Letter to author of ‘Reluctant Partisan’

4Jul - by admin - 0 - In communication

Hello “John Mosby”,

You are probably already putting this in the bin, or scanning it for
quick deletion. I would like to have pointed out that we have both written a book with a similar intent, yours is about war, and mine is also about war but more so about economics, and i think your program will fail if you make the mistake of not giving everyone their inalienable right to their share of the land, for free and forever. We will end up where we are now, again, which is already a repeat of the middle ages (where land ownership was also centralized). My book is 100% free download by the way (for the cause), I do not want your money.

You could read it at market.socialism.nl. It will be a difficult read because it is quite detailed, but it has to be detailed otherwise nothing will be done. Among proposing a complete Constitution as the bases for a new society after this one has died, it also has a 9 methods Revolutionary program. Four of those ways deal with violence (hence me reading your book).

Sorry, I am not very good at pitching stuff, I don’t specialize in it.

You will not “preserve liberty” by any stretch of the imagination, if you do not give people their right to land. People do not even know what freedom is. If you don’t have your land, you are not free, end of story, the rest is hot air to run cover for the new feudal overlords and other criminals. We cannot afford this kind of mistakes again in the future, not with nukes and whatnot. Maybe we still got one shot to get it right, maybe we are already too late.

Another big problem is “democracy” on the district or parliament model, which is prone to heavy corruption due to the way people do not know whom they vote for (especially in the age of TV). I realize at the root is the misbehavior of the common man that makes democracy (under law) fail, however something of an ideal and/or minority practice should be put into action and maybe slowly grow up.

Don’t get confused about my domain name if you are still reading this. I strongly oppose Communism (Lenin especially), because it is a form of centralization of Power. Usually Americans understand little or nothing about European politics. Americans made the big mistake not to give their children what some of them got when they got in America: free land. That mistake has now turned USA into the reverse of what some of them would like it to have been. The after-glow of that history, still gives rise to the idea that the system works, except it does not work because there is no free land anymore. You need to institutionalize free land for all.

I realize that the law of the preservation of misery is always active with humanity (whatever you do, humanity finds a way to ruin it), but that does not mean we should not try for the best, rather it means we should try double hard.

have a nice day,
Jos Boersema
Netherlands

Further comments (not part of the original e-mail). The work(s) ‘The reluctant Partisan” seem to be useful, and easy to read (easier than US army manuals). ideologically (with which it starts) it seems to both be critical of the super rich, and (typical for Americans) of  “socialists” who don’t care about society except to collect their lazy welfare, until that welfare gets cut and they form mobs which start violently looting for food. From there the jump is made to street level protection by citizens after ‘the shit has hit the fan‘ (economic / society collapse), in particular protection of their properties, under conditions where the central USA Government is no longer of interest (it being remote).

This ideological bend is only in the first few pages, and comes with a sense of American superiority complex (the American Revolution supposedly was the only one in all of history that went well, which is a rather strange concept considering the American Revolution was inspired on the Swiss and Dutch Revolutions, at least the latter of which was inspired on the Roman Republic and its Revolution, Israel their Torah and so on, etc). Fortunately none of this matters much, because the book is about combat and in particular guerrilla warfare. However it might be useful to look a little more into this ideological framework, because the book by undersigned ‘Distribute Power‘ is large ideological, and has a significant amount of Revolutionary suggestions spend on the problem of war and violence, again primarily if not exclusively on the area of what we should fight for, and a measure of how to distribute power inside our own organizations (to prevent top level infiltration, which is a great risk because our enemy has enormous amounts of money).

Keep in mind that this is not a comparison between the two (three) books, because they are about different topics with only a small amount of overlap. I have nothing to add to the books by (pseudonym) “John Mosby” about how war should be conducted as such. We can still look at what are we fighting for. Indeed I would argue: everyone might want to think about that, or will be forced to think about that when and if a society becomes chaotic. This article is not a review of the book, and book reviews are not the goal of this page. This page promotes the book “Distribute Power,” and therefore it might matter how both books interact.

On first glance on the goal of warfare between the two works: they both argue that street security should be established. The ‘Reluctant Partisan’ then mentions the protection of property: houses, your own house, your neighbors house, etc. The book ‘Distribute Power’ seems to focus more on people: protect the outspoken journalist, researcher, would be target of tyrannical assassination or repression. The book ‘Distribute Power’ argues that within this shell of protection against political violence, we can (re-)establish a democratic common protocol in order to have a civil form of democratic / representative Government of the kind the people in the area want. How ‘The Reluctant Partisan” continues to develop its vision of victory is unknown to undersigned, because I have only just started to read these books (which together total a few dozen more pages as my book: almost 700 pages). Street security and the protection of potentially targeted people and (democratic) organizations are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary (in my opinion).

There seems to be an interesting flavor to the title “The Reluctant Partisan,”in relation to the type of warfare argued in “Distribute Power” which is to bring all moderates together and be a third force that prevents political violence. The word “reluctant” denotes a measure of moderation, whereas the word “partisan”  could be viewed as a problem from the perspective of “Distribute Power;” unless one would conceive of a group (party) striving for basic street order and a minimum of political freedom for all as being that party, rather than “partisan” being a generalized term fit for everyone who wants to take up arms for some kind of cause, however noble, far fetched, common sense, or criminal. Since the aim of the book “The Reluctant Partisan” seems to contain good advice to commoners (untrained people who suddenly see themselves forced to deal with security and violence issues) on how to (re-)establish some local peace and safety, the former (the partisan is a moderate) would be a reasonable interpretation of the title. Meaning that a reluctant partisan could easily become that third force as described in “Distribute Power“. Compare: a group (partisans) who have decided to march to their Capital city, and lay siege to it, until a detailed set of economic, political and judicial demands has been met. That would be quite a different form of warfare. Both works (by “John Mosby” pseudonym, and undersigned) seem to suggest the operations area is in the local area, the area where the one reading the book lives or is residing.

There could be some shift in attitude about the goal of warfare when a group of “reluctant partisans” embraces the goals and methods of a system o-5 method of Revolution (protection of others from political harassment, repression / violence), because (at least on the face of it) if one does not make political freedoms the core of what we are fighting for but rather make it about street freedom and property of common citizens (there is nothing wrong about that either), that one could come into a situation where that Militia (say) who is influencing a certain area might agree to let a violent group take away a political critic who is within the bounds of freedom of speech, if that reduces street violence and threats to property. If however the fight is about political freedom first, than it could end up being the other way around: damage to property and less politically active / less targeted people could be accepted as the price to pay for protecting people with political opinions and work that should fall under the freedom of expression and organization. The point of the latter central theme (protecting people) could be argued to be that we are in the long run safer in our properties and streets if we protect political opposition, although it may cost us something in the short term.

There are also war methods o-6 (open front civil war, basically the creation of a new Nation and territories that are entirely under the Sovereignty of the ones conducting this method) and methods o-7 (distributed cell resistance), as part of “Distribute Power” Revolutionary methods, which will certainly be areas where the content provided by “The Resultant Partisan” will be relevant, perhaps critical (although the relevant content might also be available through other works).

Then one final remark: having tried to read the book “Ready for Revolution – The CNT Defense Committees in Barcelona 1933-38″ by Agustin Guillamón (translated by Paul Sharkey, AK Press,” the threat that welfare leftists (so to speak, what “John Mosby” (pseudonym) seems to refer to) would rise up to form looting mobs with some sort of vague vision of “Anarchy” and Revolution, is something that can happen and has happened (although I don’t think that those having risen up in Spain where lazy welfare recipients; they did end up looting and where perhaps too chaotic in their minds). On the other end of the spectrum we have violent far right fascist mobs conducting mass murdering parties. The center of politics is also not “safe” or normal, because the center is simply the average in a crazy world, and whatever extremism that may have shifted to over time (American exceptionalism comes to mind, although the possibilities are limitless). Once the majority of force establishes a new center of power and if that is not something good, the most damage can be done to all. Hopefully a combination of both the works “The Reluctant Partisan” and “Distribute Power” could remedy the overall situation and create a center of power that is good enough for now. A peace that would be underpinned by an active citizenry, who know what they could do if they wanted to.

P.S.

The Picture shown above is the two books, laying on a few of my common defense items (so to say). Ah, my foot is on there, too (lol). I decided to picture the books like this: no messing about making art, because this is how pathetic the attempt of a common citizen can be in my case. How are we going to win any fight with a bunch of swords and bow / arrows here in our disarmed Nation ? Obviously with only that and very little training, we will only be sporting practice for whatever professional forces.

Despite an impossible force difference with professionals, I still belief it is important to do what we can as common citizens, because in many cases we will not have to come up against professional well equipped forces, but against our peers. For example […. this part has been removed, because it contains quite specific political opinions that might put off someone who disagrees from the more general work Distribute Power ….] they chose to attack the people who where expressing their political concerns in front of their own building with a mob of common people who where using primarily molotov coctails and hand axes. It might also be noted that one can use a weapon to gain access a weapon of greater power. When doing what little one can do, or what little one thinks is required at some point in time (the chance that society would break down within a reasonable training schedule of some 5 years is usually not that high): at least one is thinking about how combat is conducted if we need it, while gaining a small measure of skill, and making a step toward taking responsibility for the minimum freedom and security of all while the going is easy, so that maybe a few will keep going when the going gets tough (if I may say so).

Propaganda work:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *