The origin of “One hundred heads” meme

The Grave of the Hundred Head by Kipling was recently referenced in a post about possible forceful responses to government abuses. However, we may want to keep in mind that Kipling wrote about revenge exacted against a local population by “sepoys” in support of a foreign invader. It was more if ATF destroyed a Mexican village that killed one of their gunrunners. We already know that government thugs feel immune to prosecution (Lon Horiuchi was granted immunity after Ruby Ridge murders, went on to murder more at Waco) and are not reluctant to shed other people’s blood directly or through proxies. In other words, should Americans respond by killing a few predators, the rest may step up the atrocities instead of retreating.

This entry was posted in book, civil rights, rkba, self-defense and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The origin of “One hundred heads” meme

  1. That’s exactly what Waco was. Koresh was made an example of because of his defiance to the government. Google the Viper Militia. This was another Reno expedition so that the “Militia” and anyone interested in defying the government was going to pay dearly even for practicing “drills.” Of course, law enforcement does this daily. Clearly there was the goal to put the people in their place ASAP.

    Will their be circular retaliation, yes. The question becomes, if, and when some event happens will it be callous enough that people feel the need to use violence to retaliate. IMHO, that becomes a very slippery slope. Violence is usually what polarizes those against the people using it.

  2. Groundhog says:

    I can’t figure out how to get this thought out coherently so forgive me. I don’t see a defined enemy. There are many divisions in America but they are also all mixed together. We say we see ourselves becoming a police state. One person will say that there’s lots of good cops out there. Another that they are all complicit because they are still part of that organization. As it stands right now, if the police break down your door and come in and shoot you, certainly they are your enemy. To your neighbor however, they may be at best, heroes keeping you safe, or at worst they don’t care because it wasn’t their door or life.

    Honestly, as it stands right now I think both federal and local governments could commit many more and much more severe atrocities and get away with it rather easily. Who do you stand up against exactly? And much more importantly, who stands up with you? It all seems like a big nebulous mess to me and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. Sorry for any incoherence, I’m tired tonight.

  3. The Inconvenience says:

    Surely, acts of defiance will end in the predators becoming more violent. But is that a bad thing? Most likely that violence will be what wakes up many on the sidelines. The Boston Tea Party was initiated by a small group, yet gave us military occupation, which caused resentment by the majority against the British.

  4. Lyle says:

    “I don’t see a defined enemy.”
    How about those who violate other people’s rights? That would include those who give as well as those who obey orders to do so.

    You may be saying that you don’t clearly understand rights, and so do not understand where or when they’re being violated. I wouldn’t blame you, much, because of all the attepmts to redefine rights over the years. That’s where each of us needs to do some homework. The ever-maligned essay by Ayn Rand; “Man’s Rights” is an excellent place to start.

  5. Lyle says:

    “…should Americans respond by killing a few predators, the rest may step up the atrocities instead of retreating.”

    That is exactly what the predators are hoping for and actively trying to bring about. They think chaos will be on their side, and have said exactly that. However; pride and arrogance being an underestimation of one’s fellows, they miscalculate the strength and resolve of the American spirit. As with the British of the 18th century, today’s predators will have their mass destruction, even if they lose in the process. I’ve often referred to the leftist/socialist/communist camp as a death cult, slowly running its course toward an inevitable end, and I’ve not seen anything to alter that conclusion.

  6. Ted says:

    It’s anyone’s guess if USA might follow Germany-89 or Russia-92 scenario. In those cases, the military and law enforcement considered ahead of time how indefensible they are going to be after they use up their ammunition on hand. So they stopped fighting for the unpopular rulers well before that (Romania-89 revolution was an example of doing the same, with unfortunate delay). At least, we are not in Hungary-56 situation because there is no superpower on-call to pretect status quo.

  7. “should Americans respond by killing a few predators, the rest may step up the atrocities instead of retreating.”

    That may actually be the goal of some potential “revolutionaries.” It is fairly standard insurgent tactics to provoke an overreaction by government forces to generate sympathy for the insurgents domestically and internationally. That tactic is not likely to work here relying as it does on media portrayals of the “atrocities” and an international community that actually sees the reactions as _over_reactions. Neither of those hold here.

    In fact, I believe we are seeing the reverse in play–the government is deliberately trying to provoke an “overreaction” from certain elements of the populace in order to paint _them_ as the “bad guys” and justify further restrictions in the name of countering this insurgency.

Comments are closed.