I ordered the book yesterday and it arrived today. Capitalism works – or some of it does. After a quick scan, though, the text seems unimpressive, splattered with leftie tosh and stream of consciousness mush. But what is attractive is the title (which is why I bought it) and the thinking behind it. That is what we're all about. That is what the Siege of Bradford is about, and that is why the fight continues.

The point is that we are not talking here about a little local difficulty. Withholding Council Tax is, in my view, a perfectly legitimate protest and one I have been doing for many years. But, in so doing we have become aware of the deep-seated illegality and corruption which pervades local government as a whole, and goes all the way to the top.

View full article here

Well done! I have taken the local mafiaso, ak the council, on many times and won. The scum rely on the lilly livered Brit public to just roll over while they lift the wallet and extract the money. The sight of the red faced, fat, suited wankers complete with stupid name tags around their necks (presumably in case they forget their own names) whooping it up in my local at lunchtime while the proles stuffed down a swift half and a sandwich was always enough to galvanise me to challenge them ever more.

But... the whole concept of 'a leaderless revolution' fundamentally misunderstands the human psychological instinct and innate conservative (small 'c') political predisposition to hierarchy. Ultimately, the people will demand a king. If they are to emerge from captivity, there needs to be definition, cohesion and coherence. A leaderless effort will be disjunctive, divided and disparate - just like the anti-EU movement at the moment.

The state is set up to take on leaders and bully individuals. There seems to be an infinite capacity to take on leaders but a very finite capacity to bully individuals. Isn't there some theory that if 3% of any population begins to act a certain way the majority will simply follow?

We don't need leaders as in figureheads to take down the state what is required are leaders who show us the way.

It depends upon which stratum of society that 3% is to be found.

Those familiar with the late Harry Browne's "How I found Freedom in an unfree World." will be familiar with that concept. Browne's book told/tells us nothing that we shouldn't already logically know...and that is why so many folk hate it; for it exposes our inability to think straight, let alone reasonably...the book is therefore 'rubbish'
Browne's mistake was that he thought he was writing for people with the gift of logical thought.
He would be making the same mistake were he to be writing today.

..........His Grace hath, as so terrifyingly oft, all hys marbles about hym.
One doe not get incinerated for nothing.

I think what we are hoping for is a Tipping Point .

Actually the King comes later. When the French ripped down the Monarchy many tried to march at the front but the mob was not for leading. Only later, into the vacuum, came the new leaders culminating in Napoleon.
When it comes to leaderless strategy remember ants. There are no generals, no chain of command just an unstoppable advance ripping apart even much larger animals that get in the way.
To do this properly we need a wiki with each council having its own page and links to who is FOIing what.
If people feel this is a good idea it will need a few admins/moderators to keep it relevant.
Worth a go?

..yes, I do remember ants, Sandy, having once been overrun by Drivers while sleeping but, as often, you've chosen a bad example.
Last time I heard, ant colonies have Queens, the preservation of whom is the (only) driving force of their behaviour....Führerprinzip?
You may be more on the mark with the French Revolution simile but eventually an accepted leader appeared...and look where that got everyone. His Grace remains vindicated.

No. I don't think he does. In ordinary life, leadership is a very flexible concept. Any individual might give and accept leadership many times in the day ... a father might lead his son ... accept his wife's leadership on family issues ... lead his team at work, but take leadership from a policeman after a road accident on the way to work, consult a priest for moral leadership and then accept leadership from a doctor on a specific health issue.

Thus, we don't need a Supreme Leader. If someone has a good idea, we can follow them - insofar as the idea is appropriate to us. Others will not follow it, but will follow someone else. Today's leader might be tomorrow's follower, and the leader again in two week's time. In other cases, we will just do our own things, without any form of leadership ... perhaps no one will follow either ... but the activity will still be effective in a small way.

Very often, the "king" is the follower from the front, or the imposter who claims something that he does not offer, and is skilled enough to foster an illusion, taking credit for things people were going to do anyway.

To that extent, that we need a "king" is but a myth fostered by those who would be king, or who support the king, or want a king as part of their own comfort zone. Invariably, when the chips are down, and the way is obvious, people most definitely do not need a leader. They know their own way.

No, in this you are, in my humble opinion, wrong. A leader will take advice from any number of experts but ultimately he will decide what advice to take. A totally different concept.

John.

That's a very cardboard cut-out idea of a leader ... one which does not exist. The art of good advisers is to give your "leader" the idea that he is in control. Do you really thing Cameron really decides on anything more important than when he goes to the toilet?

I may be wrong about the type of commentary and contributors on this blog and if I am, then - be sure to educate me.

I used to comment on a certain [other] blog, there were many interesting contributions and the thread was often electric with various opinion and comments. Trouble is, they often went to war with each other - that is the trouble with disparate and free thinking individuals, in that, collective harmony and agreement can be a rare commodity.

Standing up and speaking unpopular truths is also a difficult thing, we all crave a quiet life, do we not?

Sometimes, just sometimes, good folk and right minded men and women have to say; "enough is enough!"
I genuinely fear for the future, I also know, this pillaging by the elites, this criminality and law breaking by people, who should [and do] know better cannot go on [neither can the example that they set - otherwise we will all descend into the pit - can we say in all honesty that we are not already there?].

What I do not know, is how we can bring this people revolution to the people.

I think Dr. North speaks eminent and evident sense and that - in our own small way, we must do our duty.

I am tainted, if you like, by my experience in researching for the Battle of Britain book. We are used to the concept of the great war leader Churchill but, in fact, much of that is a post-war myth. During the crucial early days of the London Blitz, when the infrastructure in the East End was on the point of collapse, and there was a mood of rebellion in the air as the passive defence system collapsed, Churchill went AWOL. The people sought their own salvation ... the leadership came from the people themselves ... priests, some very notable women, Salvation Army, a junior Council clerk on one occasion.

Churchill went around doing carefully staged theatricals, to pre-vetted crowds, while back in the Cabinet he was set to call out the troops on people seeking shelter, whence a very large part of the population openly defied the government, forcing a change of policy in one of the most humiliating climbdowns of the war. Only a controlled press and censorship prevented it being fully recognised for what it was.

It does seem to me, therefore, that leadership in this coming crisis will come from the bottom - from the people ... the dynamic is more like a relay race, where the baton of leadership is passed from person to person, constantly changing.