Our Quest for Freedom: Defending
[This is the final section of my essay Our Quest for Freedom]
While the message advanced in the quotations from Mollison and Dervaes is appealing, it does not tell the whole story.
The system does not want us to be free. Its very existence depends on the fact that we are dependent on it, enslaved to it.
That’s why it threw us off the land in the first place, that’s why it condemned the simplicity of our needs and our lack of interest in accumulating wealth as “poverty”, our natural ways of life as “backwardness” and our relaxed, unhurried, approach as “laziness”.
The system needs always to encroach. It is the act of permanent encroachment, theft, destruction.
If you and I declare ourselves free tomorrow and say that we will have nothing more to do with the system, it will send its shock troops to crush us, for fear that our defiance will spread like wildfire.
But if hundreds, thousands, of small groups of people do the same thing simultaneously, all across the territory, the system is going to have logistical problems in crushing us all at the same time.
If it knows that in each case it will be facing people ready to resist, with all they’ve got, then its worse nightmare will be coming true.
This scenario appeals to me, although that’s not to say that we should stop resisting otherwise, in whatever way seems best in certain places, at certain moments, for certain people.
Everything from political organising to physical sabotage can play a role in creating the resonance of rebellion.
But, at some stage, the uprising has got to become physically real, it has to try to shake off the authority of the system once and for all.
Declaring ourselves free and then defending that freedom to the death, if necessary, seems to me like the best possible plan of attack.
It gives our resistance an anchor, a moral high ground, that can be absent when we are merely sniping and screaming at power.
This doesn’t seem a likely thing to happen, though. I know that.
That’s why the suggestion comes right at the end of this essay. All the other stages of the quest have to happen as well, for it to become a real possibility.
If people don’t understand the extent of the problem with contemporary society, if they don’t understand who they really are, if they are not prepared to risk everything, then our bid for liberty will fall short.
Sufficient numbers will have to have realised what this world has turned into, remembered what it should have been and started consciously yearning for what it could once more become.
We can help win them over by exposing the corruption of the system, explaining how we got here and proposing that we do something about it.
Our rebel myth will offer both meaning and motivation, empowering people to become what they have to be and spreading the inspiration to countless others.
Only then can we, together, build, prepare and boycott. Only then can we embark on the mass physical defiance that will be our heroic and historic reclaiming of a free future for humankind.
Our Quest for Freedom and other essays can be downloaded for free here or purchased here.
"Sufficient numbers will have to have realised what this world has turned into..." "We can help win them over by exposing the corruption of the system..."
Agreed ... and this explains why the criminocracy's current, avowed number one priority, is fighting "disinformation", "misinformation" and "malinformation" ... all three being but euphemisms for what any honest broker would call "the truth".
What you said about how the criminocracy see our way of life as poverty, backwardness and laziness and so on reminded me of the Normans versus the indigenous Britons (Celts and Anglo-Saxons, let's say) - the Normans were inherently just a bunch of violent, fascist barbarians - the British were a relatively peaceful, pagan bunch (they especially did a fair bit resisting the encroachment of the church in Rome, and retained their pre-Christian ways, although often by simply incorporating them into the new religion - this has a lot to do, IMO, with Rome's support for the Normans - much of the crusades, for example, were Norman-led). Put differently, the British had a clear, distinct and rich cultural identity, compared to the barbarian nature of the Normans - who of course became the aristocracy/criminocracy. So the Normans had to tell themselves, more than telling others, that they had 'culture' and that the natives were 'backward' - we still live with the legacy of this today of course, which is why the simple censorship of good old fashioned Anglo-Saxon expletives (taken from agrarian vernacular) continues - it is said (by the Establishment) that use of words like 'fuck' and 'shit' is a sign of 'vulgarity'. No, it's actually just very creative linguistic expression - given that language and cultural identity are inseparable, by censoring our language, they are censoring our cultural identity. This is all deliberate (see also wokism).
The Establishment in Britain are essentially the same 'cultural/social group' as the Normans. Of course now they can't call themselves that (they can't be an overt occupying force) so they manufacture all this 'nationalism' to try and get the native British to adopt the Normans' cultural identity and view of the country (as their possession). The 'royal family' are a big part of this. Unfortunately, too many of the British people have fallen for this. Partly of course because of the way history is taught in schools - they're taught the Establishment's narrative, not the true British narrative - which is that we were invaded and occupied in 1066 and it's been that way ever since. The Establishment's attitude towards us, after all, is exactly the same as the Normans - we are the 'other', we are the 'serfs', we are the irritating native population who won't stop complaining. This may no longer be 'racial' or 'genetic' (there are a lot of Ivanhoes in the country), but in terms of 'cultural identity' it is absolutely true.
One clear solution to all this - which you talk about of course - is 'education' (similar to 'exposure') - if the British people can be made to understand their true history, and, yes, see the Establishment themselves as fundamentally 'the other' and 'not British' (in the true meaning of the word), then their eyes will be open and they will suddenly understand the reason why they live in a neo-feudalist criminocracy. One cannot understand oneself, one's own identity, without understand the cultural and social history of that identity.
And this is indeed worldwide now as well, of course (America, for example, or those who control it, are simply an 'extension' of the Norman/post-Norman colonialist faction) - this minority group of barbarians have managed to retain control for all these centuries. All of the 'political systems' or 'economic systems' are simply about social control. Understanding true history is vitally important.
Normal people just want to live a good life, in security and contentment, with their family and friends and community. The only thing that has ever prevented that is that minority social group of monstrous psychopaths - the obvious solution to that is, well, clear. Messy, yes, but clear, also yes.
Of course we know this - and yes, our challenge is to educate the masses to also understand this. Because once they truly understand it, acting on it - i.e. resistance, defending - will be an automatic, instinctive reaction.
And then, perhaps, when enough men have died, we shall be free (to misquote from 'Gladiator' lol).