Appeasing the Enemy is being the Enemy

Recently a vlogger indicated that he does not intend to leave California under the new draconian immoral acts the State has called laws. 

First, let us correct the definition: They are not laws, they are unethical acts of theft enforced by the barrel of a gun. 

Here is his link:

The link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyI2KBer9Mw&t=10s

He says that leaving is an act of cowardice. That one does not leave the battlefield when at war. 

Well, let me retort. 

If in fact, as he indicates, that we are at war and one does not leave the battlefield in the middle of the war; then we must assume that the State is an enemy.  Not even a metaphoric enemy, because the State will, in fact, use violence to get their way. This violence can and will be as extreme as they need it be in order to get their way.

If the State is the enemy, then they hold no authority, morality, ethics, purpose, truth. By its definition, the enemy is everything in opposition to our views. The enemy is not an object we negotiate with. It is a system that should be stopped and by stopping de-valued. That is what an enemy is.

So if the Enemy arrives at the battlefield and makes demands, shouldn't we refuse those demands? If the State - the enemy - says, "give up your magazines" shouldn't we hold our ground and prepare to fight them in the trenches? But that's not what anyone is suggesting. No one is saying fight the government. Instead, people are saying, "follow the law".

And those are two very different things.

Oh, yes, this is what the vlogger thinks that he is doing. He believes that he is fighting a war and standing his ground, but in reality, he is consenting to the State's demands. The State is indicating that he do something and he is doing it; if it's magazines greater than ten rounds; or having a pistol grip on a firearm, or even being able to carry a gun in your pocket - he does what the State says. He isn't fighting, he's agreeing to whatever aspect the enemy is pushing. He is acting as a soldier in the enemies ranks by taking commands from the enemy. He is the French police force during Nazi occupation, rounding up televisions, radios, silver, gold, and eventually people for the nazis.

Let's equate this to an actual battle. He makes the false assumption that the courts are a legitimate battleground on which to fight the immoral State. This is a lie. The courts are the process imposed by the concept of the State. The courts are not a battlefield but are instead aide-de-camp of the State. They are the enemy in that they give the enemy a place to meter out their demands. The purpose of the courts is to legitimize the immoral acts and anti-ethical authority of the State, not to seek out justice. The courts are a concession imposed by the victories against the losers that do not help the losers. People do not find justice in the courts, what they find instead is the State's immolation of man to prove itself of value.

So, he is saying don't leave the battlefield, but the enemy shows up and waving some paperwork, that it says it voted to enforce, expects him to get up out of the trench and hand over his gun. If his action at that point does not begin with shooting at the person making such a demand, he is not fighting a war, he is agreeing to the authority of the enemy and hoping, by having his hat in hand, that the enemy does not line him up against the wall and shoot him. He is playing the coward's gamble.

The coward's gamble is the assumption that by consenting to authority the authority will act by a moral value for the benefit of the individual. History has never been good at respecting the individual. Just look at the Nazi's if you are not capable of seeing the police state you currently live in.  The coward's gamble has always been a failure. It must result in taking persons from their freedom.

If one agrees to the consent of authority, one is agreeing to the authority itself and thus, if that authority is named 'enemy' then this person is agreeing to participate in the acts of the enemy. And thus, he becomes the enemy, period. You cannot agree to the notion of being lead by a leader and at the same time call yourself going your own way. It is either or, not both.

Real tacticians fire back. Real strategy leaves a battle that cannot be won and fights guerrilla warfare from across the borders of other nations. The kind of warfare the vlogger is suggesting is Nation war, the kind of thing Napoleon fought when he fought Emporer's and Kings. The kind of war where soldiers are not individual men, but objects of ownership for the State.

Real strategy is to quit agreeing to the terms the enemy presents. The agreement of the terms of the enemy is surrender, isn't it? Yet the vlogger seems to say that he will not surrender, but at the same time agrees to the terms laid out by the State. How can it be both?

Only a friend of the enemy says the enemy should be bargained with. Only a friend of the enemy wants to keep the enemy's victims within arms reach. Only a friend of the enemy believes that individual liberty is a smaller idea than the words documented on a page calling itself law.

A man of Liberty does not throw his brothers into the jaws of the enemy. He warns them when they are in danger. He leads them away from the danger. He arms them against the danger. And when the time comes he willingly shoulders them and his rifle and fights for his life against the enemy for those same men of Liberty. 

No law is greater than the individual.

The man of Liberty would never consent to the will of his enemy. He, as Emiliano Zapata put it:

If there is no justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government.

That is what a man sounds like when fighting for his principles. But instead what we end up with is that we need to consent to the will of the State above our Liberty and if it kills a few of us, so be it. Because the Platonic view of most people seem to believe that somehow some god will arrive, point a demanding finger and somehow Justice for those that survive and those that die will be avenged. 

That's crap. Because, if you accept the State's authority at all, you must concede that the State is the creator of the concept of Justice and thus, only the State would be avenged, because if it creates reality, it created the notion of moral truths. Under the State, the individual has no rights.

The individual must fight any object of evil that tries to control his existence. This is why leaving the battlefield is a fair method of dealing with the corrupt State.