Those "Gambits for Deception" remind me a lot of the constant calls for language control and change from the Kokesh camp, and the endless accusations aimed at others of being "divisive" for asking honest questions.
It is also strange to me that Kokesh directly implies other libertarians, such as @larkenrose, for example, are "cointel pro." Why is such accusation necessary? Is there something to hide? Is it a projection? All questions that can fairly be asked.
Calls for unity are also often massive gambits for deception.
It seems strange for a self-proclaimed "voluntaryist anarchist" to morally shame individuals for not being political, for using the term "anarchist," and for asking honest questions.
Another great cover up for disinformation elements in the "movement" would be to project these accusations outward and call for "unity."
You have got to be joking. It is you who is throwing hurdles into the paths of those of us who are choosing to actually fight the political system instead of just ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
^ There it is again. The “utopian” “ignoring” thing.
Adam and I already dealt with this one in our discussion/debate. Asserting that building alternative systems and not supporting a violence-based system is “doing nothing” or “hoping it goes away” always strikes me as such a weird perspective.
I guess politicking is just another man’s “hoping it goes away” then, by that standard.
Refusing to be involved with the political system is implicit support for the status quo. The statists don’t want non-statists involved. That way they can just keep voting for themselves and claiming “consent.”
When non-statists are involved in the political system it is explicit discontent for the status quo. Look, nobody is telling you to vote for statists, or to stop growing your own food, or to stop creating alternative systems. Do all of those things! And also be involved with the political process. Fight them at every opportunity.
With the political system as the status quo, this is one of the most logically self-detonating statements one could make.
The old parties are the status quo. Someone running on the platform of dissolving the system is not.
Adam has said that even if there were a 90% majority of anarchists united in non-compliance, the entrenched 10% of the state would still point guns and keep the state in existence.
Why is it that he expects a majority of people involved in political action not to have those same guns pointed at them?
The status quo political system (which Adam will use) will not end itself by its own mechanisms. It is an immoral system built and dependent upon violence. But they will magically let him win and dissolve the Fed?
Fight the political system from within it? No, don't ignore it but do walk away. We are in the middle of doing that for the banking system, right? Banks are the real government too.
There's no hope in changing the system from within it. Then we have the walk away option or the bloody revolution option. I prefer the walking away option for now.
The difference is, the banks don't own a monopoly on violence. They don't break your door down and flashbang your family. Creating alternate systems is what it's all about, but refusing to be involved in the political system is precisely what they want you to do.