Strategy for the antisocial struggle.
This is a translation of a Romanian article, which came up recently.
"Anticommunist struggle" sounds goodi, "antisocial struggle" sounds badii. Probably in the manner that USians shooting Pakistanis are heroes to be respected, while Pakistanis that set US up the bomb are insufferable and unsuffered, god damned Goldsteins.iii
How bad or good it may sound has no impact on it being in fact a struggle, and being a struggle it lends itself to the strategic approach. For convenience let's just pick the bank robbery aspect - doubtlessly part of the struggle of man against society in its widest senseiv Before theory, let us consider a specific example, which some of you may be familiar with, through reading me, while a majority no doubt never heard of it, seeing how we are after all on the Internet. So :
Emil Matasareanu was an USian of Romanian orgin who, together with an actual USian (as actual as any USian can ever be, which isn't very much) by the name of Larry Phillips went into robbing banks. This was no amateur hour : they made their own, military level armor, that couldn't really be pierced by the police of the timev and modified various assault weaponsvi so as to massacre with maximal efficiency the responding personnel.
To their - and the police's - misfortune, a patrol spotted them going into the bank and sounded the alarm, so they never got around to using their exit plan. When confronted by police they opened fire and killed a number of policemen. Special forces came in great haste, helicopters, stuff like that. Our guys had 99 problems but shooting cops wan't one of them. Or shooting at the helicopters, shooting at the SWAT, one of them exchanged fire for six minutes against a team of four. Thousands of rounds were fired, hundreds of policemen responded out of which thousands about a dozen died (so 6:1). Plus a dozen or so civillians or thereabouts, I forget. A whole story.
One killed himself, the other died from blood loss (probably because the police didn't allow the ambulances in, because hey, protect and serve and all that). It is worth noting that by this point the two had already stolen about two million dollars from other banksvii and also held up an armored truck, thus earning the "high incident bandits" nickname.
And now we're in a position to discuss the subject of this article. So, from the perspective of man's struggle against society, the weakest strategy is the one presented in all made-for-TV moviesviii. That scenario goes something like, "you go into the bank, you try to get out, if you don't manage to get out you "negotiate" with the police". The truth is that you've got nothing to negotiate. The stuff about airplanes and buses to the airport and whatnot is a fable, the whole and entire point of "negotiation" is for them to keep you talking until you become mentally exhausted enough so they can storm the place.
One level above would be arming yourself properly. If you go out, fine, if you don't get out then you open fire freely at the police. Let's find out who's the chickenshit. It is improbable you'll ever walk out of something like that, but you do get to take with you more enemies than your skin's worth, because it's certainly more expensive for society to pay all the pensions and insurance policiess of a dozen dead cops than it would have been to just let you walk with a coupla million dollars.
Still, this intermediate step is yet not really much of a strategy, just a kind of pointless game to be played by strong willed guys bereft of useful leadership. The actually ideal strategy is to go in and rob the bank. If the police doesn't show up, off you go to your business. If the police does show up, butcher the civillians. Which is to say : all of them. No hesitation, no pity, focus on maximizing the extension of the carnage. Two-three hundred people at a minimum should be no problem in a well circulated area (and if it is a problem get out of the sticks).
After which you'll probably die. So what ? This is a minor concern if you consider that a) you'll die anyway and b) once the police knows that if they respond there will be hundreds of deaths whereas if they don't respond there's not going to be any deaths, they have no further choices open to them. Plain and simple, they won't be allowed within ten miles of the place of the robbery, because three hundred dead at two million a pop comes to about half a billion out of the insurance company bottom line, whereas you can't practically steal more than a few million, seeing how you can't carry it. In fact, this is how the rule that they clerks will let you rob the bank came about - the only victory of man against society in the modern era. The correct strategy is always the thing that worked, never the thing that looked good [on TV]. Stick to what works.
This has been, by chance or not, the strategy applied by the Mexican cartels pushing drugs up north towards the US, and they've by now pretty much won in the field that mystycal "war on drugs" the federal authorities keep claiming to have won every 2-3 years since '72. North Mexico certainly belongs to the Cartels, south Texas and California do in practice even if here and there the Feds try to keep the talk up.
The moral being that society is not able to handle decisive people. It never was, it never will be, it simply can't. All that it can do is submit, trying its best to filter out and retouch the stronger contours wherever possible. In other words, society is the woman in the man-society relationship. If you let her make the rules she'll climb atop your head. If you go by what's coming out her mouth you'll end up drinkin tea in a miniskirt complete with stockings and garter belts. If on the other hand you grab her by the scruff of the neck and take her over the knee she'll happily suck your cock, glowing red butt and all. Basic stuff.
This also goes towards they who are unhappy that girls dig bad boys when they'd be ready to instead love them and respect them and have a great sense of humor. Same exact problem : women go with the decisive because they have no choice. That's all there is to it.
That's all there is to it, even if here and there you may find individuals that try to keep the talk up.———
- This is especially true in Romanian. Thinking "antiracist" instead of anticommunist doesn't begin to suggest the scope of this difference. I don't think anyone since the Nazis inspired quite as universally shared odium as the communists did. For that matter, most Romanians, like most Ukrainians, or Serbs would readily prefer the Nazis to the commies. [↩]
- This good/bad alternation profits from a well known (among the educated elite) point regarding Transylvania's native population (Motii). These people were generally hostile to the Hungarian leadership for as long as Transylvania was the larger part of the Hungarian kingdom. They were a hardy mountain folk, who did whatever it took to survive, such as hiding better nuggets found in the gold mines in their ass, to deny it to the "owners". Such as cutting the bark of trees down low around the root, so the trees dry out and can be "legally" cut down. Stuff like that.
These actions were greatly encouraged by the Romanian "revolutionaries" - an essentially oral, sterile intellectual concern of little practical importance. Once the political situation changed, and Transylvania became the larger part of the Romanian kingdom, the very same practices that were once heroic and frothily praised in newspapers suddenly turned into outright shameful, degrading acts that no real patriotic Romanian would ever do. Obviously, the Hungarian language verbiage of times past was saying exactly the same fucking thing, in a different language. These people however weren't either Hungarian or Romanian, and so you see...
We're not part of your fucking society. Be it communist, socialist, utopian, idealist, humanist, democratic, progressive or whatever the fuck it is. Pack it and get lost. [↩]
- Review the classics. [↩]
- Stalin can confirm. [↩]
- Beretta 92 in a number of variants, all old, S&W 38s and in some cases those broomsticks people use to act tough in movies, 12-gauge Ithaca Model 37 pump action. [↩]
- K-91 si AKM, stuff you certainly respect if you're into playing Fallout. And speaking of which : USians make a big deal of this supposed right to bear arms that's the fundament of their (perceived) liberty and it says in the Constitution blablabla. In actual fact, they have the right to carry toy guns, that are intentionally ineffectual against the police, let alone the army, a constraint illustrated for instance by the immediate change in legislation as to allowed weapons, allowed imports and police equipment once these guys showed that the weaponry available to civillians is actually effectual. As such, the fact that some chitlins in the rural South spend each weekend emptying revolvers and 40 caliber handguns with 8 bit magazines into sand sacks is about as important for "liberty" as kids playing with squirt guns. Let them try to buy some usable assault rifles, watch the paperworks. [↩]
- These are pre-Bush dollars, worth a lot more than the post-Obama crud. [↩]
- Deliberately taught by the media, because that's the principal point of TV : to put out stuff to be learned by rote by a herd of cattle, as a commentator well pointed out a year ago. Well done, dood. [↩]
Friday, 27 February 2015
A guy told me one time.. do not allow yourself to get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.
Friday, 27 February 2015
FWIW, I am aware such a quote is a good example of footnote viii.
Friday, 27 February 2015
Lol was that guy Neil McCauley ?
Friday, 27 February 2015
Yes and he's not the only Heat character based on a real life one. Voight's character Nate is based on Edward Bunker.
I assume you have seen Heat but if not, perhaps a review would be fitting given this article itself, time permitting.
Saturday, 28 February 2015
Odd that I haven't already actually.
Sunday, 17 May 2015
>society is not able to handle decisive people
The communists know this. This is why their strategy is succeeding.
Sunday, 17 May 2015
Except the communists can't ever have decisive people. Revolutionaries can, and often enough the decisive don't give a shit about what kind of revolution's involved. But once that's done and communism settles in, Lenin is forced to admit that either they lose the mommentum or else they give up on communism.