Armed Bohemian - Origins and Definitions of the Term

Armed Bohemian as a term is the evolution of something I've used for awhile, and you can still find as a label on my mainstream blog Rum & Donuts – “NeoBohemian”.
I'd been trying for a couple of years to collect the foundations of an idea of neobohemianism as a sort of armed renaissance man for today. Bookstore and coffee shop court holding, art opening attending, gun bearing, etc. It just wasn't working. NeoBohemian was too easily misinterpreted (including by me) and lacked the robustness of the self-contained definition Armed Bohemian.
My first encounter with the term “Armed Bohemian” was via ZenPundit, referencing Konrad Heiden. Heiden, a German journalist and authority on of the rise of Hitler, used the term to describe Hitler, and many of his fellows. The idea being that they were (self-assumed at least) intellectuals and artists, educated or semi-educated men, hardened by war and applying that combined experience into a new movement of force.
ZenPundit quoted the term to cover a general range of tyrants and warlords: “Men who are ill-suited to achieving success in an orderly society but are acutely sensitive to minute shifts that they can exploit during times of uncertainty, coupled with an amoral sociopathology to do so ruthlessly. Paranoid and vindictive, they also frequently possess a recklessness akin to bravery and a dramatic sentimentality that charms followers and naive observers alike. Some warlords can manifest a manic energy or regularly display great administrative talents while a minority are little better than half-mad gangsters getting by, for a time, on easy violence, low cunning and lady luck.”
Despite the negative connotations of the term, I liked it when I first read it and wanted to know more. Perhaps my sympathy towards some warlord ideals and romantic stereotypes eased the punch of the associated negatives.
In researching the term, I came across another usage of it – This from libertarian-socialist, conservationist Murray Bookchin's Ecology of Freedom.
For context, I feel it worthwhile to quote a few pages where Bookchin enters a discussion of individualist assertive personalities giving definition to humanity. His case-study is Archilochus, the Greek mercenary-poet:

“The word humanity is a barren abstraction if it is not given existential reality by self-assertive personalities who enjoy a visible degree of autonomy. Such beings could hardly be created by imperial edict. To the extent that organic society declined, so too did the intense sense of collectivity it had fostered. A new contect had to be created for the individual that would render it function in an increasingly atomized world. [...] the waning of primordial society placed a high premium on a new type of individual: a resourceful, comparatively self-sufficient, and self-reliant ego that could readily adapt itself to – if not “command” - a society that was losing its human scale and developing more complex political institutions and commercial ties than any human community had known in the past.
Such individuals had always existed on the margins of the early collective. They were ordinarily given a certain degree of institutional expression if only to provide a safety valve for marked personal idiosyncrasies. Tribal society has always made allowances for aberrant sexual behavior, exotic psychological traits and personal ambition (the “big man” syndrome) – allowances that find expression in a high degree of sexual freedom, shamanistic roles, and an exaltation of courage and skill. From this marginal area, society recruited its priests and warrior-chieftains for commanding positions in later, more hierarchical institutions.
But this development is not simply one of breakdown and recomposition. It occurs on a personal level and a social level – egocentric and sociocentric. Viewed on the personal level, the individual accompanies the emergence of “civilization” like a brash, unruly child whose cries literally pierce the air of history and panic the more composed, tradition-bound collectivity that continues to exist after the decline of organic society. The ego's presence is stridently announced by the warrior, whose own “ego boundaries” are established by transgressing the boundaries of all traditional societies. The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh, for example, befriends the stranger, Enkidu, who shares his various fears as a companion, not a kinsman. Valor, rather than lineage, marks their myth-beclouded personal traits.
But misty, almost stereotyped figures like Gilgamesh seem like metaphors for individuality rather than the real thing. More clearly etched personalities like Achilles, Agamemnon, and the Homeric warriors are often cited as the best candidates for western conceptions of the newly born ego. “The model of the emerging individual is the Greek hero,” observes Max Horkheimer in his fascinating discussion of the rise and decline of individuality. “Daring and self-reliant, he triumphs in the struggle for survival and emancipates himself from tradition as well as from the tribe.” That these qualities of daring and self-reliance were the be prized in the Greco-Roman world is accurate enough, but it is doubtful if the model is properly placed. In fact, the most striking egos of the archaic world were not the bronze-age heroes celebrated by Homer but the iron-age antiheroes so cynically described by Archilochus. Indeed, Archilochus himself was the embodiment of this highly unique personality. He links a hidden tradition of the ego's self-assertion in organic society with the calculating individual of emerging “civilization”.

Unlike a quasi-mythical despot like Gilgamesh or a newly-arrived aristocrat like Achilles, Archilochus speaks for a remarkable breed: the displaced, wandering band of mercenaries who must live by their wits and cunning. He is no Homeric hero but rather something of an armed bohemian of the seventh century B.C. His self-possession and libertarian spirit stand in marked contrast to the disciplined lifeways that are congealing around the manorial society of his day. His very existence almost seems improbable, even an affront to the heroic posture of his era. His occupation as itinerant soldier reflects the sweeping decomposition of society; his arrogant disdain for tradition exudes the negativity of the menacing rebel. What cares he for the shield has had abandoned in battle? “Myself I saved from death; why should I worry about my shield? Let it be gone: I shall buy another equally good.” Such sentiments could never have been expressed by a Homeric hero with his aristocratic code of arms and honor. Nor does Archilochus judge his commanders by their mien and status. He dislikes a “tall general, striding forth on his long legs; who prides himself on his locks and shaves his chin like a fop. Let him be a small man,” he declares, “perhaps even bow-legged, as long as he stands firm on his feet, full of heart.”
Archilochus and his wandering band of companions are the earliest record we have of that long line of “masterless men” who surface repeatedly during periods of social decomposition and unrest – men, and later women, who have no roots in any community or tradition, who colonize the world's future rather than its past. Their characters are literally structured to defy custom, to satirize and shatter established mores, to play the game of life by their own rules. Marginal as they may be, they are the harbingers of the intensely individuated rebel who is destined to “turn the world upside down.” They have broad shoulders, not puny neuroses, and express themselves in a wild, expletive-riddled poetry or oratory. Society must henceforth always warily step aside when they appear on the horizon and silently pray that they will pass by unnoticed by its restive commoners – or else it must simply destroy them.
But these are the few sharply etched personalities of history, the handful of marginal rebels whose significance varies with the stability of social life. Their fortunes depend upon the reception they receive by much larger, often inert, masses of people.”

This passage, on whole, is incredibly important for defining armed bohemianism as I see it and seek to practice it. Bookchin's armed bohemian, “He is no Homeric hero but rather something of an armed bohemian”, is not a man of society, or of tribe, but a force which shapes and defines his own society and tribe, his own freedom and attachments.
How is this different from the armed bohemian of ZenPundit and Heiden? The tyrant bohemian they portray is seemingly limited in his/her scope merely to villainy. A perhaps locally celebrated, but overall negative, force in the world at large. But outstanding characteristics remain - The tyrant bohemian is of the type of “Men who are ill-suited to achieving success in an orderly society but are acutely sensitive to minute shifts that they can exploit during times of uncertainty”. This is not a characteristic solely of tyrants, but of all those “self-assertive personalities who enjoy a visible degree of autonomy” that we call armed bohemians.
We define the armed bohemian as a character of multiple possibilities, dark and light, but retaining many of the same qualities on both sides of the coin. Perhaps foremost among these is that they are creatures of limited value (other than to themselves) except at certain times – Their individuality, a certain confrontational independence, puts them at odds with a stable society. They seek the interstices, places of lawlessness and freedom rather than those of stability and control. Here their desires and skillsets may never be of great value, but they are free to practice them and share them with the select few allowed to participate (not just fellow inhabitants of the fringe, but the select attachments chosen by the individual). However, at times of great unrest, destabilization, these personalities rise as the quality they sought in the interstices are now extant in the whole. The armed bohemian, being “acutely sensitive to these shifts”, finds his greatest potential successes here – Where much of general society would fail, or flee, being inhibited by their establishment in past modes.
To quote ZenPundit again, “Every society, no matter how civilized or polite on the surface, harbors many such men within it. They are like ancient seeds waiting for the drought-breaking rains.“

Warlords to warrior-poets, rogue farmers and black-swan economists – Armed Bohemians are fundamental to humanity, and societal evolution. Useless and castigated, until they are absolutely necessary.

What the Armed Bohemian is Not

The Armed Bohemian is not a sheepdog.
His interests may support the survivability of the population, or of his people/tribe, but he is not a scruffy, domesticated (dumbed down) wolf overlooking a flock of sheep.
Better should be demanded of a populace than sheepdom. Sheep are not worth protecting, they are worth shearing, and eating.
And a populace, when calling for protectors, should equally demand better than domesticity, and the soft belly of handouts.

The entire concept of protectors - Police, Military, Armed Citizens - being sheepdogs is flawed. It requires the essential assumption that most of the populace are gentle, dim witted, grass eaters who “could only hurt one another by accident”.
The other required assumption is that the best, the strongest, the bravest a society can offer is a domesticated, hand-fed, in-bred beast that's been removed from proper evolutionary functioning. A domesticated “dog”, against the “wolves”.
This being a sheepdog business is an attitude much loved by many in law enforcement, the military and the armed citizen community. What does it say about these people that they think so little of humanity? It's a horribly elitist attitude. And what more does it say that their elitism deifies itself as another weaker animal? Nothing good.

Sheep. Sheepdogs. Feh.

Blackwater Bashing - A Media Sport

Blackwater bashing has been popular for quite some time now. Almost as long as the US has been involved in Iraq, negative press about contractors has been coming out. Primarily, negative about Private Military Contractors (PMC's) and Private Security Contractors (PSC's). PMC/PSC's are the evolution of mercenaries and that makes them an easy target for criticism, right or wrong. The word mercenary conjures up all manner of negative associations, and the imagination doesn't have to be stretched much at all for war-crimes to be laid at the feet of these men.
The company formerly known as Blackwater has caught, in the past couple of years, more than its fair share of this. Blackwater has come to represent all the ills and evils of the privatized military industry, and is synonymous with “mercenary evil army” in the eyes of the media and many Americans. With each new article written, this becomes more and more true. A dozen journalists, independently decide BW would make the great topic for a negative exposition of the private military industry. When that dozen articles come out, they provide a referential frame-work for one another, and for other articles to build upon. It was only made more perfect because Blackwater created distinctive branding. They had a threatening name (never mind that it had all the grave meaning of “swampwater”, which is what it alluded to), and an easily recognizable corporate logo, a big bad all-black bear paw silhouette with sharp claws. American's like a name, a face, they can hold onto, and once Blackwater soaked into the American consciousness, who in their right mind would try to replace it? No one. Why do the leg work, why invest the time and energy into tackling another company, with a mundane name like Meyer & Associates, when there is a giant brand-name demon immediately available? The media is in the business of selling something, and any good editor or producer will know that no one is buying “Some company that sounds like they do your taxes killed some people in Iraq”. Accordingly, any decent journalist wouldn't dream of pitching that story. So, Blackwater it is. Which is why you haven't seen many headlines decrying “Xe” as the evil empire – The name Blackwater is still being widely used, as it's the recognized brand.

Xe, the company formerly known as Blackwater, is not, in reality, the evil empire. They are not the most respected, even in the community, of private military/security firms, but they are not the evil empire. For the outside observer, trying to get a handle on them, gain a legitimate idea of what the company is and does, the media frenzy for “Blackwater's” jugular proves to be more of a hindrance than a help.
It's reasonable to begin with questions. Does authority exists on the subject, particularly within the mainstream media? If so, are there any truly unbiased authorities or does everyone have a dog in the hunt? What about the man on the street, the witness to supposed atrocity? Essentially: Who are the sources and what are their motivations?
The man street is easy. The reports from Iraqi family members, friends and neighbors of supposed Blackwater “victims” should be obviously treated as biased, and misleading. Why? For the same reason that, in America, reports from family members, neighbors and friends of slain gang-members should be taken with a grain of salt. When the mother/sister/best-friend/old teacher of a 17 year old shot to death while robbing a liquor store is quoted as saying “He wasn't a bad boy. He wasn't robbin' that place, he was just there. He didn't deserve to die”, most intelligent people roll their eyes, scoff and move on. When the same is said by friends and family of an Iraqi who is shot by a rolling security convoy, plenty of otherwise intelligent people gasp and cry out for justice against these roving bands of murdering contractors. What greater legitimacy does a random Iraqi have, than a random American? How is an armed contractor somehow more a villain than a Harlem store owner who kills armed robbers?
Unreasoned, and more importantly, unsupported claims from individuals should be, under the best of circumstances highly suspect. Collections of accounts of un-checked Blackwater violence don't necessarily equate with reality simply because they're the spoken testimony of a sympathetic people. Particularly when those accounts are, by the time you hear them, second hand. The media (or at least a number of the personalities behind articles, photos, etc.) have a dog in this hunt – They want to paint a picture of something they dislike, so that everyone dislikes it. This doesn't, by itself, invalidate their position, but the possibility exists that they might take things too far. It has happened.
The short point I'm trying to make is, people on the ground and the press (or both) reporting them shouldn't be trusted without question. Their biases are showing, mmmkay?
Even when no bias exists, or it is commendably suppressed by the authors, do they still speak the truth? Harder to answer, not the least for the subjectivity of truth. But, most of the popular media lack the perspective necessary to actually understand what they're talking about when they write about Blackwater/Xe and other PSC/PMC's. Why? Because none of them have ever worked in that field or anything close to it. Many of them were never even in the military, or a foreign service post which put them in positions to interact with private security personnel. There are many jobs in the world which are, at best, difficult to understand from the outside – Few are so greatly different from the observers post and the actors than those “under the gun”. Soldiers, police officers, private security are jobs that must be done before they can be actually understood. An inexperienced observer does not necessarily understand what they see – They can merely report it as they've seen it. Eyes on a gun-fight, or a tactical situation, or an overall strategy see different things depending on the experience and education of those eyes. The work of armed professionals appears chaotic, fractured, particularly when arms come into play. What the outside see's as a frantic unpurposed seizure of violence, the professional see's as a driven, purposeful, even methodical series of tasks and reactions. The outsiders blindness goes far deeper than even that.
Patterns are extremely important in human behavior, and analysis of that behavior. Every professional field, from medicine to accounting to war, involve a developed pattern recognition skill on the part of the professional. War, terrorism and violence are no different. When the armed professional see's someone he or she deems a shooting problem, they are making a decision based on years of experience and training. The Iraqi standing on a roof, shot by an overhead PSC element in a helicopter, was probably exhibiting behavior consistent with that of an insurgent actor of some form, such as a spotter for anti-aircraft fire or a trigger-man for a roadside IED placed for an approaching convoy. What the professional see's as a logical response to a recognized pattern, appears to the inexperienced observer an act random maliciousness, or murderous blood-thirst. Perspective is incredibly important. Observers – journalists – covering this field who don't have the experience of working in the field, are apt to be wrong because they cannot understand the details, they cannot relate to the personalities, and are trying to fill in the blank with something from their world. And that's at their most innocent, not when they are trying to actually push an agenda.
The reporting of recent allegations against Blackwater and founder Erik Prince, made by two former employees, provide a great example of this. Two relatively random guys made sworn statements that a whole series of crimes had occurred in Iraq, perpetrated by Blackwater employees and tolerated, or even encouraged, by the company. And, because we know that people never lie under oath for their own agenda, the media has eaten it up without a lot of question.
The allegations include: Murder, or conspiracy to murder, arms smuggling, child prostitution and sexual exploitation, and religiously based anti-Muslim crusading. From an outsiders perspective, particularly one who believes private military forces are a bad thing, the allegations may sound perfectly reasonable. They support the narrative that already exists about mercenaries, and their offspring, private military/security firms – Particularly Blackwater. Such things have, after all, been true in the past– Why shouldn't they be true of one of the allegedly greatest villains of the Iraqi conflict?
The best reason to doubt the allegations, initially published and quoted by The Nation, are the allegations themselves. I want to focus on one particular area of the allegations, which cast some serious doubt on the overall truthfulness of the testimony. From the sworn declaration of “John Doe #2”: "Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution."
Doe #2 also alleged, “Mr. Prince obtained illegal ammunition from an American company called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis.
“Mr. Prince made available to his employees in Iraq various weapons not authorized by the United States contracting authorities, such as hand grenades and hand grenade launchers. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal weaponry in Iraq, unnecessarily killing scores of innocent Iraqis."
John Doe #2 claimed to have been in the employ of Blackwater Worldwide for four years. We can only assume that Doe #2 was in that employ, or wants it to be believed he was, in some capacity related to armed operations. Yet, his terminology and focus in these claims has more in common with bad television, than with an experienced security or military man talking.
“Sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers” is wrong on multiple levels. First, semi-automatic is antithetical to machine gun. A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon, vs. a semi-automatic which fires one round for each pull of the trigger and no more. Such weapons, whether semi or full automatic may be short barreled, but they cannot be sawed off as they primarily rely on gas generated from the chemical propellant to operate, and cutting into the barrel would disrupt the gas system badly causing the weapons to malfunction. Lastly, silencer is another misnomer, as the correct term is suppressor – Firearms cannot be truly silenced, merely muffled, or suppressed. Armed professionals speak and write in a professional manner, using the professional lexicon of their industry – The quoted statements are not written in a professional manner. Similarly, “hand grenade launchers” is an out of place term. It has been decades since launchers designed to propel hand-grenades further than the human arm can throw were in common manufacture, much less use. Modern grenade launchers use their own munitions, which are not hand operable and thus not “hand grenades”.
Further, Doe #2's description of the LeMas ammunition, “ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body”, is wildly inaccurate. LeMas ammunition, specifically the bullets loaded on the complete ammunition, branded as “Blended Metal Technology” (BMT) by the manufacturer, RBCD Performance Plus, contain no explosive and therefore do not, and can not, explode at all. They are a light weight bullet, designed to rapidly expand and fragment inside a soft target to increase cavitation and prevent over-penetration resulting in a bullet striking an unintended target. LeMas claims that their bullets expand and fragment in a much more effective manner than other products, and that the same bullet against a hard target offers increased penetration, but they make no claim of explosive capability. Not only does LeMas and the manufacturer RBCD make no claim of explosive content, but what claims they do make have been invalidated. Independent analysis has proven that LeMas/RBCD “blended metal” ammunition is not constructed as advertised, and fails to perform to the claims of the company. According to the research, conducted by Dr. Gary K. Roberts, the ammunition was in fact loaded with nothing other than common (commercial-off-the-shelf) varmint-hunting bullets, designed for taking light skinned animals such a coyotes.
And this isn't the first time LeMas has appeared in the anti-military/anti-war press, with references to “exploding” - The statement of Doe #2 has a great narrative similarity to previous pieces stemming from a 2003 Army Times article on use of a LeMas round by a private contractor in Iraq.
From a supposed armed professional, the claims made in Doe #2's sworn statement seem incredibly unprofessional – Weapons which couldn't even exist, incorrect terminology for the modern battlefield, and repeating manufacturers and media claims which have been proven as inaccurate are not the marks of a professional. That alone should be enough to cast extreme doubts on the validity of Doe #2's claims (and by association, the claims of Doe #1).
There are other inconsistencies as well, including the labeling of Eric Prince and his favored employees at Blackwater as “Christian crusaders”, while alleging they supported child prostitution. Say what you will about the Christian right, but their particular morality is not one frequently in favor of child molestation. This is even more true of those with a military background, as most private contractors are - They have an exceptionally low tolerance for the abuse of children.
Of course, when the media get's hold of these juicy little tidbits, they go wild. Few have the experience or knowledge to actually see the problems with these claims, and those who do lack the integrity to speak out as doing so wouldn't favor their bias. Either way, ignorant or agenda driven, the major media remains a source not to be trusted on these matters.

As a reader, particularly as a student of these matters, we have to be aware of the narratives that are cherished in the mass media, and what filters are necessary to maintain those narratives. Only then can we read between the lines and begin to suss out what truth may actually exist.

Blackwater/Xe is a double edged sword. They leave some black marks on the industry, but they are also a large and capable service provider, currently filling several important contracts (including for the State Department).
If Blackwater/Xe employees commit crimes, they should (and are, I'll remind you) be held accountable and tried fairly. If (if) Erik Prince is a murderer, conspirator in murder, or sanctioned any of the ridiculous things attributed to him, then he should be tried and jailed if found guilty. If he is a madman, his company will probably suffer for it in the long-run, and it (and he) will fade away to join Executive Outcomes, Sandline and a whole host of other failed PMC/PCS companies.
The whole thing makes for interesting viewing though, doesn't it sports fans?

What is the Armed Bohemian?

"The word humanity is a barren abstraction if it is not given existential reality by self-assertive personalities who enjoy a visible degree of autonomy." Murray Bookchin

(There is a more fundamental piece coming on the nature of the armed bohemian – This is both introductory, and a teaser for what is to come.)

In terms of this blog, Armed Bohemian, is a place for me to explore some ideas on society, culture, war, violence, and some of my more “unseemly” interests that I've occasionally explored on Rum & Donuts. R&D is about much more than these things, and I don't want to pigeonhole it as a “war blog” or a “gun blog” or any other single idea-blog. Armed Bohemian is a single idea blog (just a rather vast single idea).
I aim to explore issues of Warriors, War, Violence, and the relationships of these matters with Culture and Civilization. In these explorations, I'm hoping to both reach the final formation of an idea, and promote that idea – A philosophy, a lifestyle, of Armed Bohemianism. From Warlord Personalities, to Professional Soldiers, to Armed Citizens. As suggested in the words of Murray Bookchin above, from Ecology of Freedom, these rough men (and women) give a deeper dimension to the human existence, and are often the drivers of culture, and even civilization. Armed Bohemian, the blog, seeks to explore this in a fuller sense.

What exactly, or who are Armed Bohemians? Is it a good thing to be? What defines this? How do these people shape the world? We're going to find out.

Some rough, initial, thoughts – Primarily on the lifestyle angle:
The Armed Bohemian is a bohemian – He (or she) is most certainly a practitioner of an alternative lifestyle. They tend towards wandering, adventuring, rather than establishing large numbers of conventional ties. They partake in a breadth of culture, arts, literature, music, as a function of their existence, not just their entertainment. The armed bohemian has seceded from conventionality in life, culture, and action.
The armed bohemian is also armed. In a culture where armament, violence and war have become the antithesis of acceptability, normality, and civility, the very act of owning a firearm, is a bohemian act. The Armed Bohemian is also characterized by the differences between an armed man, and one unarmed – an armed citizen, vs. a disarmed subject to use rough analogy – but embodies more than simply being armed, being a citizen. Being armed is not merely in reference to weapons either, as armament takes many forms, including knowledge and skill-sets.

The armed bohemian is dedicated, every day, to becoming more dangerous than he was the day before. This is not solely a measure of skill at arms, or anything necessarily combative, but also of knowledge of any field. Particularly applied learning for his fields of professional/personal interest (finance, science, etc). The armed bohemian seeks to be, in some way, faster every morning than he was the morning before – This requires a daily devotion to improving something about himself, or his position in his world.
The Red Queen theory in full effect, though the armed bohemian may seek to be more at the driving end – His existence forcing the lesser beings (both prey and less skilled or enemy predators) to run faster merely to keep up.
The armed bohemian is a man of the world, in the classical sense – A polymath.

The armed bohemian is a student, but not a disciple – He uses what he learns to pave his own path.

Right now is an excellent time to ponder this personality, lifestyle, whatever you want to call it. At this point in the world, in human history, we're in, or fast approaching, a period in which these personalities not only thrive, but drive.

And more. Much more. This idea is, or will become, far less self-help for the would-be warlord, than this may make it sound. Just, stick around.