The Sheepdogs
Sep 12, 05 | 6:27 am by John SabottaIdiot Bill Whittle quotes another idiot (supposedly an “old war veteran”) who gravely tells us:
Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath–a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.
One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE STOMACH.
Our protectors.
Everyone who reads Whittle’s rambling drivel probably likes it because, deep down inside, they imagine themselves to be a “sheepdog” . But that’s not the correlation of forces. The vast majority of those reading Whittle’s disgusting ass-licking festival are really the sheep, no matter what “warrior” fantasies they indulge in. And the reason the sheepdogs are protecting them is not in order to build “something wonderful”, but instead to deliver them, conveniently herded, to be cut up for mutton at the pleasure of the State.
Leaving aside the actual military (who represent a different case altogether), here’s the reality: The policeman is not your friend. The police are a gang of criminal thugs, who will literally steal if they think they can get away with it, who routinely perjure themselves, who indulge in shakedown rackets and who beat, rob, harass and fuck over anyone they think is too poor or too black to effectively complain about it. They are cowards and fools, who tell each other stories about how unappreciated they are and what dangers they endlessly face in order to justify their resentment of anyone not belonging to their gang.
Oh sure, I can make distinctions. The corner cop is not Osama Bin Laden. So what? He’s bad enough.
Here’s our brave protectors at work, captured on video as they beat the shit out of 90 pound candy ravers, during the incident mentioned above. I find the fact that Utah’s finest felt it necessary to wear full combat gear and carry M-16s to break up a rave to be particularily pathetic.(QuickTime plugin required)
How could you possibly have taken this Whittle character seriously, Freely?
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 7:36 am
Sabotta returns in a rare moment of lucidity. Congratulations.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 8:52 am
Drop dead. Soonest.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 9:15 am
“The police are a gang of criminal thugs, “
Wow, and police wouldn’t exist in anarcho-utopia land? What about Private Defense companies? Police who stop a thief from stealing your car are thugs?
But you are not here to THINK or DEBATE are you? Instead you preach your sad pathetic slave morality and dictate your scripture from your sick anarcho-priesthood.
We are not buying it.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 5:49 pm
Are you defending the actions shown in the video, Mr. “Not A Anarcho Slave”? If so, maybe you should change your nickname to “Slave”, as bending over and taking it seems to be your speciality.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 5:57 pm
LOL. Did you read the comments on Whittle’s site? Almost every one of them are ‘I’m a sheepdog too!’ or ‘Woof.’ or other idiocy.
The fuckin’ analogy doesn’t even work. Sheepdog don’t protect sheep. They CONTROL sheep, at the will of the masters.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 6:34 pm
George, it seems to me that the analogy works precisely.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 7:43 pm
Well, sure. For guys like you and me. But not for Whittle & Crew. They want the protector — the freakin’ HERO — image. They ignore that the sheepdog’s job is CONTROL, and the sheepdog is not afraid to get rough with any sheep that stray.
And, of course, when the sheep are too old to shear, that it’s mutton time.
September 12th, 2005 at Sep 12, 05 | 9:54 pm
Mark Penman once made an observation that seems appropriate here:
Similarly, lackwits like Whittle have never experienced the pleasure of a life-fuckup at the hands of the “sheepdogs”, else they wouldn’t run their stupid mouths like that.
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 6:33 am
Please come up with a different analogy - Sheepdogs are hardworking, intelligent and loyal creatures, and they don’t stop the sheep from munching on mushrooms! the police who broke up this rave were more akin to automaton..
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 8:53 am
“Are you defending the actions shown in the video”
Nope…and yet I am also not stupid (or dogmatic) enough to faithfully believe that one incident condemns an entire class of people.
You clearly are.
Maybe you will get your 72 Virgins from the Anarcho-Cadre for your faith (chains).
But maybe not.
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 5:04 pm
“Slaves.” Indeed, to someone without principles, having firm beliefs could be seen as a kind of slavery.
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 8:57 pm
Firm belief in what? In the case of yourself, it seems to be a firm belief in the joys and benefits of taking it up the ass from your boyfriends in blue. Sorry, I don’t share that “firm belief”.
Or is that a “principle”, Broward?
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 10:31 pm
That’s a deliberate, yet stupid, misreading of Sabotta’s point.
We’re talking about *conceptual distinctions* here, the concept at hand being that government police, *as a class*, exist to deliver severe beat-downs to those who transgress a set of arbitrary rules. And they enjoy a signifigant amount of immunity from the socialized legal system. The conceptual distinction between a cop and, say, a security guard is enormous.
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 10:59 pm
Witnessing Sabotta fight with a troll is sort of like when cousins screw each other. Mostly, it’s just sad, though good for a few titters on the side, and the end product is genuinely retarded.
Besides, why are you even arguing with the troll? He just equated anarcho-capitalism with militant Islam. Is there a Homeland Security Department that investigates extremist hyperbole? Can we throw him in Gitmo for having the potential to launch Weapons of Incomprehensible Stupidity? That, at least, is Federalism I can get behind.
September 13th, 2005 at Sep 13, 05 | 11:46 pm
Undoubtedly you have quite a bit of experience in watching cousins screw, Aaron.
That’s probably your family’s only source of entertainment since Rent-A-Center repossessed the big screen TV.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 12:04 am
Broward, if you’re going to comment here you have to settle on just one nym. It can be Anarcho-Slaves are the Worst, Who Cares, Lynette’s Life Coach, or Isle of the Dead, anything, really, but you only get one.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 1:51 am
Oh, good comeback. You called me a redneck. Bravo! Maybe you and your goth friends can come up with some more zingers. Maybe “conformist.” I swear if it wasn’t so easy poking you with a stick, I might get bored and walk away.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 2:00 am
Lopez is right. Exhibit A. Ask yourself if you think a private entity could get away with shooting projectiles into a crowd of people and not face any consequences when someone dies.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 2:06 am
I didn’t call you a redneck. Rednecks are generally decent people, unlike yourself.
I simply suggested that you and your relatives like to fuck each other and watch each other fuck, and that you are also probably poor and stupid to boot. This doesn’t make you a “redneck” but it does make you worthless scum. Which, of course, you are.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 2:39 am
Hahaha, you’re like a dog. Poke poke, Sabotta! Poke, poke. Maybe if you growl loud enough and use enough bad language someone might think you’re special and cool.
Look, go back to arguing with the troll. That, at least, was fun for one of us.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 8:34 am
“Indeed, to someone without principles, having firm beliefs could be seen as a kind of slavery.”
Especially when your “principles” are irrational slave morality.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 8:46 am
“exist to deliver severe beat-downs to those who transgress a set of arbitrary rules.”
They also exist to (sometimes) protect your life, liberty and property. You fail to grasp that “policing” (as a concept) would still be just, even in libertopia.
Yet a cop might stop a rapist from raping your sister, and you would condemn it as “evil” because it was an action by the “state.”
Your constant mythologizing of the “State” as the “Devil” is an even more vile and insidious form of statism than the regulular varieties, and it stinks of Slave Morality. Too bad this stench infects the whole of the libertarian “thinking” nowadays, thanks to the Anarcho-Cult (of which you are a proud member).
Or is it just all propganda to ensnarl “anti-police punks” into your sad Movement? Well in that case, enjoy “Superdome Part 2″ when the lights go out. You will have your ararchy all right in the event of a disaster or nuclear attack, and when you are being gang-raped you can be happy their are no “Evil Policemen” to practice “statism” and beat down your rapists.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 9:43 am
You may recall that Superdome Part 1 was brought to you by authorities such as the police and National Guard.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 10:53 am
“You may recall that Superdome Part 1 was brought to you by authorities such as the police and National Guard.”
How odd. Most of the violence seemed to be actually done on a private basis.
A few cops were seen looting, but most of looters were private citizens, who were voluntarily preying on others.
But don’t let me wreck your precious Mythology.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 1:47 pm
Hy S: Whr d LL cps gt thr pychcks?
Shddp.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 2:19 pm
“Yet a cop might stop a rapist from raping your sister, …”
Highly unlikely. The cop’s job is to apprehend the rapist after he rapes your sister.
The cop’s job is also to deprive your sister of adequate means to defend herself from the rapist in the first place.
It is also his job to break up your sister’s rave, lest she have an inordinate amount of fun.
The cop’s job is also to evict you from your home and lock you in a cage if you fail to contribute to his paycheck.
Now, notwithstanding all of the above, in those cases where a cop happens to be on the scene when a rapist attacks your sister, and he thwarts the attack, his action is entirely admirable and he is to be highly commended.
Or, if your sister simply inserted a .40 round at high speed into the rapist’s head, she would be highly commended, even if she were a public school teacher.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 2:34 pm
Re comment #12: Who are you talking to, Sabotta? I’m not Broward, and in fact am agreeing with you. Whatever.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 8:51 pm
You’re assuming your own conclusion: that current “policing” is just.
It ain’t, and the simple fact that government police, here-and-now, maintain their monopoly on protection (so-called) via force is reason enough.
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 8:55 pm
Hey, isn’t Schneider re-banned as of Sept. 1st?
September 14th, 2005 at Sep 14, 05 | 11:27 pm
Aaron G.,
You ought to use your powers for good.
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 12:41 am
Use the force Aaron G.
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 10:26 am
There will be no advocacy of shooting cops or other state officials at No Treason, either on the blog on in comments.
It’s one thing to contemplate the use of force in the immediate defense of one’s life and liberty, quite another to speak of precipitating a shooting match with the leviathan state. The latter is a stupid idea that No Treason will not be associated with.
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 10:36 am
Lopez,
Deal with Mike as you see fit. We don’t object to him continuing to comment as long as he behaves himself, but you can ban him at your discretion. He definitely gets rebanned though if he violates policy, especially the one cited in my previous comment.
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 2:20 pm
is the fiery sword okay?
lung
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 3:56 pm
Why s tkng ‘m wth y “stpd d” cmprd t Lf’s ltrntv nd nvrbly mr nplsnt xt-plns? — r y lkng frwrd tyr clstmy bg ftr cl-rctl cncr?
rmmbr y syng vry nc thngs bt Jhn Brwn nc pn tm…d y nw thnk prly f hm?
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 9:20 pm
Schneider,
I don’t give a rat’s ass about your presence here one way or another. But let me re-emphasize Kennedy’s point:
Loose talk is just plain stupid. Do I really need to explicitly state why?
Look: nobody’s gonna get into a pissing contest with you over this matter, the answer’s been handed down from on high: not for discussion.
Period.
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 9:33 pm
lung’s fiery sword is okay. Please don’t suggest taking it to cops or politicians though. (I’ve heard that Federal penitentiaries are sad places without techno music or doughnuts).
September 15th, 2005 at Sep 15, 05 | 11:29 pm
lung is a loyal little lung! she loves w! sometimes she thinks no-treason is full of jacobinites and objectionists. but lung is a forgiving lung.
lung
September 16th, 2005 at Sep 16, 05 | 11:35 am
Mike,
I don’t plan to die. And if I do I won’t whack the hornet’s nest before I go because that wouldn’t be good for the loved ones I’ll leave behind. I guess it could be different if you had no one that important to you, but then revenge for it’s own sake wouldn’t interest me either.
As a matter of fact I do think less of Brown since I learned he slaughtered non-combatants, but that’s not really relevant to what you want to get at here. Brown could have prosecuted his war justly.
Brown had a plausible prospect of freeing some slaves. His modern day counterpart was McVeigh, whose actions had no prospect of benefitting anyone.
Regardless of how unsatisfactory our situation is, we are not slaves. We have far better alternatives available to us than precipitating a firefight.
As Lopez said, the policy is not up for debate. You can pursue such advocacy on your own blog.
September 16th, 2005 at Sep 16, 05 | 5:39 pm
I will also observe that I some time ago discarded the notion that McVeigh was really acting to “avenge” anyone at Waco. He was a racialist, who was probably trying to start a civil war in which the “patriots” and the Federal Government killing each other off so that the neo-Nazis can step in afterwards and pick up the pieces. McVeigh had a copy of William Pierce’s “The Turner Diaries” in his possession when arrested; this is nothing but a neo-Nazi tract and makes it highly unlikely he was really trying to avenge the pro-Zionist and multi-racial victims of Waco.In prison, later, McVeigh told a lot of lies to gullible interviewers, trying to paint himself as a libertarian martyr of some sort. In a book I picked up at a newstand, I encountered various ridiculous assertions passed on from the chinless creep to his biographers, including the claim that he was a meth dealer who only tried meth once and never used it otherwise (to which I reply, ha, ha, ha) and the claim that although he had joined the KKK, he left it when he realized it was a racist organization.
Racists pretending to be libertarians in order to be more socially acceptable is not a phenomenon confined to the late, unlamented McVeigh, of course.
September 16th, 2005 at Sep 16, 05 | 10:41 pm
Indeed:
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 4:53 am
Lpz:Ls tlk s jst pln stpd. D rlly nd t xplctly stt why?
*Lff* Thr’s blln psychtc Mslm fntcs n thrll t hmcdl lncy nly nfntssmlly lss nsn thn Thgg wh’v bn chntng “Dth t mrc!” snc bfr shmlssly ncvrd Mrlyn Mnr vr std n stm-grt, nd tn mlln clsr-t-hmtx-fndd rdcls nfstng cnm whs tttds r lttl bttr (whn Rpblcns r n chrg) — yh, ‘m sr th NS mntrng mnky ppntd th nrs dty f wtchng THS plc s pstvly gng t fll t f hs chr n md hst t wrn th nxt plyp p th chn f my nsntd ntntn f, t sm hzly ndrmnnt dt n pssbly lng dstnt ftr, tkng t fw lyng, thvng ccksckrs lng wth m.
(My gdnss! ‘m sndng mr nd mr lkl Swrngn vry dy!)
- - - - -
Knndy: dn’t pln t d.
Y pln n bng hd n jr n “Ftrm”?
Whrs cnsgnng thm t wrld f slvry (wth y s thr xmpl f slv wh ds nt rsst, vn wth hs lst brth) s smhwbttr thn whtvr t s y’r mgnng “wldn’t b gd” fr thm?
Knndy:s mttr f fct d thnk lss f Brwn snc lrnd h slghtrd nn-cmbtnts,
Th lnk y prvdd mks rfrncs t “th Pr-slvry mn”, whch, f sch dscrptns wr ccrt, mrlly rndrs thm thcrmnl ccssrs f ths nggd n th “cmbt” f nslvmnt, mnng….
…h dd.
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 5:08 am
(Lst prt crrctd fr mssng tlc-clsr)
Schndr:“..d y nw thnk prly f (Jhn Brwn) nw”?
Knndy:s mttr f fct d thnk lss f Brwn snc lrnd h slghtrd nn-cmbtnts,
Th lnk y prvdd mks rfrncs t “th Pr-slvry mn”, whch, f sch dscrptns wr ccrt, mrlly rndrs thm th crmnl ccssrs f ths nggd n th “cmbt” f nslvmnt, mnng….
…h dd.
ddndm: Th phrs “nn-cmbtnt” smggls n n thclly-rrlvnt dstnctn. Mjr crmnls ntrprss (sch s slvry, r gvrnmnt lph-mfs) nvlv mssv spprt strctrs — wtht whch thy cld nt xst.
Slvry, ftr ll, sn’t vn pssbl, lt ln prftbl, t th slv-mkr nlss thr r, frst, slv-byrs , nd, scnd nd trtry, vst spprt ndstry f slv-shp bldrs, slv-mrkt ctnrs, slv-ctn nnncmnt prdcls, nd “pr-slvry mn” xrcsng pltcl frc n mntnng sch stts-q.
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 10:47 am
Townsley on Brown:
According to Townsley this was what Brown intended for all pro-slavery men in the area. It doesn’t sound like just war to me, it sounds like Brown slaughtered men for evil views.
In any case, I want no part of anything like that.
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 10:52 am
Mike,
We’re not slaves. You’re free to leave.
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 12:29 pm
And that, of course, logically follows from the vast history of competence, dilligence, and ethics that the various agencies of the federal government have displayed over the years. Especially with regards to prosecuting The War Against Terror.
Right?
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 12:57 pm
The problem with resistance to government (peaceful or violent) is that the infrastructure for such resistance does not currently exist.
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 3:37 pm
We’re not slaves. You’re free to leave.
“You know the rules of our planet”
September 17th, 2005 at Sep 17, 05 | 11:40 pm
TJ Mdsn:Th prblm wth rsstnc t gvrnmnt (pcfl r vlnt) s tht th nfrstrctr fr sch rsstnc ds nt crrntly xst.
TJ, vl sshls rn’t xctly rr n ths rth; hw dffclt d y thnk t wld b fr y t dvt fw mmnt f yr tm, nr th vry nd f yr lf, twrd lctng prtclrly nrs spcmn nd xrcsng yr wn ndvdl jdgmnt n rgrds t ts cntnd blty t brd r brth?
“nfrstrctr”? Y hvhnds , dn’t y? Yr hnds cld hld ll srts f dndy gdgts, ncldng bt nt lmtd t ths: gn, knf, scrwdrvr, dynmt, syrng, ml, tny blck bx wth bg rd bttn, clw-hmmr, nl-spkd 2×4, chn-sw, Scttsh clymr, lmnm bsbll bt, whl f Chryslr s-bg-s–whl…. s yr mgntn! B crtv n yr fnl mmnts!
September 18th, 2005 at Sep 18, 05 | 5:56 pm
Sure, there’s always “Final Retaliation”. But I’m still young and healthy. I need tactics and technology to help me resist the Machine TODAY, not when I’m 74. And violent resistance now doesn’t seem like it’s likely to get me to 74.
September 18th, 2005 at Sep 18, 05 | 6:37 pm
Mike is into the BAY OF BLOOD school of politics. (Aka TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE, probably the only Mario Bava film I actively dislike.)
September 19th, 2005 at Sep 19, 05 | 1:30 am
TJ:Sr, thr’s lwys “Fnl Rtltn”. Bt ‘m stll yng nd hlthy. nd tctcs nd tchnlgy t hlp m rsst th Mchn TDY, nt whn ‘m 74.
[Th frst sntnc f ths rspns hs bn rmvd. JL]
Sy, hv y vr sn th flm “Th Lst ctn Hr”? G rnt t, nd py prtclr ttntn t th hlrs scn n whch th kllr, fndng hmslf n nw ltrnt rlty, dcds t tst th rspnsvnss f th nw rlty’s “mchn” t th cmmssn f nw kllng by hm. H s fscntd t dscvr tht, n th ltrnt rlty h fnds hmslf n, plc crs d nt cm mmdtly scrchng t hlt mr scnds ftr hs cmmssn f crm.
(BTW, y’r sng th wrd “rsst” sphmsm fr vd . vsn s nt rsstnc — “rsst” mns mply dfnsv frc .)
September 20th, 2005 at Sep 20, 05 | 4:29 am
Hy Lpz, y cn swllw th frst svn nchs f my cck rght t th hlt.
Knndy? wnt LL f my mtrl ff ths jnt rght *nw*. “Kys” & ll th rst.
September 20th, 2005 at Sep 20, 05 | 1:30 pm
I don’t know if Mr. Schneider will return in the future, but I’ll go ahead anyway.
The link you provided makes references to “the Pro-slavery men”, which, if such descriptions were accurate, morally renders them the criminal accessories of those engaged in the “combat” of enslavement, meaning….
…but that’s not really relevant to what you want to get at here. Brown could have prosecuted his war justly.
…he did.
Unless the “pro-slavery” individual had attempted to enslave me, I don’t think you could qualify attacking him under self-defense.
The enslaved could certainly contract with me to act in their name to retaliate for them, but I wouldn’t ursurp anyone’s chance to exact justice…even if the target was a legitimate aggressor.
September 20th, 2005 at Sep 20, 05 | 6:08 pm
Mike,
I’ll comply with your request. I’m the only one who can take your stuff down and I will when I can. It may be a while.
[Done 10/9/05 - jtk]
September 21st, 2005 at Sep 21, 05 | 1:20 pm
The soonest that Schneider’s completely worthless and vile writings can be gotten rid of is not soon enough for me.
September 21st, 2005 at Sep 21, 05 | 11:32 pm
That’s sweet and all, Mike, but no thanks - I’m het.
Edit to add:
At least right now, Schneider is free to comment on NT, just not about killing government employees. That’s not a high hurdle to get over. (And I somehow deleted this comment while trying to edit it, so it got moved down the page about four spots.)
February 22nd, 2006 at Feb 22, 06 | 12:59 am
The link you provided makes references to “the Pro-slavery men”, which, if such descriptions were accurate, morally renders them the criminal accessories of those engaged in the “combat” of enslavement, meaning….