How Sagging Your Pants Can Be a Revolutionary Action: Anonymizing Disobedience

Have you ever heard the myth that the idea of sagging pants originated in prison, as an indication that someone was a punk?

The main purpose of sagging is to stay strapped with a gun, to keep it concealed and to keep your hand on it to defend yourself (or aggress on someone) quickly. Of course it’s tied to criminal culture, but there’s a strategy in it that can be used for good. The inconvenience of sagging pants makes the strategy debatable in effectiveness, and people do it for other reasons, but there’s a core principle in the concept.

Its purpose is to foster a culture where everyone is sagging, but not all of them are carrying guns, which makes it difficult to identify who is carrying.

Sagging uses the strategy of anonymizing who is carrying a gun, because concealed carry is illegal in many US states (although other countries are much worse). In the US, and most countries on this Earth ruled by governments, self defense cases (that the police are aware of) become the jurisdiction of government to decide who is right or wrong in the altercation.

The ability to decide a person’s fate when they enter an altercation cannot be granted to government without a terrible outcome.

In some places in the US, if you look a certain way or have a certain skin color and shoot someone in self defense out of necessity you’re probably going to be charged with murder.

When it’s a necessity to defend yourself from people aggressing on you, in a violent area or where you are subject to tyranny, people must develop strategies to break the law and carry a weapon anyway. When it’s illegal to be armed, and people who are illegally armed are trying to use force against you on a daily basis, there is no option but to break the law.

Again, many people sag to aggress on people or have a thuggish attitude, some rob people and participate in that criminal culture, but in this practice there is a core grain of strategy that militant activists (people just trying to have a future) could find useful.

This article isn’t promoting criminality or aggressing on people, but self defense and the idea of strategically disobeying laws that infringe on our necessary and natural rights. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is essentially the core of it: don’t aggress on others, defend yourself if others initiate force against you.

Our world isn’t all bad, but it’s a world filled with coercion coming from people with weapons, and people with weapons paid by other people who call themselves government, or those who have money. For many reasons, people need their right to defense.

In areas of the US ravaged by poverty, drugs (which the CIA has imported), and the culture of criminality make it to where owning a gun for self defense is a life or death necessity.

I know this from comparing the gun culture in Texas to California. Speaking from experience, the dangerous neighborhoods of Texas are often safer than the hoods in California.

In Texas, most people own guns and robberies are relatively rare because no one wants to get shot. At the same time, armed robberies indeed can be more intense in Texas because the assailant knows they are at risk of being shot.

In Cali, restrictive gun laws have disarmed civilians who are sometimes preyed on by criminals. Criminals in Cali have every type of gun you could imagine.

California residents who illegally own guns for self defense, and innocent people who shot someone in self defense have been incarcerated.

Cali also has a more widespread culture of drugs and gangbanging than Texas, and has been historically tied to it, like Chicago.

In Chicago, crates of guns have been found sitting idly on the street, left for anyone to take. This was observed when neighborhoods became saturated with guns, drugs, and a culture of self destructive criminality and mercenaryism. Its as if someone wanted Chicago residents to kill each other.

But there’s a bigger picture, something more pertinent to our future freedom and safety: a culture of being armed to defend from government, corporate, institutional, or petty criminal aggression. We need to foster that culture and hang onto it with everything we have when governments try to disarm us.

– A disarmed population is subject to aggression from the state

It’s no different from a petty criminal trying to kidnap you, when the police or government incarcerate you for a non-violent “crime.” Frankly, why should defensive force not by used in response to corrupt government? At what point should people defend themselves from the state?

To take it further, it’s still an act of aggression for police to arrest a person for a violent crime if you consider the state illegitimate.

We, the community, us individually, have the right to self defense and maintaining order in our neighborhoods, cooperating together, without a centralized authority making legislation and enforcing it with police.

That is the natural order.

For more about this philosophy, check the videos below.

—-<iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/HrEYRgBV5Vc” width=”854″ height=”480″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”></iframe>—–

—–<iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/NwlKDv0Fw98″ width=”854″ height=”480″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”></iframe>——

—–<iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZSqBNGxLiAs” width=”854″ height=”480″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”></iframe>—–

(Image credit: DA, Defensive Carry, IG)