men win.

sweettina2 said...

Right on Mr Wright! Either Tommy is a commie or he has no balls to defend the Constitution..either way he should get the hell out of the way and let the real men handle things. And that goes for his sympathizers that made a few comments here.

Justin said...

Was my post too long?


Defender said...

Dad, I think you're in the X ring. It was a semi-humorous primer for the authorities and their lackeys. Baugh DOES sound like an anarchist a little bit, but "anarchy" simply means "no ruler," as in no state monopoly, as discussed by Patriot. We're not going to get THAT jack-in-the-box back in the can, but we each have the right and the duty to challenge the megalomaniacs at every level. To question authority.
I'm glad we're all here talking, unlike some "black hats" I know who fit sofa's profile of "Waiting for others to solve the problem while looking out for yourself is not a plan for victory." Their tactics consist of getting about 100 miles away from the nearest city and waiting out Temnota's asymmetric warfare if it happens. They USED TO call, write, email and visit their legislators and police chiefs and attend rallies. I learned that it's all about THEM, now, however. Tht's a personal choice, but not one I would make. That makes us appear weaker than we are. Thank goodness there are the other silent patriots as well, who are willing to stand together. We are, as y'all say, STRONGER than we appear.

RegT said...

Mr. Wright may have his heart in the right place, but his twisted view of what Tom Baugh appeared to be trying to do doesn't speak very well of Wright's ability to judge people, nor of his _own_ readiness to be derisive and divisive at a time when we need to be open to other views of the dangers we currently face, including the possibility that all attempts to peacefully restore the Constitution may be for naught.

It is ridiculous for Wright to accuse Baugh of wasting the rally's time. His comments were respectful of those who still feel there is a chance to stop short of the cartridge box. Does Wright have some sort of personal issues with Tom Baugh? His over-reaction seems to point in that direction.

I _have_ read STM, and while it isn't necessarily a recipe for resistance or restoration, I think it is a reasonable choice a person can make, even while preparing for the likelihood of our becoming the actual and bloody 21st century iteration of the Three Percent.

Mike B in NM said...

Bob, is a man I know and respect. He is emotional, as am I.
Fact is, the divisiveness needs to stop now!
When the time comes and it is coming, all true Patriots need to and I believe will come together.
Bob, I emailed you my feelings on this subject.
And Mike V, you need to cease and desist on this also.

Dennis308 said...

Gentlemen Please don´t take this wrong but I´m going to repeat what I commented over at the Restore the the Constitution site to Daniel he goes through the trouble of Dissecting Tom Baugh´s speech and shows more or less the valid points and the invalid ones also.

Daniel, thank you for dissecting what it was that Tom had to say. I was about to get to that on my own, I´ve started my own Blog Page I´m calling 1-4 Liberty it´s just Ideas that I´m putting into words at this time maybe just the Ratting of a Lunatic.

Any way Tom makes a couple of fairly good points in some of his comments especially about LEO´s and the Laimstream Media. I have been looking at the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers., To see if I can maybe figure out what the F–k happened as far as when and how did we get so far off base in following the Constitution. So far I can see that we started veering off course at the time of the Whiskey Rebellion. See Article 1 Section 8, I believe that the word uniform means equal back then. And the Government decided to single out and tax alcoholic beverages instead of all products that where produced, such as Furniture or Firearms or any number of other products. This happened while George Washington was President.

So even though the Constitution of the United States has been the Foundation of our Republic I still think we need to do some reform of it. I know that Amendments can be added but that could be directed by any Political Party that would have a super Majority in the Congress, Senate and White House, Almost like what we almost have now, not quite a 2 thirds but way to close for comfort from my point of view. See Article V. and see what Amendments where passed after the War of Northern Aggression. The Former Confederate States had NO say in the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments but likewise had not been allowed to succeed from the Union. I´m not saying that the 13Th and 14Th are not good amendments it´s just that I have more questions than answers.


Pat H. said...

Dennis308, you are absolutely correct. One has but to read Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) to find the facts about the conspiracy that eliminated the Articles of Confederation and substituted the Constitution. Then one should read The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo to gather the facts about the president who oversaw the murders of over 600,000 Americans in an illegal war and set the course for where we are today and to see that the Constitution needs to be abolished and the Articles of Confederation restored.

MamaLiberty said...

Emotional thinking is the realm of old women. This struggle must be populated with grown up men

As an "old woman," I resent the hell out of this nonsense. Talk about a negative stereotype! Bob Wright needs to revisit this idea carefully.

Nothing meaningful will be accomplished without the FULL participation of the adult and freedom oriented WOMEN in this country.

So, it would seem wise for you "grown up men" to work especially hard to include the women around you in all of your efforts.

Anonymous said...

Tom really pissed in the collective Cheerios bowl didn't he?

Anonymous said...

Bob Wright said:

“This struggle must be populated with grown up men who are willing to set aside all their prejudices, personal grudges, personal satisfaction and personal aggrandizement”

Wonder what condition the windows of his glass house are in?

Anonymous said...

[I]nstead of fixing a few relatively minor issues with the Articles, an entirely new form of government was established

[A]re such harsh words and resulting strife worth the three minutes' time in question, in particular because restoring the Constitution may well not be the wisest final goal to have?--PeacableGuy

I agree with you that The Articles of Confederation were somewhat superior to what followed and that Bob Wright's message was unnecessarily censorious and caustic but his main point is well taken.

Please keep in mind that the rally was held for the express purpose of organizing and sustaining a movement to restore the US Constitution. Using your own example, it is just as objectionable to subvert those proceedings and lead them in an anarchist direction as it was for the Contitutional delegates to exceed their authority and draft a new Constitution.


Anonymous said...

The State is a monopoly! A monopoly on certain types of violence!--Patriot

Monopoly! Violence! Oh, my!

What would you prefer then, a duopoly of violence--an oligopoly of force? Do you honestly want unhindered market competition to determine who is strongest and most ruthless? Crikey!

The reason for granting the state a monopoly on the initiation of force is too keep force and violence from expanding promiscuously.

That the state exercises force is not the problem so much as exercising it wrongly on occasion. That the state now exceeds its proper authority and must to return to its former orbit there can be no disagreement.

It will be necessary for we the people to guide it there, using such proportionate force as is required for that purpose. "Certain types of violence" are required to keep men honest in the same way that killers are necessary to punish murderers.

Lay off the anarchism. You cannot abolish the state without bringing about a worse state of affairs.


Anonymous said...

It would seem that Wright knows a lot about "spanking the monkey" and nothing about the book.--Anon@4:13

We'll just have to see who goes blind first, Wright or Baugh but anarchists already start out half-blind because they can't see the necessity for government. ;^)


Justin said...

I sent a fairly long post yesterday concerning this. Either the gremlins intercepted it, or you refused to post it.

If you declined to post it, it must have really touched a nerve for you to have censored it. This is disappointing, to say the least.

You let Madcow's legions post here, as profane and disgusting as they were, yet you did not allow my post, which merely points out some contradictions in Mr Wright's logic and yours as well.

I must say, if it was indeed censored, I am very, very disappointed.

The gist of my post was this:

You have used the white hat/black hat analagy yourself. You used it just after the first RTC rally, I believe. I can provide references, if you wish.

Mr Wright is an unknown to me. Never heard of him. By his own logic, his lack of credentials in my eyes and the fact that I have never received a bean or bullet from him discredits him. So someone isn't credible unless I've seen them in action(preposterous) or unless they've given me something (how monkey-ish)??? That is not my logic, but his. Then there's the whole high-school level insult and play on the "monkey" phrase. How intelligent of Mr Wright.

And neither of you have, by your own admission, read STM. Wow. I learned long ago never to attack anything I don't understand. It usually ends up making one look foolish.

My other post that did not, for whatever reason, make it through was more articulate and developed, and was a bit more in depth. I don't really feel like writing the whole thing again.

Sounds like Mr Baugh has lived up to his title as a professional irritant.


Patriot said...

"The reason for granting the state a monopoly on the initiation of force is too keep force and violence from expanding promiscuously."

Do you mean to say that you think the most efficacious way to stem the unjust expansion of force and violence is to surrender your power into the hands of a handful of men chosen by Joe Average?

200,000,000 people were slaughtered in the 20th Century, Malthus. No individual, group of individuals, or institution could possibly had that power without A) The ability to forcibly take money (tax) and B) the ability to enslave other people, on pain of imprisonment or death, to fight for its continued existence (conscript.)

200,000,000 people, Malthus. Dead. I've seen what happens when power is concentrated in the hands of a select few. It won't be the Chosen Ones' feet getting trenchfoot. It won't be their best friends getting cut in half by a bouncing betty in some forsaken hellhole 6,000 miles away. They have every incentive to use violence against other people, and very little disincentive. It's easy to put someone in power. Then they burrow into the body politic like ticks, sucking the lifeblood of the people. Then they're nearly impossible to remove.

I'd rather that people "place not their trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help." I'd rather they would stick to the message behind 1 Samuel 8.

The more that power is diffused among the people, the safer society is. There is no way that a bunch of individuals, or even a group of individuals could have racked up the slaughter and destruction anywhere near the level of that achieved in the 20th Century. Politicians don't have to use their own money to fund their massive wars. They can steal other people's money, and when so many people give politicians more credence and legitimacy than the common thugs and robbers they are? That is when the trouble begins.

Anonymous said...

Because I generally find Malthus's posts very well done and insightful, I am baffled by his flippant and indefensible treatment of state monopoly of force.

What more is there to say?


David Hamel said...

Letter to Tom Baugh Part1. Mr. Vanderboegh, please feel free to edit or delete this comment as you deem appropriate, and I apologize if you've received multiple copies, I got an "uri too large" type of error.

Mr. Baugh:

Although I believe you don't need helioproctology from anyone, perhaps this may suffice as a small piece of philosophical armor, or at hopefully at least worth the time it took to skim.

It is often sad to see apparently otherwise good, decent men viciously lashing out in pain at other good decent men due to conflicting philosophical views, such as at

Notwithstanding statements like "we must use our minds and not our emotions," the personal viciousness and complete absence of any attempt at intellectual challenge to the basic premises underlying your thesis are unmistakable indicators of someones paradigm being stretched beyond the limit.

Taken to its logical conclusion, I am always disturbed by the realization that some (perhaps most) people would choose to die rather than think.

It is no coincidence that Mike Vanderboegh is sometimes (frequently!?) similarly attacked by those some might consider to be otherwise good, decent men.

I have carefully listened (and relistened) to some of your online presentations, and carefully read (and reread) a few of your online pieces, and have felt the discomfort of having my premises (sometimes held implicitly) challenged.
... To be continued...

David Hamel said...

Letter to Tom Baugh Part2. Mr. Vanderboegh, please feel free to edit or delete this comment as you deem appropriate, and I apologize if you've received multiple copies, I got an "uri too large" type of error.

For instance, I consider your outreach to individuals of character and intelligence within the Islamic community brilliant.

Although I realize that human characteristics occur along a bell curve and that there are only a very few really "good"* (*good being any particular virtue) people and they are spread across every socioeconomic, ethnic, racial AND philosophical spectrum, I had fallen into the intellectual trap set by our elites pitting "us" (Judeo Christian Westerners) against "them" (Entire Islamic World).

Thank you for that paradigm shift (and there was more than one).

I welcome ANYONE who chooses to respect (in word and in deed) fundamental individual rights, and I recognize the morality underlying the proper response to ANYONE who chooses to violate (whether directly or by proxy) those same INALIENABLE rights. And of course there is the painful fact that nearly all people at some point in time in their lives are of mixed character.

BTW, I enjoyed hearing Boston T. Party speak when he came to Edmonton, Alberta a few years back, and I believe we're going to very soon be in life or death critical need of intelligent lateral thinkers such as Boston, Mr. Vanderboegh and yourself, for as Einstein succinctly put it: "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."

I would respectfully offer some (almost certainly needlessly redundant) feedback to you by suggesting your argument might benefit from a change in metaphor from the White Hat/Black Hat. I personally had to make very minor adjustments because of my own internal association between good guys (I thought I'm a good guy?)(white hat) and bad guys (black hats). This is in spite of the fact that black is my favorite color of clothing (nothing to match, it goes with everything!)

I most sincerely wish you and your loved ones,
All the Best and Good Premises!


David Hamel

P.S. I find it amusing that you used the word Monkeys in your book. I started using it a few years ago referring to what you call a "Choad".

Anonymous said...

“More Like Dark Helmet
By: Tom Baugh
Featured Liberty News Radio Columnist
Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:01:56 CDT

3. SPLC and ADL

Yeah. They wish they were as influential as some of you think they are. Getting labeled by these guys as "bad people" is a badge of honor in many circles. I can't wait to get my badge, but I'm going to earn it honestly with my ideas, not because I provoked them. Make sure Mike shows you those emails, too, and explains what he tried to get me to do (remember Mike, you opened this can of worms, not me).”

Mr. Vanderboegh,

So I am curious. What it was you tried to get Mr. Baugh to do?

Thank you for your time,
Wayd Walker

Boston T. Party said...

Dedicated_Dad has it right:

Baugh's white/black hat metaphor was one of intended enlightenment (for media and LE), and not dispargement. Thus, Wright's entire diatribe was based on a false premise.

Two false premises, actually.

Wright's "Was the author truly so ignorant of human history when he asserted that the first seven articles of the Constitution was not about liberty but about power? Is he unaware of the unprecedented level of control on GOVERNMENT that document represents?" may have been understandably swallowed back in 1950s civic classes, but modern research (including my own book, Hologram of Liberty) and modern tyranny have shattered that illusion.

We are today living under constitutional government. There is nothing to "go back" to. (The lovely century of 1835 to 1935 was only a time where the USG did not fully exercise its constitutional powers.)

Boston T. Party said...

The disparity between I:8:18 mere "necessary" limiting Congress, and the I:10:2 "absolutely necessary" limiting the States is a real clue.

Also, the 10th Amendment draft originally had "expressly delegated" and Madison saw to it that "expressly" was cut out. The 10A is powerless for the goal of State reimpowerment. SCOTUS has ruled so in with their implied powers doctrine, which does not offend the 10A.

We are today living under constitutional government.

What we need -- what we've always needed since 1783 -- is a Swiss-style confederation. Until our well-meaning/though underinformed constitutionalists comprehend this, their efforts will be frustratingly for naught.

This is all that Baugh was getting at. And, if anybody is qualified to "piss on my Constitution", it's an Annapolis grad, USMC officer, Gulf War vet. (What's less clear is if former rodeo riders are qualified to piss on Tom Baugh.)

It is Wright's shrill defense of the Constitution that is an example of "emotional thinking" -- not Baugh's intellectual challenge of that document written by our Founding Lawyers.

"Mr. Baugh has certainly sent some of our campers screaming into the night, questioning their most deeply held beliefs, the motivations of their brethren, and the very foundation of our great republic. Shame on you."

Count me in, Bob, for it appears that I am the one who got Baugh asking such questions himself. Well, who got me asking them in the first place? Oh, such tri-cornered hat "traitors" as Thomas Jefferson and the Antifederalists of Patrick Henry and Sam Adams.

Let Wright wrestle with THAT paradox.