Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Survivalist Communities and FSP

Expand Messages
  • Philip L. Welch
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >> This would only get us labeled crazies. I would like to see FSP
      >> 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!

      --
      Philip L. Welch
      http://www.philwelch.net/


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Freedom Fred
      ... I don t think an all-out nuclear exchange a-la the cold war is likely in 10 years. What I deem somewhat likely in the next 10-20 years is some form of
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 23:21, Philip L. Welch wrote:
        > >> This would only get us labeled crazies. I would like to see FSP
        > >> 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!

        I don't think an all-out nuclear exchange a-la the "cold war" is likely
        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
        The Beltway.

        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
        practices...

        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@...>
        Freedom
      • Blay Tarnoff
        ... That s Tom Lehrer. Blay
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Freedom Fred wrote:
          >
          > "We'll all go together when we go" -- NOT!
          > Sorry Tom Lehr, . . . .

          That's Tom Lehrer.

          Blay
        • Steve
          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
          Message 4 of 15 , Sep 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            bleak alternative.

            What would Gandhi do?

            --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Secession.net/ Carol Moore
            contact" <contact@s...> wrote:
            > Per the below, their is a growing possibility that
            Neocon/Bush/Israel's
            > threats of attacks on Iran -- and Iran's counter threats like
            below --
            > will lead to a war that will soon go locally nuclear and then
            spiral out
            > of control into Pakistan/India/US/Russia/China/Israel exchanging
            nuclear
            > attacks with perceived enemies. (See
            http://carolmoore.net/nuclearwar
            > for various scenarios/info)
            >
            > MY QUESTION: Is Anyone in FSP (and esp. Mid-Atlantic region)
            interested
            > in organizing any kind of survivalist efforts? Safe houses (or
            > basements) at least 50 miles from likely targets, preferable in
            > mountains; supplies of food/water; agricultural supplies; etc.
            Should
            > we start a libertarian-survivalist yahoogroup?
            > ++++++++++
            > http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-
            bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=3131
            > Iran warns of preemptive strike on U.S. forces
            > 8/19/2004 12:30:00 PM GMT
            >
            > Rear-Admiral Shamkhani said Tehran would respond to a U.S. attack
            on its
            > nuclear facilities.
            > Source: AFP
            >
            > For the first time, Tehran has threatened a preemptive strike
            against
            > U.S. troops in the region.
            >
            > 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
            others
            > will do to us,"
            >
            > "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
            present,
            > from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf
            and we
            > can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani.
            >
            > War of words has heated up in recent weeks as an exchange of
            threats
            > between Israel and Iran led to speculation of a repeat of Israel's
            > strike against Iraqi nuclear reactor which was under construction
            at
            > Osirak, outside Baghdad in 1981 because Israel suspected that Iraq
            would
            > produce a nuclear weapon.
            >
            > But analysts say such an attack is unlikely because of sensitivity
            to
            > the U.S. position in Iraq and the fact that Iran's nuclear
            facilities
            > are scattered around the country.
            >
            > Asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike
            against
            > Iran's atomic power plant being built in Bushehr, Shamkhani
            added: "We
            > will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an
            attack
            > on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.
            >
            > "Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil
            entity,
            > and it will not be able to launch any military operation without
            an
            > American green light. You cannot separate the two."
            >
            > "The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of
            > strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true,
            because
            > their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the
            event of
            > an attack, he said.
            >
            > Bushehr is a coastal town on the Persian Gulf. It is site for
            Iran's
            > first nuclear reactor. It is being built with Russian assistance,
            and
            > it's due to come online in 2005.
            >
            > Earlier the week, the deputy chief of the elite Revolutionary
            Guards,
            > Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said that Tehran would strike
            the
            > Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's
            own
            > burgeoning nuclear facilities.
            >
            > "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it
            should
            > permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces
            and
            > keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the
            > terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer
            Zolqadr warned.
            >
            > Iran says its nuclear program at Bushehr is merely for generating
            > electricity, but Israel and the United States claim that it is a
            cover
            > for nuclear weapons development.
            >
            > Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while
            pointing at
            > Israel's nuclear arsenal, which it neither confirms nor denies
            possessing.
            >
            > Shamkhani also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer
            bound by
            > its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
            in the
            > event of an attack.
            >
            > "The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear
            installations)
            > would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA had led to feeding
            > information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side,
            which
            > (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]
          • Freedom Fred
            ... What would Gandhi do, indeed! 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
            Message 5 of 15 , Sep 12, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 19:05, Steve wrote:
              > 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
              > bleak alternative.
              >
              > What would Gandhi do?

              What would Gandhi do, indeed!

              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:
              http://ofreedom.com/mailman/listinfo/porc_survivalists
              -Freedom Fred
            • bbitsmark
              ... unacceptably ... Hmmm, strategic and tactical socio-political-economic community building and cooperation. Sounds classically FSP to me. :O) ... Eventually
              Message 6 of 15 , Sep 12, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <simplulo@y...>
                wrote:
                > Other non-FSP approaches should be pursued elsewhere,
                > like this gulching strategy, which I consider to be an
                unacceptably
                > 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/
              • Bill Hartwell
                ... Hash: SHA1 ... Would that be the Gandhi who considered non-violence to be a necessary tactic because the Indians were so outgunned by the Brits, but
                Message 7 of 15 , Sep 13, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                  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?


                  - --
                  "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
                  http://www.badnarik.org

                  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                  Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
                  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

                  iD8DBQFBRXiBAEWCS/G3bx4RAnwDAJ9uyt7w2f62dbzTZT7b4JBoAU5JZgCfVz3l
                  +XDB/tpqPep7y7dX3eYA9dc=
                  =p//B
                  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
                • Secession.net/ Carol Moore contact
                  ... No, only when it was the last resort for survival. However he did also say: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon
                  Message 8 of 15 , Sep 13, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill Hartwell wrote:

                    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                    > 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?

                    No, only when it was the last resort for survival. However he did also
                    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/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.