Harold

Harold Gray is on a personal journey to share his knowledge with others. In 2008, he launched JustGetThere in order to dispense information about the draconian system.

After coming to the conclusion that the sheer amount of such information had begun to reach the point of repetition, Harold decided to turn his focus onto things he could control, and to pursue self-sufficiency through positive intentions — which lead to the launch of JustLive in 2010.

7 responses to “(Free Book) U.S. Army Field Manual for Combatives FM 3-25.150”

  1. Another crank group who doesn’t know whether it is a bunch of mercenaries or 18th century mercantilists. Get a grip fools, your championing of the “free-market” just bolsters corporate capitalism (the real dominant power, not your fantasy “big government”).
    Agorism is a simplistic comedy fantasy in a complex world. American pseudo-anarchism has polluted anarchism with the worst values of individualism and fuck everyone else.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. “Another crank group who doesn’t know whether it is a bunch of mercenaries or 18th century mercantilists.” — Who? The US Army? If so, I agree. :D

    But, this is a post with free information about the martial arts, self-defense, or exercise — take your pick. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your comment here.

    There is plenty of debate within anarchism regarding a truly freed market as a strategy, going back to Proudhon. There is no connection between market anarchism and corporate capitalism — and there’s plenty of information here and elsewhere discussing that gaping chasm. Not only is there a great divide, they two ideologies are dead-set against each other.

    “Big government” and “corporate capitalism” are symbiotic — one cannot exist without the other. This site and other market anarchist sites are quick to point out that fact. Calling for a freed market does not bolster corporate capitalism, nor its symbiotic organism, the state.

    Agorism is a strategy, nothing more. It’s not sacred, nor infallible. If you don’t like it, that’s just fine with me. I’m happy to hear about what you suggest instead. If by “American pseudo-anarchism” you mean “individualist anarchism,” then I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree. Individualist anarchism has a long and important history within anarchism, and I fail to see how it relies upon “the worst values of individualism and fuck everyone else.” But thanks for the feedback.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. I’m afraid I don’t agree with the rewriting of anarchist historiography, basically because it’s untrue. Anarchism always had a distinctly social dimension which incoporated freedom, which is probably why it had a closer relationship with early socialism than with the anything to do with what Smithian free-markets was assocated.
    A quote from Marx captures the meeting point between individual freedom and the general social dimension:
    “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”

    The crux of the problem in, particularly American, anarchism is the fetishisation of Smithian-type economics as the king of liberators, arguably a description of a limited phase of early capitalism…which I argue has simply led to the organisation of corporate capitalism. The power of unfettered capitalism is a magnet for the greedy to consolidate power. This is a chief weakness in market-anarchist thought which naively believes that somehow no-one will band together to consolidate power if they isn’t some entity officially called ‘the government’.

    This sort of anarchism is too obsessed with simple government control and not focused enough on how capitalist business interests dominates government for its own purposes. The fallacy that capitalism – supposedly a morally neutral force – is simply spoiled by government authority, rather than even entertaining the idea that the manipulation and control simply emanates from a thirst for economic power based on growth and success. The problem lies in the economic form. What will market anarchists do to temper inevitable varied growth and prevent domination and consolidation of power? Anything at all without contradicting its own claims to abhor authority and control?

    It’s no use quoting Smithian ‘invisible hand’ theory, like it is a universal truth; it has no effect in a complex economy – and already before the end of the 19th century had failed as a description and analysis of actual economies existing outside of mathematical and philosophical models. Such an approach is the twin brother of the oft-mocked vulgar Marxism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Individualist anarchism has always had a distinctly social dimension as well, and developed concurrently with social anarchism. As a matter of focus, each took a somewhat different tact, but they are both within the socialist paradigm; simply diverging on some questions of means, not of ends.

    Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, et al, were within the socialist sphere, yet are generally considered to have been individualist anarchists. Are you saying that their inclusion in the historiography of anarchism is a rewriting thereof?

    As a mutualist, I too grow weary of some (self-described) anarchists’ focus on saving “capitalism” as a term and/or as an ideology. Economics, in and of itself, is not the savior of humankind. Focusing on money — and economies based upon it — is not what I, nor this site, aim to do. Granted, we’ve quoted from, cited, and linked to economically focused (even capitalist) writers and organizations; but with the overarching goal of promoting self and community sufficiency vis-a-vis reducing dependency on the state and its capitalist controllers.

    Generally speaking, we seek to reduce the impact of labels when some insight can be gleaned from a source. In my view, those we oppose are far more inclined to overlook differences in pursuit of a common goal; and it seems a shame when we — already a minority — split and divide ourselves unnecessarily.

    Market anarchism, as I understand it, does not call for unfettered capitalism. On the contrary, it seeks to end capitalism by the equitable redistribution of its privileges. If every person has access to the means of production, he cannot be held in thrall by a select few who control them; as is the case now and in most of the past.

    Individualist anarchism is not inherently capitalistic, as explained nicely in the Anarchist FAQ. Market anarchism, inasmuch as it follows the general ideas of people like Proudhon and Tucker, is not capitalistic either; but is, as I said, opposed to it.

    We may disagree on points, but I don’t think leveling the accusation that it is “not focused enough on how capitalist business interests dominates government for its own purposes” is fair nor accurate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. I shall read through the Anarchist FAQ, since it is probably more courteous for me to understand the tenor of the website better before levelling criticism.

    I’m not a thoroughgoing anarchist, nor a fan of mutalism (Rothbard in particular), but there’s no doubt we likely have much more in common against the mess of orthodoxy.

    My apologies if I’ve appeared rude initially.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Thanks, Hans. I appreciate this dialogue, no apologies necessary. I totally understand your concerns, and I think it’s helpful for all involved to hash these things out when they arise instead of (as often happens) letting labels completely obfuscate the conversation.

    Rothbard wasn’t a mutualist, though mutualists will quote him on those points they agree with; the extent of which varies from person-to-person, of course.

    To use your phrasing, this site is more focused on being “against the mess of orthodoxy” than it is on promoting any particular flavor of stateless ideology. So, it sometimes runs the risk of being unpalatable to one way of thinking or the other. It’s a risk we’ll have to take, though, in order to attempt to foster general cooperation toward a common goal.

    Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this. :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Hi there! This is my first comment here so I just wanted
    to give a quick shout out and say I truly enjoy reading your posts.
    Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics?
    Thank you so much!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Myspace button