Re: [FSP] Survivalist Communities and FSP
>> This would only get us labeled crazies. I would like to see FSPWell, if we're having a nuclear war, to hell with survival. I'm working
>> itself from any such effort.
> You don't have to send out a press release. In fact, you'd want to
> it semi-private so everyone and their brother (including local
> authorites) don't raid your stashes. At least people can start
> about it in case there is a few weeks lead up to the war so they can
> IMMEDIATELY get stores, throw dirt over the basement windows, etc.
> Unless we get serious nuclear disarmament going, world nuclear war is
> inevitable with 10 years.
on my credit rating so I can live the last years of my life in luxury
before the holocaust!
Philip L. Welch
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 23:21, Philip L. Welch wrote:
> >> This would only get us labeled crazies. I would like to see FSPI don't think an all-out nuclear exchange a-la the "cold war" is likely
> >> distance
> >> itself from any such effort.
> > You don't have to send out a press release. In fact, you'd want to
> > keep
> > it semi-private so everyone and their brother (including local
> > authorites) don't raid your stashes. At least people can start
> > THINKING
> > about it in case there is a few weeks lead up to the war so they can
> > IMMEDIATELY get stores, throw dirt over the basement windows, etc.
> > Unless we get serious nuclear disarmament going, world nuclear war is
> > inevitable with 10 years.
> Well, if we're having a nuclear war, to hell with survival. I'm working
> on my credit rating so I can live the last years of my life in luxury
> before the holocaust!
in 10 years.
What I deem somewhat likely in the next 10-20 years is some form of
nuclear or radiological terrorism, where those who are truly fed up with
the US and its hegemony and imperialistic tactics nuking either NYC or
Still, one can never be too sure about anything. China could take a turn
for the worst, though my thoughts on them is that they are too
interested in building up their capitalistic infrastructure (which is
strongly based on the US) to go that route.
Then my mind keeps going back to the old Soviet Union and what happened
to all of its many nuclear bombs. I could see a "small" number of them,
say, 100, slipping into the hands of those fed up with US foreign
policy. And we know Russia is not too great lately in its accounting
I do caution appearing alarmist in the face of the media. But we should
discuss these possibilities amongst ourselves.
And needless to say, all the great plans of our "friendly" government to
crack down on our travel and other rights and privacy will not do a darn
thing to stop it.
"We'll all go together when we go" -- NOT! Sorry Tom Lehr, some of us
are smarter than that...
What I do see even more likely is the total economic collapse of the US
Federal government in the next 10-20 years or so. We should discuss that
too, what it would mean, and how to survive it. It's all a matter of how
long loaner nations are willing to continue to prop up the US debt. When
they get sick of that, look out. And the fallout from that -- no pun
intended -- might pose much more of a threat than a "terrorist" nuclear
bomb or two.
Freedom Fred <fred@...>
- If you think that the threat is real--and I agree that some kind of
nuclear threat is very real--you should redouble your FSP efforts.
I am sure that we could all find some more room in our busy
schedules. Other non-FSP approaches should be pursued elsewhere,
like this gulching strategy, which I consider to be an unacceptably
What would Gandhi do?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Secession.net/ Carol Moore
contact" <contact@s...> wrote:
> Per the below, their is a growing possibility thatNeocon/Bush/Israel's
> threats of attacks on Iran -- and Iran's counter threats likebelow --
> will lead to a war that will soon go locally nuclear and thenspiral out
> of control into Pakistan/India/US/Russia/China/Israel exchangingnuclear
> attacks with perceived enemies. (Seehttp://carolmoore.net/nuclearwar
> for various scenarios/info)interested
> MY QUESTION: Is Anyone in FSP (and esp. Mid-Atlantic region)
> in organizing any kind of survivalist efforts? Safe houses (orShould
> basements) at least 50 miles from likely targets, preferable in
> mountains; supplies of food/water; agricultural supplies; etc.
> we start a libertarian-survivalist yahoogroup?bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=3131
> Iran warns of preemptive strike on U.S. forceson its
> 8/19/2004 12:30:00 PM GMT
> Rear-Admiral Shamkhani said Tehran would respond to a U.S. attack
> nuclear facilities.against
> Source: AFP
> For the first time, Tehran has threatened a preemptive strike
> U.S. troops in the region.others
> When asked if Iran would respond to a U.S. attack on its nuclear
> facilities, Iranian Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani told Al Jazeera TV
> Wednesday "We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what
> will do to us,"present,
> "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive
> operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly,
> "America is not the only one present in the region. We are also
> from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulfand we
> can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani.threats
> War of words has heated up in recent weeks as an exchange of
> between Israel and Iran led to speculation of a repeat of Israel'sat
> strike against Iraqi nuclear reactor which was under construction
> Osirak, outside Baghdad in 1981 because Israel suspected that Iraqwould
> produce a nuclear weapon.to
> But analysts say such an attack is unlikely because of sensitivity
> the U.S. position in Iraq and the fact that Iran's nuclearfacilities
> are scattered around the country.against
> Asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike
> Iran's atomic power plant being built in Bushehr, Shamkhaniadded: "We
> will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as anattack
> on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.entity,
> "Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
> and it will not be able to launch any military operation withoutan
> American green light. You cannot separate the two."because
> "The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
> strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true,
> their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in theevent of
> an attack, he said.Iran's
> Bushehr is a coastal town on the Persian Gulf. It is site for
> first nuclear reactor. It is being built with Russian assistance,and
> it's due to come online in 2005.Guards,
> Earlier the week, the deputy chief of the elite Revolutionary
> Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said that Tehran would strikethe
> Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic'sown
> burgeoning nuclear facilities.should
> "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it
> permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it producesand
> keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for theZolqadr warned.
> terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer
> Iran says its nuclear program at Bushehr is merely for generating
> electricity, but Israel and the United States claim that it is a
> for nuclear weapons development.pointing at
> Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while
> Israel's nuclear arsenal, which it neither confirms nor deniespossessing.
> Shamkhani also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer
> its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)in the
> event of an attack.installations)
> "The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear
> would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA had led to feedingwhich
> information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side,
> (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our
> obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 19:05, Steve wrote:
> If you think that the threat is real--and I agree that some kind ofWhat would Gandhi do, indeed!
> nuclear threat is very real--you should redouble your FSP efforts.
> I am sure that we could all find some more room in our busy
> schedules. Other non-FSP approaches should be pursued elsewhere,
> like this gulching strategy, which I consider to be an unacceptably
> bleak alternative.
> What would Gandhi do?
I don't think Gandhi could do much at this stage. This is the result of
many decades of inane US foreign policy. Even if the US were to clean up
its act today -- not bloody likely -- there are still many who
*remember*. The damage has been done. Of course, Bush is not helping
matters, and if anything is making the situation far worse.
I've discussed some of the salient points in the Survivalists list. If
you've missed it, check out the archives.
If you are a Porcupine, you are invited to join:
- --- In email@example.com, "Steve" <simplulo@y...>
> Other non-FSP approaches should be pursued elsewhere,unacceptably
> like this gulching strategy, which I consider to be an
> bleak alternative.Hmmm, strategic and tactical socio-political-economic community
building and cooperation. Sounds classically FSP to me. :O)
> What would Gandhi do?Eventually get shot to death? :O/
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| What would Gandhi do?
Would that be the Gandhi who considered non-violence to be a necessary
tactic because the Indians were so outgunned by the Brits, but advised
violence when it would be effective?
"After 200 years of enlightenment, we have realized that gender and race
are inappropriate distinctions for determining who has individual rights
... It is not the government's priority to set those standards."
Badnarik for President
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Bill Hartwell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----No, only when it was the last resort for survival. However he did also
> Hash: SHA1
> Steve wrote:
> | What would Gandhi do?
> Would that be the Gandhi who considered non-violence to be a necessary
> tactic because the Indians were so outgunned by the Brits, but advised
> violence when it would be effective?
say: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest...
On my site http://whatwouldgandhido.net/