There are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world today. Fighting Muslims or Islam will accomplish nothing other than never ending war. Just like fighting 'terrorism' means fighting a tactic. It's only an excuse to wage war on something forever.

Or like the Barbary Pirates

What's making Islam look virile are the insanely stupid rules of engagement. If the Muslims were fought like we did the Germans and Japanese in WWII, you'd see that Islam is nothing more than a paper tiger.

This is why a number of us who have not Gone Galt are nonetheless trying to establish precautionary backups so that we will be resilient in such a crisis.

That is all I can think of doing right now.

Jan

She is. Not all great women or men for that matter are publicly noted (or notorious?).

They did, after the war began. But "treasonous" talk was commonplace in taverns and homes and there was no secret police to infiltrate, investigate, sic IRS and arrest. Try doing that now.

The wife sounds like a great lady.

I'm a descendent of Ethan Allen. They went after him pretty hard, but not hard enough for their own good.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, my gut is telling me that most Americans will drift along, only awakening when catastrophe has befallen them. A collapse of the economic system, inevitable unless serious change is undertaken, with a shortage of goods and services will hit all but the elite. The only question then is whether the result will be like the Philippine "velvet" revolution, or the more violent French revolution.

Yes, KhanQ -

Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World. The gov is not forcing us into its programs; people are running down the path into a Big Daddy communal future.

Jan

DrZ -
The other means of resistance is slow and will be painful to experience: the expenses involved in maintaining the Democratic policy of medical and welfare support is based on an economic fairytale. Eventually the fairy dust dissipates and the gold pieces turn back into leaves.

So there is a recourse that is past the ability of even Hillary to disregard - Reality.

Jan

Not at all, I would suggest. Britain had no problems in subduing India and many other colonies that were even further away than America. It's just that the British were more humane in their threatment of their own brothers and citizens than our government is.

Back then, the British were more humane in dealing with dissenters. The current government's attitude is that the supremacy of the State is paramount. Any challenge, no matter how small and apparently insignificant, get a massive retort from the State. They will do anything to prevent an avalanche - Ruby Ridge, Waco and any open defiance of any State authority get instant and vicious response. Kind of like the Spartans eliminating the brightest of their slaves - so the system will not be challenged.

I have kinda "gone Galt" a long time ago. I retired. However, I'm not 100% gone. I still use the internet to see how much trouble I can get into. However, my wife is an entirely different matter. She is one of those energetic type people who can't stop being active. She has been a photographer, an esthetician, and a bookkeeper for several substantial corporations. She finally retired but couldn't stand it and became a very successful Avon lady. At 81, she's like one of those perpetual motion clocks that keep going on atmospheric pressure changes. Oh, and in her "spare" time she is a terrific gardener. She can't just quit, and we're not about to start over at our age. So...going Galt entirely is out. However, that doesn't stop us from making our knowledge known to people who could benefit from it, and maybe be a bit argumentative when we.re in the mood and the adversary deserves it.

There are a variety of ways to resist growing autocracy. The first, of course, is through the system established by the Constitution, through our elected representatives. The challenge here is that numerous generations of lawyers have been very creative in developing the means to stifle the effective use of that process. The Beltway crowd have become a form of artificial aristocracy, as Jefferson predicted, granting themselves a belief in their superiority over the people they're supposed to serve. We cast off a monarchy, only to grow our own oppressive oligarchy.

The rejection of the established fiefdom of the RNC that appears to be developing may help in throwing off the constraints imposed by a disdainful elite, but the forces of rejection are weaker in the Democrat party. Clinton is the anointed, rightful aristocrat, given her pending coronation by the DNC, despite the less aggressive rebellion behind Bernie Sanders (who threw his followers under the bus by declaring the email scandal as off limits). If the unconventional candidates (Trump, Carson) fail to become President, and Clinton becomes the "monarch" she believes she has the right to be, the door may be closed to lawful reclamation of individual rights as intended under Constitutional mandate.

What happens next? How far can the DC oligarchs go in depriving us of liberty before more drastic measures seem inevitable as the only recourse? Is a non-violent revolution via civil disobedience, as in the Philippines or Poland possible? The move to violent confrontation is likely to be long in coming, if at all.

Re: "settled in with having their asses handed to them all the time."

I used to think the US was going to go the way of 1984, but it seems to be going the way of Fahrenheit 451. The government isn't so much forcing these things upon us as it is opportunistically responding to society's demands for them.

And look for that seaside village.

"via this new socialized system, saying "Hey, we don't want to pay for that anymore. Let's let em die and hire ten teachers." Surreal, really."
I found the clip and posted a comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG...

Whatever the population was, with the technology of the time, mounting a nation-to-nation confrontation across the Atlantic was a little hard for England to muster... obviously, we never struck on their own soil. We can barely do something like that now.

Whatever the population was, with the technology of the time, mounting a nation-to-nation confrontation across the Atlantic was a little hard for England to muster... obviously, we never struck on their own soil. We can barely do something like that now.

Yes... it wasn't 1.5%, I think it was closer to 3% (the significance of the "III" Revolutionary War flag).

" I believe that the system is really geared toward maximizing revenue from elderly people."
I can't stand their talking about this in terms of systems.

I completely agree that people talk about this in terms of systems: "are we over-allocating money to healthcare compared to education?", but it comes down to individual decisions. If you're broke and looking for a handout, you're subject to these calculations of the people doling out the money. If you are spending your own money, suppliers appear to get you exactly what you want, whether it's legal or not.

We just have to fight, and do the best we can.