IPFS Brock Lorber

More About: Philosophy of Liberty

What's Your Plan B?

Your Plan A is great.  I swear, I've never seen a better plan than your writing, downsize, restore the republic, power to the people, move 20,000, sign-waving, sit-in, reclaim, take over, chanting, nullify, vote-the-bastards-out plan.  As far as I can see, it's foolproof.

What's Plan B?

Look, I know how it is.  You hit on THE SOLUTION.  It may take some work, but it can't miss.  So, you may have scrimped on Plan B's details since you're not going to need it.  Just please sketch it out in broad strokes so we can have a look.

You do have a Plan B, don't you?

I can tell you what Plan B is not.  Plan B is not to turn violent and have a snowball's chance in Miami of succeeding.  You don't have the hardware – weapons, ammo, aircraft, tanks, artillery – or the cannon fodder to even contemplate a violent plan.  I promise you this: you will face the entire Chinese Army in Cheyenne, Wyoming before Washington D.C. ever bows to one of your demands.

The right protected in the second amendment to the US Constitution is an individual right in case you ever need to defend yourself against a tyrannical government; you know that, I know that, anyone who is intellectually honest knows that.  But, functionally, the right protected under the second amendment is the individual right to cold, dead hands.

If your Plan B involves violence, it is not a plan at all; it's suicide.

Maybe you think "we" outnumber "them" so, as good as it is, if Plan A were to fail, Plan B will be obvious to all and the mob will rise up and take over City Hall, Wall Street, and Washington D.C. with pitchforks and torches and squirrel rifles and "they" won't fight back and the mob will institute...what?  More of the same, only different?

Can Plan B be non-violent?

The greater the chance of success of Plan A, the more likely you are committed to it.  The more committed to it you are, the greater emotional attachment you have.  The more emotional attachment you have the more likely you will feel personally devastated on the off chance Plan A fails.  The more personally devastated you are, the greater anger you will feel and, in absence of a clearly defined Plan B, the more prone you are to contemplate violence as Plan B.

You've all heard the question, "where's your line in the sand?" with the implication being that there's some thing that your masters and overlords could do in the future that will motivate you to a violent Plan B.  But, if Plan B is non-violent, you can admit that your line was crossed a long damn time ago and that got you motivated enough to get off the couch and enact Plan A.  And, if Plan A doesn't work, you're going to go to Plan B.  And, if Plan B doesn't work, you're going to Plan C.

Maybe, somewhere in all these plans, there is a lesson.  Maybe plan after plan fails because, though nominally non-violent, they contain threats of violence and those threats are not credible.  Downsize, or what?  Restore, or what?  Reclaim, vote, overtake...or what?

If your Plan B is violence (or, the same, you lack a Plan B), you won't live to learn that lesson or which of the Plans B through whatever worked.

So, I won't disabuse you of your Plan A.  As far as I know it is going to succeed and, when it does, you're going to teach me something.  But, I strongly suggest that you have a Plan B and that Plan B is non-violent if for no other reason than to spare me the media reports about what a horrible, violent person you were.

16 Comments in Response to

Comment by Randy Rowe
Entered on:

To be honest I wasnt aware of Don T. Hutto Detention Facility. Ill have to look into it. I know in a head to head fight we wouldnt stand a chance. But i think the mentality of resistance is important, the idea that if you come for me I will fight, i think to a small degree keeps them from coming. Im shure you have seem the "I will not comply" VID.... 

It applies to whats happening right now, we are just in the begining stages which is why its so important to have these discussions.

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

Sorry, unfair question.  Rather, where is the mob uprising to free the families currently detained in the Don T. Hutto Detention Facility? 

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

Randy, good question that gets right to the heart of my point: offering passivism or suicide as the only option is a false dichotomy. 

There are an array of options, from not being there when they come looking for you to sabotage from within a detention center and everything in between.  You can take your stand, but make it your choice not just an ad hoc suicide mission.

But, again, that line was crossed a long damn time ago.  It seems to me that if you are worried about your family being loaded onto trains and taken to detention centers, you would be doing everything you can to close the detention centers that already exist and free the people within.

So, what are you doing to free the families detained in the Don T. Hutto detention facility?

Comment by Randy Rowe
Entered on:

Do you have a line in the sand... Will you defend yourself and family if they decide our mere presence will no longer be tolerated, or will we go peacefully like the jews. Violence is always a last option, as futile it may be. When the idea of independence from britian was first getting thrown around no one thought that was possible.

Comment by Craig Lorenz
Entered on:

What you are forgetting is that as more people lose jobs and society deteriorates, there will be more and more violence anyway. Obviously, the army (or whoever) can't be everywhere at once. The only option for the gov't will be to declare martial law and that may not even be enough to contain the revolting masses. What is the plan then?

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

This thread seems to have become unidimensional. My point was that we're in a period of social conflict that might probably escalate due to economic factors. However this does not make violence inevitable and it's still not the only option on the table.

The self-reliance crew deals in withdrawl from conflict.

The Ghandian model seeks out conflict but refuses to commit violence. They soak it up like sponges. This example turned indigenous for us with Dr. King.

And the most violent thing the RP R3VOlUTION has done to date was lob a few snow balls at Sean Hannity and even the snow ball throwers got shouted down by more responsible brothers.

Except for a few hundred thousand Ron Paul R3VOlUTION signs all over the nation, we clean up after ourselves, we're polite to cops, and even when we didn't pick up the signs, the cops did so that worked out pretty spiffy.

Heck, our most radical and empassioned stand against "the Evil Empire" seems to be getting ourselves thrown in jail. That's pretty passive on our part. 

OK, there is Ed Brown, but he got himself repudiated by most of the movement for his downright hostile rhetoric. The fact that we sympathized with his plight did not change the eventual realization that Ed had bats in the belfry.

It may be that we are indeed "hope for America".

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

There are unsuccessful guerrilla operations all around the world every day.  The very minuscule set of examples where sustained guerrilla tactics have won or assisted in wresting a geographic area from TPTB have resulted in either dictatorships or more of the same just different.

The notable exceptions are separations of American colonies from the European empires.  But, those have a specific set of circumstances (plenty of uncontrolled territory to run to) that I don't think will ever be replicated again on earth.

Powell, you said it in the end: "if liberty is to reign there must be a change in the philosophy of the individual to act individually, and to laugh and make fun of group think.  While that is nonviolent education we are out of time.  So such education if it is to be done will occur on the run."

But, if Plan A was that education and it has so obviously failed, what on earth could be the rational for believing that education/transformation can or will occur on the run?

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

As far as your what are you planning, torches and pitchforks and the mob takes over and institutes what...more of the same?

That is indeed what will happen if "leaders" rise up and direct the mob.  Humans seem keen on appointing or accepting those who call themselves leaders as persons to follow and obey.  It is very primate behavior in communities.  Humans have the capacity to exceed their instincts.  Their brains have radically shifted from primate brains and biology, even compared to other great apes. But overcoming instinct has to be individually fought (and taught). 

So how does one fight a violent revolution and now welcome in the new bosses, sames as the old bosses?  That is the question.

Clearly if a civil war breaks out and a leadership dominated hierarchy dominates both sides the current situation will remain no matter who "wins" after the dust settles.

I don't know the answer.  But I do believe that from chaos comes order.  And I suspect spontaneous, leaderless resistance is a chance for the end of hierarchy.  It would be chaotic.  Seemingly wasteful and non-maximizing of resources.  But I think  compensated by lack of obvious coordination towards a focused goal.  That can be very frustrating for a hierarchy engaged in battle.  Americans used to wage such wars.  Just ask the British and to an extent the Germans. Their were elements of organized hierarchy.  But some of the most effective were guerilla outfits who massed to harry and then went back to their farms.  They didn't control an area, but did make it more expensive to operate opposing forces in that area.  Market forces pushed opposing forces into areas with less cost or more value.  The German experience in WWII is certainly organized hierarchy, but a loose plan in which every soldier understands the overall objective of the day.  That means when the battle starts, individual units work towards a common goal even in a chaotic environment.  The power in this is the chaos eventually resolves itself as the seeming superior organized hierarchy can't seem to stop the numerous and unpredictable advances by smaller forces seeking a common goal. 

Modern US military doctrine fails, not because it is unwise, but because there is no goal beyond keeping boots on the ground and dominating from the air.  This is deliberate on the part of "leaders."  It shows how foolish young US military personnel are...allowing their lives to be put in great jeopardy to control wealth for a few who are at little risk being absent from the scene.  It demonstrates the power of public school indoctrination and corporate media propaganda to instill pride in public service and sacrifice.  When in fact the public good never enters into the facilitation of wealth transfer from the production of the world into the pockets of the "leaders."  There are never ending wars to justify the loss of individual wealth and to facilitate the suppression of dissent to the leaders orders.

In the end, if liberty is to reign there must be a change in the philosophy of the individual to act individually, and to laugh and make fun of group think.  While that is nonviolent education we are out of time.  So such education if it is to be done will occur on the run.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Powell, I quite agree. Recent history is replete with non-violent transformations of society (former USSR and practically all of it's former satelites).

It does seem to have something to do with a whole population achieving or having achieved critical mass. In the former USSR, the critical mass was simply everybody, everybody from the top to the bottom of that society knew it was total bullshit. That's why the soldiers didn't fire. They knew, their commanders knew the system was total and complete bullshit.

After that, all that was needed was the old catylizing event which was handily supplied by a coup against a popular reformist.

So your Rosa Parks analogy is totally fair in that black people indeed had to endure slavery and many, many deaths to achieve their level of saturation.

However, neither speaks to our situation now. Half the nation is now statist. We are experiencing social conflict. The nature of this conflict is primarily ideological, but this has been the basis for much social conflict around the world.

In a fragmenting empire with plenty of hardship in it's future, ideology is really more than enough to cause a confrontation. Religion usually does as well but for us it's gonna be ideology.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Brock, you are quite correct, as a R3VOlUTIONARY, saying "we" in any circumstance, even getting into a taxi, is very, very shaky territory.

How would I have defined "we" is this was "our" action? I would have heard about it waaaaaay before it happened, that's how. The idea would have been floated, mutilated, discussed with people in other cities, people in other cities calling me to ask if I know this or that person and is this legit, deals happening with our many micro broadcast stations, stages getting set up, lights, cameras, action, live video feeds from everyplace, 24 hour coverage. That's roughly how.

Other than that, there's no us.

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:


"I see little chance for freedom won nonviolently."

What chance do you see for freedom won violently? 

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

Oyate, you aren't being egged and I'm not being egged.  I think your collective "we" is a bit thin. (I'm going to rid you of that collectivism if it kills me). ;-)

However, we are in 100% agreement, which is why we both end up with opinion pieces within a few minutes of each other saying, essentially, the same thing.

Let me float one bubble.  What is the purpose of government (and government types)?  Protection of individual rights?

I don't think so.  I think I don't need anyone to protect my rights in absence of conflict.  So, I think that, if I were a government-type looking for a raison d'etre, it would be in my best interest to create conflict.

Now, obviously, there is some conflict outside government.  However, everywhere, every time government is involved in anything whatsoever, there is conflict.  Government is a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict and violence.

Who would ever guess that institutionalizing violence in the name of preventing violence would institutionalize violence?

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

I will say since I brought up Rosa Parks--and there was markedly little violence after that, compared to historical norms for repression, something someone else asked: Can we shed socialism (corporatism) as readily as the USSR did, like an old sweater?  A great question, but the answer is the sweater is just a cover. The persons in charge are still in charge.  They just call themselves capitalists now.  They are still the same gang with a flag.  I see little chance for freedom won nonviolently.   That would require a huge mindset difference.  An important one, but I am afraid we are out of time.  You can still change some people's minds and free them from their dependence on government.  But government is not likely to allow you your freedom in the cities within the next two years.  And it will look for outlying property to feed their slaves.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

My plan B is to kick back and laugh (as much as I am able) as everything all goes to hell.  Plan A is to point out Plan B.   Plan C is to survive.  And Plan D is pure violence.  But you don't have to worry about what you read, as the only ones printing by then will be those printing government orders and government victories.  I give Plan B two years max.  I give Plan D two years to two centuries max.  I may not be around by then.  But sooner or later the slaves will rise up...there is always that one final person who stands up and is joined by the mob; they always do.  It is just that a lot of people have to die before Rosa Parks rises.  Anger just has to build that way.  One body at a time.

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Brock, what's disturbing to me is we're being egged into this. Right and left activists are getting duped into this by their partisan "representatives" and the think tanks and action coalitions that do their work for them.

We're seeing democrats roll out muscle, the first violent encounters have already ocurred. Again, knowing this isn't US is highly disturbing to me. This isn't R3VOlUTION March with 35 trained non-violence organizers with radios watching over it. These aren't veterans that know not to be hostile and encourage dialog.  This really is more of a rabble than anything I've ever participated in.

If there's a plan-B now, it's to get to these events and simply prevent violence.

I recall our wisdom durning DNC and RNC. Many of the youngers wanted to hit the streets and give 'em hell. Among us olders was a consensus that this was walking into a trap.

The wisdom of putting a RIVER between us and the RNC was great.

Comment by Ducati Jeanne
Entered on:

 Wow! eloquently put, mind blowing .....hope and futility of purpose all in one article? I want to read this great piece again and discuss it over a couple of glasses of red wine.