When the post-Sandy Hook gun control drive started--a point marking the start of the modern, post/anti-Heller movement--there was a rather understandable panic among 2A-types. Heller was only four and a half years old, but the victory had already had a psychological impact on many, including yours truly. The role of firearms as part of American heritage had been confirmed.
As happens in a panic, people can be driven to at least consider extreme or out-of-the-box action. In 1999 following Columbine, I honestly wondered if moving to Switzerland was a legitimate answer to the potential loss then of gun rights pre-Heller. (I didn't, and I wouldn't have.) So I can't get too upset with people who raise even more intense--or simply crazy--ideas.
Post-Sandy Hook, my response involved offering some fudd ideas, but even as now, they were rejected. However, some suggested a far more extreme idea: Forming compounds for people to gather to protect their guns. (Actually, the idea was to form A compound, as this was coming off the TEA Party movement and rather individualist self-focused, but the principle could be applied beyond.) I immediately saw a few problems with this:
1. These individualists could never live together:
- Religion (arguments and conversion efforts--the early English colonists came to North America for religious freedom, and promptly set up communities compelling people to follow their particular denomination; it was freedom of the Crown's Anglicanism that they sought).
- Morality (okay, I mean sexual predilections).
- Economy (it would by nature be a bit communitarian/socialist).
2. Bringing in income (they would have to leave the compound to work).
I have discussed the armed preservation of our heritage a number of times: HERE and HERE for baseline during-the-Election-Steal thoughts; TDF 69 for possibility of formal legally-recognized enclaves; TDF 55 for ".45" and TDF 27 for revolvers in particular--cf TDF 49; TDF 46 for firepower priorities; TDF 50 (search for "subculture"). I addressed individual/small group households and full official enclaves as possibilities. (I hope to do more on both in the future.) I tended to focus on the former, as the latter would require a change in the libertarian-infected attitude and character that affects too many Patriots today, and the possibility of "Time Trax"-esque Indian reservation-type set-asides for Whites/Patriots is far from certain. The experiences of Rhodesia and South Africa don't give much hope for something like that.
As happens in a panic, people can be driven to at least consider extreme or out-of-the-box action. In 1999 following Columbine, I honestly wondered if moving to Switzerland was a legitimate answer to the potential loss then of gun rights pre-Heller. (I didn't, and I wouldn't have.) So I can't get too upset with people who raise even more intense--or simply crazy--ideas.
Post-Sandy Hook, my response involved offering some fudd ideas, but even as now, they were rejected. However, some suggested a far more extreme idea: Forming compounds for people to gather to protect their guns. (Actually, the idea was to form A compound, as this was coming off the TEA Party movement and rather individualist self-focused, but the principle could be applied beyond.) I immediately saw a few problems with this:
1. These individualists could never live together:
- Religion (arguments and conversion efforts--the early English colonists came to North America for religious freedom, and promptly set up communities compelling people to follow their particular denomination; it was freedom of the Crown's Anglicanism that they sought).
- Morality (okay, I mean sexual predilections).
- Economy (it would by nature be a bit communitarian/socialist).
2. Bringing in income (they would have to leave the compound to work).
3. It would never hold against the expected attack (cue video from Waco, Texas in 1993).
And others.
But the big thing that crossed my mind was the mission itself. When looked at from a certain angle, it had its seeming nonsensicalities:
- Gathering together to protect "freedom," when the operation would cause people to compromise their evangelism, submit to socialist operations, and largely stay confined.
- Such intense efforts for only self-focus and delusion. Such is not an act of patriotism, and I wondered how devoted they would be to upholding heritage.
But the biggest--and fuddiest--thing to come to mind was the whole enterprise: People would gather guns to protect their guns. Stepping away from all the issues, I had to wonder about the question, "If you really only have guns to protect your guns, then wouldn't getting rid of your guns end your need for having guns? And if you don't have guns, what's really your problem with banning guns?"
Of course, I have answered that question from a different angle many times in the TDF series, in articles about the connection between RKBA and American/White/Western heritage. Yet again, the devotion to heritage of these people was uncertain, and I honestly have to wonder how long it would work. With the other problems I pointed out in mind, I had this image of some night all the tensions--race, sex, religion, baseball team fandoms (this was pre-BLM), etc.--breaking loose. In the early morning hours, neighbors to the compound would hear tons of shooting, far more than their usual night-firing practice sessions. The next morning, smoke would be seen rising from the compound, and First Responders would find something looking akin to the Mormon colony in the first (and best--Part 3 was okay) "Starship Troopers" movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J206CKoG1R0
And others.
But the big thing that crossed my mind was the mission itself. When looked at from a certain angle, it had its seeming nonsensicalities:
- Gathering together to protect "freedom," when the operation would cause people to compromise their evangelism, submit to socialist operations, and largely stay confined.
- Such intense efforts for only self-focus and delusion. Such is not an act of patriotism, and I wondered how devoted they would be to upholding heritage.
But the biggest--and fuddiest--thing to come to mind was the whole enterprise: People would gather guns to protect their guns. Stepping away from all the issues, I had to wonder about the question, "If you really only have guns to protect your guns, then wouldn't getting rid of your guns end your need for having guns? And if you don't have guns, what's really your problem with banning guns?"
Of course, I have answered that question from a different angle many times in the TDF series, in articles about the connection between RKBA and American/White/Western heritage. Yet again, the devotion to heritage of these people was uncertain, and I honestly have to wonder how long it would work. With the other problems I pointed out in mind, I had this image of some night all the tensions--race, sex, religion, baseball team fandoms (this was pre-BLM), etc.--breaking loose. In the early morning hours, neighbors to the compound would hear tons of shooting, far more than their usual night-firing practice sessions. The next morning, smoke would be seen rising from the compound, and First Responders would find something looking akin to the Mormon colony in the first (and best--Part 3 was okay) "Starship Troopers" movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J206CKoG1R0
The truth is that full Waco-style compounds as a defense against tyranny are the worst of both worlds--they are too small to sustain themselves well, and too large to avoid notice by anti-heritage officials. They lack the flexibility of a relatively simple household, and the stability of a government-sanctioned installation. And, as noted above, they could easily be too diverse to exist for long with a "freedom"-focused character. Exclusivist practices could handle some of that--but then, there was Jonestown.
There is, though, one HUGE caveat to all that: The thinking of those people had them acting in resistance to GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. Their image was of federal and/or perhaps State agents doing Waco-type raids (note the irony) or going house to house confiscating (per Katrina, perhaps). These people had no real cognizance of Federalist 46--indeed, this was before my time studying seriously the whole "resistance to tyranny" concept in 2A. But readers of TDF, this CGNS blog, and other writings by yours truly over during President Trump's leadership and since know the vision of Federalist 46, which I called upon to point the way for the States to enable our 45th POTUS to defeat the "Resistance" insurrection and the 2020 Election Steal. The Founders intended for resistance to federal tyranny to be conducted BY STATE SANCTION.
There is, though, one HUGE caveat to all that: The thinking of those people had them acting in resistance to GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. Their image was of federal and/or perhaps State agents doing Waco-type raids (note the irony) or going house to house confiscating (per Katrina, perhaps). These people had no real cognizance of Federalist 46--indeed, this was before my time studying seriously the whole "resistance to tyranny" concept in 2A. But readers of TDF, this CGNS blog, and other writings by yours truly over during President Trump's leadership and since know the vision of Federalist 46, which I called upon to point the way for the States to enable our 45th POTUS to defeat the "Resistance" insurrection and the 2020 Election Steal. The Founders intended for resistance to federal tyranny to be conducted BY STATE SANCTION.
This raises the matter of compounds in that context--that is, preservation of heritage and protection against anti-heritage PRIVATE forces (that means BLM/Antifa thugs and the like) in at least tolerant jurisdictions--i.e., ones that at least won't themselves raid the place on the slightest pretense.
"Collective self-defense" is a doctrine used by the Left to justify Leftwing political violence, claiming it to be defense of a given demographic against "systemic racism" and all that drivel. For Whites or Christians or Patriots to do such, though, runs up against the Marcusian "Liberating Tolerance" principle--a core to the Leftist "racism" definition that only Whites can be "racist" because Whites are the ones in power--and is inhibited by the White/Western Guilt pathology of too many of our people.
But suppose for the sake of examination that people not of a "traditionally oppressed" demographic can throw off enough of that Guilt pathology, the libertarian/individualist self-indulgence, and ideological isolationism to form a compound-community. Such a community would form a difficult target for mobs and gangs. A convoy system for trips out of the compound, along with other steps of mutual protection--e.g., coordinating work schedules and having their own guards at their places of employment--would come together to defend against attacks there. THAT sort of set-up would have a viable chance.
In a sense, it is a household grown big, only more defensible.
We saw some of this with the Korean shopkeepers in 1992 Los Angeles. While much attention is paid to their armed vigilance, we should note something that libertarian/individualist-types will hate to admit: Much of their success is attributable their COOPERATION. They protected their NEIGHBORHOOD, not just their own homes or their own businesses. They made their neighborhood a compound. They sacrificed their individual preference for a common cause.
"Mount Carmel" was the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas famously burned by a federal government overeager in pushing their gun control agenda. The Davidians' stand failed, as it was guaranteed to do given their opponent. The truth is, though, their system actually had defensive value had it been directed against a foe like Antifa or BLM. They could have held off an attack far longer than the Koreans in 1992, and certainly long enough for tolerant local authorities to arrive.
But the Davidians had a commonality--their faith--and a compelling power--their leader--holding them together. It led them into a religious culthood, to be sure, but it gave them strength regardless. If Patriots can sacrifice to have the latter result while avoiding the former result (and frankly, in our rather secular age that really shouldn't be that hard), a compound situation to preserve our heritage can work if the political situation is tolerant enough, and the threat level is high enough to warrant it. If society is too hostile, a more subdued approach (see TDF 46 for specifics) may likely be more advisable. If society is "too" hospitable--that is, compounds are hardly necessary--it frankly will be difficult for this generation to set aside differences and preferences enough to make a compound work.
All in all, it's a balancing act and algorithm of several factors as to whether a compound is actually advisable. Ideally, a coordinating entity would exist to ground and guide such efforts as compounds, but the Trump Organization is not willing to do that.
Not yet, that is.
Now, for those persistent in their aim for a compound, check out this video on urban warfare. It discusses making buildings into strong points. Some of the aspects don't apply, as neither side will have the weaponry discussed. (And please, Patriots and libertarians, don't cry over lack of full auto!). Take this for what it's worth.
But suppose for the sake of examination that people not of a "traditionally oppressed" demographic can throw off enough of that Guilt pathology, the libertarian/individualist self-indulgence, and ideological isolationism to form a compound-community. Such a community would form a difficult target for mobs and gangs. A convoy system for trips out of the compound, along with other steps of mutual protection--e.g., coordinating work schedules and having their own guards at their places of employment--would come together to defend against attacks there. THAT sort of set-up would have a viable chance.
In a sense, it is a household grown big, only more defensible.
We saw some of this with the Korean shopkeepers in 1992 Los Angeles. While much attention is paid to their armed vigilance, we should note something that libertarian/individualist-types will hate to admit: Much of their success is attributable their COOPERATION. They protected their NEIGHBORHOOD, not just their own homes or their own businesses. They made their neighborhood a compound. They sacrificed their individual preference for a common cause.
Ferguson in 2014 showed some of this as well, but in truth it was mostly shop by shop rather than area defense. To be fair, the tactical situation was less geographical. So I am left to wonder if the good guys--yes, mostly White people--could have come together enough to mount a private-sector spatial common defense if faced with something as overreaching as the LA insurrection. Some no doubt would have done so, but given the level in libertarian infection on the conservative/Right, I suspect too many would have not.
"Mount Carmel" was the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas famously burned by a federal government overeager in pushing their gun control agenda. The Davidians' stand failed, as it was guaranteed to do given their opponent. The truth is, though, their system actually had defensive value had it been directed against a foe like Antifa or BLM. They could have held off an attack far longer than the Koreans in 1992, and certainly long enough for tolerant local authorities to arrive.
But the Davidians had a commonality--their faith--and a compelling power--their leader--holding them together. It led them into a religious culthood, to be sure, but it gave them strength regardless. If Patriots can sacrifice to have the latter result while avoiding the former result (and frankly, in our rather secular age that really shouldn't be that hard), a compound situation to preserve our heritage can work if the political situation is tolerant enough, and the threat level is high enough to warrant it. If society is too hostile, a more subdued approach (see TDF 46 for specifics) may likely be more advisable. If society is "too" hospitable--that is, compounds are hardly necessary--it frankly will be difficult for this generation to set aside differences and preferences enough to make a compound work.
All in all, it's a balancing act and algorithm of several factors as to whether a compound is actually advisable. Ideally, a coordinating entity would exist to ground and guide such efforts as compounds, but the Trump Organization is not willing to do that.
Not yet, that is.
But the ultimate truth remains: If any collective action to work, Patriots must throw off both libertarianism/individualism and White Guilt. Without doing that, every compound, enclave, and frankly household will fall.
SPECIAL ITEM:Now, for those persistent in their aim for a compound, check out this video on urban warfare. It discusses making buildings into strong points. Some of the aspects don't apply, as neither side will have the weaponry discussed. (And please, Patriots and libertarians, don't cry over lack of full auto!). Take this for what it's worth.