Hello, I was in the midst of a Facebook conversation when the whimsy to write this up struck me. Any critiques or disagreements welcome


We must match force for force, if they threaten us with pay cuts, then we must threaten them with financial losses in turn. If they attempt to enforce their will through legal proceedings, we must meet them there as well. If they attempt to threaten us with physical force, we must meet them there as well.
The issue is not to necessarily to apply said force but rather to show that we are able to match their strength and that they very well could lose. The problem is that the "they" in question are members of groups and organizations which have had time to adapt to the system and build up a network of reciprocity so that they are more likely to get their way than we are.
At this point, it becomes necessary to take the core value of the threat and address it in another way. For instance, if a construction company has illegally taken control over a property and is polluting it until they are forced to leave, you would gain nothing by pursuing the legal routes as this is what the construction company is planning on. They will extract as many resources as they can and then wait out the land owners in legal court. Most people cannot match large corporations in legal proceedings because the corporations will just keep throwing money at it until the land owner is eaten out of land and home.

So, the landowner cannot expect to match the corporation in the legal arena, but nor should he allow the corporation to simply have its way, therefore we must take the core principle at work, in this case money & profits, and attack the corporation that way.

The soundest way to go about doing this would be to attack the corporation through sabotage at where they are in violation of the law. Unfortunately, this then qualifies the land owner as a law breaker, and where as the corporation has built up a strong wall of legal defenses, the land owner is nothing more than a "common" criminal and will be treated as such, in fact their land could be confiscated and then sold to the corporation. So, it becomes necessary for the landowner to remove law from the equation, they have to either engage in sabotage that isn't that much of a violation of the law, such as moving pipe markers or unofficial road markers, or engage in their activities in such a way that it cannot lead back to them. Of course, the individual employees of the company will be active as well, so that they too might engage in sabotage against the landowner, having pieced together where the original sabotage is coming from. At this point however, the landowner cannot go to the legal system as the corporation will then have an opening to counter accuse the landowner of sabotage.
A helpful tactic is to spread out the potential blame as far and wide as possible. First to be able to say that anyone could have done it, and might have felt inclined to is a weak defense, yet it is a defense none the less. If there is a local group who is already considered antagonistic to local authorities, such as unruly teenagers or the Indians of old, the land owner can leave vague clues (either through modus operandi or by characteristic evidence), they can make their attacks and then blame these vague anti-authority groups for the damages. Some will have already noted that there is an historical example of this hereto unmentioned. Namely, the Boston Tea Party. Every knew who had done the sabotage, yet no one could legally prove it. This too points out a very important note about the US, and indeed many other nation's, legal systems. It is not important what happened, the only the that matters is what can be proved.
This fact can be a double sided sword, as even if the smaller party is not at fault, they can be accused and convicted if the justice courts either cannot or won't find faults in the arguments and evidence presented against the private party.
An actual example of this was a landowner who refused to sell his property to the county. After the legal proceedings had gone on for quite some time (possession being nine tenths of the law), a marijuana plant was conveniently "discovered" on the landowners 100+ acres of land. This was then used to confiscate their land without recourse. After the landowner had lost his land, his ability to fight the county in court was lost and any further proceedings were prejudiced against him as he was now a "drug dealer".

In essence, the question is how to attack the opposing party in such a way that puts oneself at the advantage while also allowing for maximum effect. A good analogy is to think of there being a number of areas that overlap one another, each with varying levels of defense and offensive potential. The smaller party's goal is to position themselves in such a way that allows them to pose the greatest threat, whether realized or not, and which exposes them to as little threat as possible.
In the construction example previously given, the corporations will often give up for greener pastures when they decide that the benefits of abusing the land are outweighed by the loss of revenue presented by various effects.
The second example of the landowner is simply a point that one can never truly be safe, even if they are in the right and have proven it in the past, it only takes one conviction to be labeled a law breaker.
The core principle which can be applied to all of these situations is the line of marginal utility, or how far before it costs me more to fight than it does to go somewhere else? If we can show that the other party will not make a profit off of us, they will be inclined to move on. However, this must be a real threat as some groups and individuals will attack anyway, either out of pride, habit or some other reasoning. The adage never show a gun unless you're willing to use it comes into play here. Especially if after you show your teeth and they show theirs and the willingness to use it.

>>

A rebuttal, disjointed by greater understanding That Fellow you know 12/03/08(Thu)10:51 No. 170 File 133122191273.png - (121.93KB , 320x239 , fgngfmn_bmp_converted.png ) >>163 First off, I wish I was toking, but I'm like this all the time. Second, isn't this more of a philosophical question as it goes beyond mere politics into actually countering hostile forces within a system and achieving a personal purpose regardless of the system it was achieved under? We all exist within structures, organizations and systems and yet there is an inherent question of whether or not we will adhere to the arbitrary rules imposed on us or if we will step out of the box and do what we have to in order to get what we want? Isn't this the very concept of an Übermensch? An Übermensch has to start from within the system and work his way out. He doesn't start off in a void but rather in a failed system which requires actions taken to remove the systems power over him. I contend that this essay at first appears to be legal/political essay but that in fact its implications, recommendations and conclusions show it to be a philosophical essay. That these methods while using legal references can actually be used in any arena of life where one person or group exerts control and power over another individual or group. For example, these methods could be used by an academic professor to resist the control of an overly cautious academic board. They could be used by a priest to protest, and win, against a controlling orthodoxy in a way similar to the Reformation. In other words, this essay is outlining a human truth. It is opening for discussion principles which have been known and exploited since ancient China, The Art of War. Philosophy starts with the known and works its way to figuring out the unknown. I started with a political motif but this idea is much larger than that.

>>

That Fellow you know 12/03/14(Wed)14:54 No. 180 File 133175124941.jpg - (64.35KB , 800x578 , tylerdurden.jpg ) >>179 No, I was talking about violating the law in a way that prevents legal repercussions. Getting what you want without having the opposition being able to bring their powers to bare against you. This could be seen as a guide on how to effectively behave in a an Übermensch manner while under another group or individual's system of values. What I am describing is the process of subverting systems in such a way as to disallow the system to exert it's values and reciprocal relationships onto individuals who should be completely incapable of confronting these systems. The end always has a beginning.

>>

Anonymous 12/03/29(Thu)20:29 No. 197 File 13330673822.jpg - (290.08KB , 720x536 , Anchormenweapons.jpg ) >>191 The primary thing to build up would be to foster similar values and build awareness for how the targeted entity violates these values. Secondary focus would be on removing self limitations and hesitation.