Before further chastisement of the man from Pinson, perhaps you would do well to look yourself in the mirror, and ask the image you see these two questions:
1. Can you bring yourself to actually wage war for (to save) your Constitution?
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes", what damage to that Constitution is it going to take to get you to get YOUR gun out of the safe and take it to war?
We ALL owe ourselves, our families and above all, our Constitutional brethren, the answers to these two questions.
If you can't bring yourself to answer them, please don't imagine that you might be a patriot.
So, Rivrdog, a 'patriot' can only be a person who is willing to stand up and start killing people when some arbitrary line is crossed? Bullshit. People that are willing to make every last effort to use the soap, ballot and jury boxes first are hell of a lot more patriotic than the yammering assholes like Vanderboegh. Reckless screaming how you're going to grab the cartridge box and run amok proving how fucking patriotic you are by waging war doesn't do anybody any good in this fight. And puffing out your chests and telling the rest of us that we're pansies because we don't share your self-righteous ego-centric eagerness to threaten violence isn't helping your cause, either. God all-fucking mighty I wish you dunderheads could get a glimpse of yourselves. You'd be so embarrassed you'd crawl up your own ass to hide.
"That's not the picture I want attached to the battle for my individual rights."
It's hard to argue with this.
And yet, the very concept of a threshold of outrage predicts that we will see more Dregas, et al. In ever increasing numbers, even. What, if anything, should we do with that knowledge?
Advise the general population who don't know it in hopes of getting them to ease off? That's the logic behind the Vanderboegh letter, which logic you seem to reject.
Preach patience and forbearance to our own side? If we have any effect, in the long run it only strengthens the hand of police and civil authorities before they encounter resistance.
Practice and teach self defense so we and our neighbors can resist rampages? Incidentally this increases the numbers of people with the capacity either to resist authority or rampage, but hopefully the culture and discipline of shooting is enough to counterbalance that.
Well, hell. Typing the last paragraph raises the intriguing possibility that some on our side are playing a deeper game, and helps me better understand the logic behind not scaring the white people.
Those 3%ers you are talking about, Kevin, won't be walking into a church with a shotgun and trying to commit suicide by cop after committing a bunch of murders.
They will be killing the tools of their oppressors, whether by bunkering in or by going out after them where they live.
This church shooting is just mindless violence.
I agree, this guy isn't the face we want attached to our cause, and it's up to all of us to make it that way, just like it is up to all of us to expand the base of our cause by taking n00bs out shooting, thereby denying the hoplophobes the fertile ground of the uneducated forever.
Trackback message
Title: An important discussion
Excerpt: ...is taking place over at The Smallest Minority. Kevin, the proprietor at that thinker's blog, is a solid citizen who frequently blogs about guns and the right of self-protection with them.
Blog name: Nom de guerre: Rivrdog
Well, hell. Typing the last paragraph raises the intriguing possibility that some on our side are playing a deeper game, and helps me better understand the logic behind not scaring the white people.
Yes, doesn't it though?
Those 3%ers you are talking about, Kevin, won't be walking into a church with a shotgun and trying to commit suicide by cop after committing a bunch of murders.
I never said they would. But Carl Drega, Garry Watson, Melvin Hale, Arthur and Steven Bixby, Stuart Alexander and Marvin Heemeyer? Adkisson's lumped in with them for reaching his threshold of outrage, no?
I've got another post überpost brewing on this topic. Give me a few days.
"That's not the picture I want attached to the battle for my individual rights."
I can certainly understand that, but no one can do that without one's consent. By accepting that, I think one legitimizes (however unconsciously) the notion of collective responsibility. I refuse to play the game by Gramscian rules.
Unfortunately, the general public does not. It's all very well to say "I don't accept that label," but it doesn't stop Joe and Jane Sixpack from mentally slapping it on you.
That's perfect illogical horsesh-t and you know it. What principle did this mental case a--hole stand for? By one report, he hated Christianity. By another (the one more pimped in the media) he hated liberals. What attack on his liberties was involved here? Did the feds, or the cops, come to his house, attempt to take his property or his liberty and so he used legitimate self defense to repel them? (Which as you should bloody well know is what I'M talking about and have been for 15 plus years.)
You self-serving fuzzy thinkers kill me. You're not really worried about the majority of the citizenry being scared by my letter. You're the ones that are scared -- scared that one day you'll get sucked into actually being forced into making the choice between standing for your rights or just talking about it while others fight and die for the words that you mouth without belief.
It's the FEDS who are bringing this fight to OUR doors. Can't you see THAT?!? The only way to prevent it is to make sure they understand the full consequences of doing so. The liberal moke who advocated that without thought needed to have the unintended consequences of his plan pointed out to him.
So tell me again, what does any of that have to do with a drunken mental church shooter? Or are you just reaching into thin air for excuses?
I never thought I'd see a liberal journalism trick in your writing Kevin, but you managed to put one in here. You have made a false assumption and built a theme around it.
Re-read the questions. They do NOT say to go out and start shooting, they just ask every patriot to evaluate him/herself by looking in the mirror and asking if and when they would be willing to fight for their Constitution.
Some would call that a line in the sand.
I STILL assume you have drawn that line in the sand, but you have so much fear of being lumped in with the forthright Mike Vanderboegh that you have to lash out at people like him who have only the best interest of the nation and it's Constitution at heart.
Gunning down non-combatants who APPEAR to be on the wrong side is NOT on any of our agendas, but I repeat, using the guns you are so willing to talk about for SOME patriotic purpose at SOME point will, in the Final Tally, mark you as a patriot or not.
The curious thing is that you have also assumed that those who have put their answers to the Two Questions out front are whackos as well as those of us who have kept that counsel to ourselves, just because we support the forthright ones.
Strategy, of course, says keep the element of surprise. I don't mind saying that I have guns, maintain them and practice with them because I am prepared to use them to defend my Constitution, but I am not going to list targets, put names on a hit list or anything of that nature, any more than the US Army, which knows that someday it will likely have to fight China (or a Chinese client state), declares China to be an enemy in the present tense.
Preparation makes the patriot. State of mind makes the patriot. Patriotism doesn't have to be worn on the sleeve, but if it is, it should be respected none the less.
BTW, I've kept my writing in opposition civil, and I would appreciate it if you do the same. Civility in the face of opposition is a desirable trait in a warrior, don't you think, Kevin?
"That's not the picture I want attached to the battle for my individual rights."
What makes you think that we have any control at all over what picture gets attached? You said it yourself:
"No one is able to accurately gauge the egregiousness of the insults and injustices - or lack thereof - visited upon those whose personal "thresholds of outrage" were crossed. Our media hasn't done it."
It seems that any time someone gets pushed too far, the media focuses on the person's reaction and digs for other reasons for his instability and somehow glosses over the unjust actions of petty tyrants which was either the final trigger or was the major contributing factor. Guys like this who apparently actually did have real mental instability get splashed all over the news for weeks on end, whereas those who truly do have a legitimate complaint get a brief mention then quickly forgotten lest the truth be discovered and the "rampager" gains public sympathy. It happens way too often to be mere coincidence.
Rivrdog,
Those are important questions. Here's one potential trigger that would indicate that the waste products are about to impact the rotary air circulation device: If the oath sworn by military personnel is changed by removing just 3 words.
The current oath reads like this:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Simply removing "the Constitution of" from the military oath would be such an apparently small change that it's possible that most military personnel might not even notice it, and if they did they probably would not realize its significance.
Yet such a small change would have huge ramifications. It would mean that they would be bound to follow orders, but not to disobey illegal orders. Confiscate privately held guns? No problem. Confiscate all the property of someone accused of terrorism? Go for it. Military "papers please" checkpoints? Done. In short, just following orders would become primary, and obeying and defending the supreme law of the land would no longer have any part of their mission.
Another potential trigger would be the formation of Obama's civilian "defense" force. The obvious parallels with Germany's Brown Shirts makes me think that intimidation tactics would be just around the corner. Once such tactics start, the cartridge box would probably have to be unwrapped.
Geez, I sound too much like a raving loon. But I don't see any way around these markers, quite simply because they are so similar to armed robbers or rapists tying up their victims. Only instead of making the victims helpless, it's removing the protections against misuse of military power against the civilian population.
That's why we need to start pushing for the enforcement of the Constitution now. When judges ignore put themselves above the law, they need to be impeached. When law enforcement breaks the law, they need to be punished. When lawmakers and other government officials violate the Constitution (both the federal and state level) they need to be removed from office and barred from touching the levers of power ever again. They also need to be prosecuted for more common crimes such as bribery and abusing their office for their own gain or for that of their friends.
People place too much by unearned/presumptive popularity. The people who interact with me know my character (assuming I have any).
...it doesn't stop Joe and Jane Sixpack from mentally slapping it on you.
So let 'em, Kevin. Seriously. If some complete stranger wants to hang a label on me, knowing nothing about me, he has merely made a meaningless noise with his mouth. In any case there's little I can do about it so I choose not to invest in it, apart --perhaps -- from trying to teach by example that the rule of the individual is better than the rule of Gramsci for this game of life.
The best way I can think of not to be tarred with the Jim Adkisson brush is not to be Jim Adkisson. One has limited ability to do much more than that.
"So, Rivrdog, a 'patriot' can only be a person who is willing to stand up and start killing people when some arbitrary line is crossed?"
MBV: For the purposes of my work, the "people" being discussed are rogue federal agents who operate contrary to the law and the Constitution yet under the color of that law. They are the lawbreakers, not me or mine. The "arbitrary line" that is being crossed is my front door, my property and my liberty. If you don't have an "arbitrary line" at your front door, you must have homeless folks drifting in and out all the time. How do you keep food in your refrigerator?
"Bullshit. People that are willing to make every last effort to use the soap, ballot and jury boxes first are hell of a lot more patriotic than the yammering assholes like Vanderboegh."
MBV: You will find NOTHING in my work to suggest that such methods should be abandoned, I am simply saying that given the present evidence in light of the Olofson case (among others) THEY WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO THE NEED OF DETERING FEDERAL AGGRESSION.
"Reckless screaming how you're going to grab the cartridge box and run amok proving how fucking patriotic you are by waging war doesn't do anybody any good in this fight."
MBV: Which fight? I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes I think you "pragmatists" aren't on the side of the Founders' Republic if its going to cost you anything. Some of you are more similar to the "Judendeinstordnung," the "Jews who keep order" that the Nazis used as tools to accomplish the Holocaust. This isn't some game of Freedom Whack-a-mole, where the lesson y'all are pushing is "don't stick your head up and you won't make the guy with the hammer mad and get hit." We're ALL for the hammer if the guy with it thinks he can whack us without risk to him.
"And puffing out your chests and telling the rest of us that we're pansies because we don't share your self-righteous ego-centric eagerness to threaten violence isn't helping your cause, either. God all-fucking mighty I wish you dunderheads could get a glimpse of yourselves. You'd be so embarrassed you'd crawl up your own ass to hide." tkdkerry 07.28.08 - 10:32 pm
MBV: History will judge which of us was correct. And if I were you, I wouldn't invoke God and copulation in the same sentence. He might one day take it personally. ;-)
I STILL assume you have drawn that line in the sand, but you have so much fear of being lumped in with the forthright Mike Vanderboegh that you have to lash out at people like him who have only the best interest of the nation and it's Constitution at heart.
I have, over the past several days, made it clear that I have my lines in the sand, and that I do agree with Mr. Vanderboegh's position. I just disagree with the utility and/or usefulness of providing verbal ammunition to the media that is ridiculously happy to paint every gun owner with the Adkisson brush.
Vin Suprynowicz wrote a book extolling the actions of Carl Drega (as I understand it - I haven't read it and wasn't aware of it until just recently). The Amazon reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
But who, besides us, remembers Drega? What did his acts gain anyone?
As I said, I have another überpost brewing. Give me a few days.
I'll tell you what, Kevin, why don't I find a nice picture of a Judendeinstordnung doing his job in 1943 (just before he too got tossed in the showers), put YOUR name on it and post it on a blog? Then we'll see if you get as p-ssed as I am at having a drunken mental case murderer put on yours as an example of MY work?
You cheesers are really something. But don't worry. I'm sure you'll get victimized last.
That was over the line. The simple fact is that Kevin is not equating you with that loser, but the media is. That is a fact of life that we have to deal with.
Making enemies out of your natural allies is a good way to make sure that no one has your back when you need it.
Mr. Vanderboegh, I sincerely apologize for offending you.
Honestly.
But if you cannot see that your letter to the editor was fodder for what I described, I can't help that.
Throughout all of this controversy I don't think anyone (well, damned few) asked you to shut up. They asked you to consider your audience and to choose your words more carefully.
Consider the definition of "Irish diplomacy": the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip.
"Mike, That was over the line. The simple fact is that Kevin is not equating you with that loser, but the media is. That is a fact of life that we have to deal with."
MBV: Wrong. He is SAYING the media is, or will, or whatever. Indeed, perhaps he's just voicing a fear of his own. In any case, it is HE who links my work with maladjusted loner killers in the same "analysis." Read it again, pal. There is no excuse available.
"Making enemies out of your natural allies is a good way to make sure that no one has your back when you need it." Ed "What the" Heckman 07.29.08 - 8:25 am
MBV: "Natural allies?" The "pragmatists" are going out of their way to say to everybody, AND ESPECIALLY THE FEDS WHO MONITOR THIS STUFF, "Hey, man, they're not US. Don't link us with them." That sound like a "natural ally" to you? I'll tie my flank to somebody who's a little more reliable. If you're smart, you will too.
"Mr. Vanderboegh, I sincerely apologize for offending you. Honestly. But if you cannot see that your letter to the editor was fodder for what I described, I can't help that. Throughout all of this controversy I don't think anyone (well, damned few) asked you to shut up."
MBV: You haven't been paying attention. One wanted David Codrea and me dead in a ditch. Others speculated openly how we might be "shut up." Ask David if you don't believe me. But we're not talking about them right now, we're talking about you. I refer you to my comments above to "What the" Heckman (great moniker by the way).
What ARE you afraid of? Lies are told by our enemies all the time. It is what they do for a living. They will always lie and distort to achieve their objectives. That is what collectivists do. There is NOTHING that you can do about that. The Southern Poverty Law Center has hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, all the proceeds of serial lying. They have been dissected in the press from time to time, even from the left. Yet the media still considers that their excrement does not stink and they are cited as "experts" in stories all the time.
Indeed, I could make a case that the only time the real truth gets told about the the Founders' intentions for the Second Amendment is when one of my "offending" letters gets published.
But the media will lie whether I get column inches or not. Worrying about it is pointless.
"They asked you to consider your audience and to choose your words more carefully. Consider the definition of 'Irish diplomacy': the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip. Kevin Baker 7.29.08 - 8:28 am"
MBV: Gee, I thought that was what I was doing. I ALWAYS consider carefully what I say, as well as my audience, which is both broader and narrower than you might think. Insofar as dictionaries, I just consulted one on-line to fully answer a fellow who, seeing my characterization above, to wit, "cheesers," emailed me and asked what that meant.
I referred him to the Slang Dictionary. "'Cheesers,'" I told him, "is a truncated form of 'cheese dick' which is defined as 'someone who kisses ass and does not care who knows; Often volunteers before any one else can speak up.'" See:
Prior to today, I have used this most recently to descibe Sebastian "Snowflake," et al., when he (and they) first made excuses for the Feds' victimization of David Olofson.
In their case it certainly applies. If I have unfairly applied the term to you, history will tell. But eliding the differences between my work and a drunken killer still gets you the appellation in my book. == Vanderboegh
BTW, as David Codrea was so kind to remind me (see http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/militiasuhmalicious-lies.html), if I were uninterested in "working within the system" would I bother with this?
Mr. Craig (Editor, Pittsburg Tribune-Review),
Yesterday I sent the email below to Mssrs. Fryer and Gazarik, to no reply. Thus today, I am again seeking a responsible adult who can address your newspaper's egregious mishandling of, and indeed inventing, the facts regarding militias, Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing as presented in Mr. Gazarik's lamentable presentation. I am copying this to more folks today, including Mike McNulty, who produced two documentaries on Waco. If you are unable to address this, will you kindly direct me to someone who does take responsibility for what you print?
Mike Vanderboegh
(contact info below)
Sir,
You need a better editor, and we need a retraction
Kindly have a competent adult fact-check this outrageous paragraph in your story:
"Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh was linked to a militia. The siege and eventual destruction of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, was tied to militia activity."
McVeigh was not "linked to a militia." He was NEVER a member of any constitutional militia. The only militia meeting that I'm aware of that he and Nichols attended, they were asked to leave. McVeigh was linked to a Christian Identity compound in eastern Oklahoma called Elohim City, a place of refuge for neoNazis terrorists such as the Aryan Republican Army bank robbers and the Kehoe brothers racist murderers. McVeigh called Elohim City, if memory serves me correctly, two days before the bombing to talk to a shadowy figure named Andreas Carl Strassmeir, later alleged to be a federal snitch.
If you are serious about your facts, then call Professor Mark Hamm (author of In Bad Company) or email Dr. Robert Churchill (churchill@hartford.edu). Either can provide you with a far more nuanced and informed opinion of militias and the neoNazi terrorists such as typified by McVeigh than the biased cartoonish depictions offered by that fact-challenged fat FBI troll Pitcavage or the liars for money at the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL. It has always been the habit of these left wing organizations who use the militia boogeyman scarecrow to generate contributions to blur the absolute differences between the Klan, neoNazis and Identity racist terrorists and the constitutional militias. This is perhaps because the militias are far more numerous than the green-teethed sheetheads and neos. Hard to make much of threat from a bunch of the terminally stupid who hold their conventions in phone booths. Far better for the purposes of fundraising for these groups to deny or obscure the differences between the racists and the militias.
That's bad enough. But what crack pipe hallucination were you in when you wrote that the massacre of innocents at Waco had ANYTHING to do with the constitutional militias that sprang up in its aftermath? Waco was an ATF initiated, FBI concluded federal operation against a loony reclusive Christian sect. The militias, those few that existed then, had no part in that federal atrocity.
Look, I realize that reportage standards have slipped badly in the modern era, but don't you think that facts, rather than ignorant smears devoid of facts, are rather more to be preferred in an alleged NEWS story. Let your editors misrepresent the militias on your editorial page, but kindly do your supposed job and GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
It has been my experience that writing about the facts, and that the facts are the facts, has little effect when the facts are submerged in hyperbole. The reading of such writing often focuses on the hyperbole, thus ignoring the facts, and the attempted refutation of the facts often focuses on the hyperbole as a diversion.
To me, such writing is tiresome reading. It is to Kevin's great credit that he tries very hard to avoid hyperbole, and thus he presents the facts in a style that makes him mighty goddamned difficult to refute.
And, the same observation applies to opinions. Some are worth reading, but very few are worth wading through manure and hyperbole to find out.
And if he was under an order of protection, he was prohibited.
Without defending Mr. Adkisson in any way, this malum prohibitum is of no relevance to me. I frankly fail to see why it bears mention. There are a great many prohibited for no reason other than the vindictiveness of a former partner.
Some people are tone deaf and can't understand music, some have no sense of humor and can't understand a joke, an some have no sense of political reality and can't understand why their position isn't obvious to everyone. Mr. Vanderboegh falls into the last category.
Frankly, I agree with him on most of what he says but saying such things loudly in public is, imho, beyond stupid. One percent or even three percent is such a small number that it can easily be politically marginalized and ignored. Small violent uprisings have happened in America since its beginning, all have been crushed. Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't seem to teach some people anything.
The general population would not turn a hair if the power of the state was unleashed on those espousing such actions as proposed by Mr. Vadderboegh.
"The general population would not turn a hair if the power of the state was unleashed on those espousing such actions as proposed by Mr. Va(n)derboegh."
Nor, I dare say, would you or Kevin. Having beliefs that risk nothing in their sustainment aren't worth very much. Nor are those who espouse them.
Live free, or die, as the license plate states. With, or without, you "pragmatists." -- Vanderboegh
Mike, that's going to be the topic of my next long essay.
Nor, I dare say, would you or Kevin. Having beliefs that risk nothing in their sustainment aren't worth very much. Nor are those who espouse them.
My initial reaction to your challenge is "You didn't saddle-up either when Olofson was railroaded. Pot? Meet kettle." But that's not really fair. You're deliberately waving a red flag at the BATF (see your "openletters"), and you expect... what? That a horde of 3-percenters will come ride to your rescue? Good luck with that, sir. Truly. Because you're right - I wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect it of you if they came for me.
Give me until Sunday to tell you why. I'll try to get my thoughts together and put down by then.
For some reason this exchange from Serenity popped to mind:
The Operative: Are you willing to die for your beliefs? Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I am...
[they draw. Mal fires first, and the Operative is forced to take cover] Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: 'Course, that ain't exactly plan A.
As a christian, I'm not afraid to die, though when I do, I'm really hoping it's painless 'cause that's the part I find disagreeable. But I gotta go with Mal on this one, dying isn't exactly my plan A either.
Guys, guys, you don't need to COME to my aid. Just follow Bob Wright's advice to the FBI SAC of New Mexico when he asked him back in the 90s if Wright and his boys would really come to the aid of another Waco type situation in another state:
"Why would I want to do that? There's plenty of you federal sonsabitches around here." ;-)
Vanderboegh
III
And as another friend of mine observed the other day, "Freedom fighters fight."
"What the" Heckman: It ain't my plan A either. I have my own local arrangements. Despite my apparently low reputation amongst the "pragmatists," I'm not without friends. But I'm not asking anybody to do anything on my behalf. I will live, or die, by my principles. As a Christian, I know that our side wins in the end anyway, and I am commanded to live my life in such a way as to make my death a culmination of my service to my God. Which is to say, without fear.
As far as other people, they will have to make their own decisions and look themselves in the mirror afterward. MBV III
In the spring of 1811 Tecumseh, of the Shawnee, spoke with warriors from the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. After he spoke, Pushmataha, a chief of the Choctaws, spoke. Excerpts from these two powerful speeches graphically illustrate the views and conflicts nearly all native people wrestled with once the white man came to their land.
TECUMSEH:
"The whites are already nearly a match for us all united, and too strong for any one tribe alone to resist; so that unless we support one another with our collective and united forces; unless every tribe unanimously combines to give check to the ambition and avarice of the whites, they will soon conquer us apart and disunited, and we will be driven away from our native country and scattered as autumn leaves before the wind....
"Where today is the Pequod? Where the Narragensetts, the Mohawks, Poncanokets, and many other once powerful tribes of our race? They have vanished before the avarice and oppression of the white men, as snow before a summer sun. In the vain hope of alone defending their ancient possessions, they have fallen in the wars with the white men....
"Are we not being stripped day by day of the little that remains of our ancient liberty? Do they not even kick and strike us as they do their black-faces? How long will it be before they will tie us to a post and whip us, and make us work for them in their corn fields as they do them?....
"Shall we give up our homes, our country, bequeathed to us by the Great Spirit, the graves of our dead, and everything that is dear and sacred to us, without a struggle? I know you will cry with me: Never! Never! Then let us by unity of action destroy them all, which we now can do, or drive them back whence they came. War or extermination is now our only choice. Which do you choose? I know your answer. Therefore, I now call on you, brave Choctaws and Chickasaws, to assist in the just cause of liberating our race from the grasp of our faithless invaders and heartless oppressors. The white usurpation in our common country must be stopped, or we, its rightful owners, be forever destroyed and wiped out as a race of people....
"And if there be one among you mad enough to undervalue the growing power of the white race among us, let him tremble in considering the fearful woes he will bring down upon our entire race, if by his criminal indifference he assists the designs of our common enemy against our common country. Then listen to the voice of duty, of honor, of nature and of your endangered country. Let us form one body, one heart, and defend to the last warrior our country, our homes, our liberty, and the graves of our fathers."
------------
PUSHMATAHA:
"The great Shawnee orator has portrayed in vivid picture the wrongs inflicted on his and other tribes by the ravanges of the paleface....We sympathize with the misfortunes of his people....
"If Tecumseh's words be true, and we doubt them not, then the Shawnee's experience with the whites has not been the same as that of the Choctaws. These white Americans buy our skins, our corn, our cotton, our surplus game, our baskets, and other wares, and they give us in fair exchange their cloth, their guns, their tools, implements, and other things which the Choctaws need but do not make. It is true that we have befriended them, but who will deny that these acts of friendship have been abundantly reciprocated? They have given us cotton gins, which simplify the spinning and sale of our cotton; they have encouraged and helped us in the production of our crops; they have taken many of our wives into their homes to teach them useful things, and pay them for their work while learning; they teach our children to read and write from their books. You all remember the dreadful epidemic visited upon us last winter. During its darkest hours these neighbors whom we are now urged to attack, responded generously to our needs. They doctored our sick; they clothed our suffering; they fed our hungry; and where is the Choctaw or Chickasaw delegation who has ever gone to St. Stephens with a worthy cause and been sent away empty-handed? So, in marked contrast with the experiences of the Shawnees, it will be seen that the whites and Indians in this section are living on friendly and mutually beneficial terms....
"It is unnecessary for me to remind you, O Choctaws and Chickasaws, veteran braves of many fierce conflicts in the past, that war is an awful thing. If we go to war against the Americans, we must be prepared to accept its inevitable results. Not only will it foretoken deadly conflict with neighbors and death to warriors, but it will mean suffering for our women, hunger and starvation for our children, grief for our loved ones, and devastation of our beloved homes. Not withstanding these difficulties, if the cause be just, we should not hesitate to defend our rights to the last man, but before that fatal step is irrevocably taken, it is well that we fully understand and seriously consider the full portent and consequences of the act....Therefore, let me admonish you that this critical period is no time to cast aside your wits and let blind impulse sway; be not driven like dumb brutes by the frenzied harangue of this wonderful Shawnee orator; let your good judgement rule and ponder seriously before breaking bonds that have served you well..."
------------
After Tecumseh and Pushmataha both spoke, and the warriors sided with Pushmataha, Tecumseh declared Pushmataha a coward and called the Choctaw and Chickasaw warriors squaws. Pushmataha answered Tecumseh's remarks with the following.
------------
PUSHMATAHA:
"Halt, Tecumseh! Listen to me. You have come here, as you have often gone elsewhere, with a purpose to involve peaceful people in unnecessary trouble with their neighbors. Our people have no undue friction with the whites. Why? Because we have no leaders stirring up strife to serve their selfish, personal ambitions. You heard me say that our people are a peaceful people. They make their way, not by ravages upon their neighbors, but by honest toil. In that regard they have nothing in common with you. I know your history well. You are a disturber. You have ever been a trouble maker. When you have found yourself unable to pick a quarrel with the white man, you have stirred up strife between different tribes of your own race. Not only that, you are a monarch and unyielding tyrant within your own domain; every Shawnee man, woman, and child must bow in humble submission to your imperious will. The Choctaws and Chickasaws have no monarchs. Their chieftains do not undertake mastery of their people, but rather are they the people's servants, elected to serve the will of the majority. The majority has spoken on this question and it has spoken against your contention. Their decision has therefore become the law of the Choctaws and Chickasaws and Pushmataha will see that the will of the majority so recently expressed is rigidly carried out to the letter.
"If, after this decision, any Choctaw should be so foolish as to follow your imprudent advice and enlist to fight against the Americans, thereby abandoning his own people and turning against the decision of his own council, Pushmataha will see that proper punishment is meted out to him, which is death. You have made your choice; you have elected to fight with the British. The Americans have been our friends and we shall stand by them. We will furnish you safe conduct to the boundaries of this nation as properly befits the dignity of your office. Farewell, Tecumseh. You will see Pushmataha no more until we meet on the fateful warpath."
---From "Indian Oratory," Compiled by W.C. Vanderwerth, Published by the University of Oklahoma Press
MBV: Before Tecumseh left the council, he turned to Pushmataha and predicted, "After you help the whites defeat me -- after my death -- they will turn on you and your people next." And Pushmataha replied, "Well, then I will live longer than you."
History records that they were both right, and the last chance for the Native American tribes to unite east of the Mississippi and secure a more favorable recognition of their rights from the new American government was lost forever. As Tecumseh had foretold, Pushmataha and his people did not benefit from their allegiance to the United States and were unceremoniously shoved west shortly afterward.
Anybody who sees any parallels to our current argument between "Absolutists" and "Pragmatists" should feel free to chime in.
I'm not a betting person, but I suspect a fair bet would be that these "quotes" are mostly poetic license on the part of other persons unknown. I claim no evidence other than the words themselves. I can't help but wonder what Indian of the time would use these terms (for example): "marked contrast", "veteran braves", "foretoken deadly conflict", "not withstanding these difficulties", "frenzied harangue", "heartless oppressors", "undervalue the growing power", "fearful woes", or "criminal indifference". This might well have been what was meant (beats me; I wasn't there), but I suspect that it isn't what was said.
It is disconcerting that more and more people are driven to suicide and decide that their ego, rage or whatever requires them to take more lives than their own. Almost like if those they kill will become servants to them in the afterlife like some Viking legends.
This man was disparate and he lashed out against the dreaded liberals. The most liberal voice in his locality was the Unitarian church and their tolerant church teaching and approval /acceptance of LGBT.
So he chose those dreaded liberals to be his enemies in his last act of rage. Yet those who died or were injured may or may not have been liberal, but they were human. He denied them their humanity in order to focus on a political identity.
We are also in danger of doing the same in placing labels on others even those among us.
Despite our anger at the foolish or deliberate people who support gun control, we must always realize that they are our fellow humans and unless they are coming to kill us, we should refrain from the same.
Don’t like the BATF, then lobby against it. Bring attention to their abuses, get local, state, federal representative that agree to abolish the BATF. Change the culture of the BATF.
The alternative is to go outlaw and use force against the BATF like Timothy McVeigh did. I do not believe he knew about the daycare center, but their deaths was his unintended consequence and very few of his supposed enemies died.
(that's as close as you'll ever see ME writing from multiple personalities.)
Sorry, I'm back aboard "Lofoten Girl" now for the rest of the week, and flame war participation is not allowed for the blogging crew members, including the Captain.
RAH sez: "Don’t like the BATF, then lobby against it. Bring attention to their abuses, get local, state, federal representative that agree to abolish the BATF. Change the culture of the BATF."
MBV: I am reminded of the scene at the beginning of The Patriot, where Benjamin Martin, sounding like he is trying to convince himself as much as anybody else, speaks against the SC militia levy because he fears the outcome of the war WHICH HAS ALREADY STARTED.
Tell me, RAH, how you propose to do those things? Exactly how? Do you know about the internal culture of the ATF from the "Good 'o Boys' Roundup" onward? Have you seen JPFO's documentary called "The Gang"? How, in an upcoming administration that will be saturated with anti-gunners do you expect to get oversight hearings on the ATF? How? And absent that, do you really think the ATF is going to be restrained by anything short of defensive violence in their unconstitutional predations?
Then you say: "The alternative is to go outlaw and use force against the BATF like Timothy McVeigh did."
MBV: NO, NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Have you not paid attention to a word I've said? The initiation of this upcoming conflict will be at somebody's doorstep, in a reflexive act of self defense against a predatory ATF which seeks to make another Olofson, only this time they'll pick on the wrong guy.
Then you say: "I do not believe he knew about the daycare center, but their deaths was his unintended consequence and very few of his supposed enemies died."
MBV: The heck he didn't. ANYBODY who looked at the windows in the front of that building knew from the daycare artwork and stuff that was posted there in order TO BE VISIBLE from the street to attract customers. The reason "very few of his supposed enemies died" is because the ATF knew something was up and were nearby, not in the building, IN THEIR RAID GEAR, which by the way the early photos show them WITHOUT DUST ON THEM. Anybody IN the building was covered in it. Don't extrapolate kind feeling for either McVeigh or the ATF from such abysmal ignorance of the crime.
So this is probably a stupid viewpoint, but it may not be too far out of line with what this guy believed.
What if our social degeneration has gotten so bad that most people actually want a socialist, nanny government? Not just the out of control federal agent scenario, but what if most people have come to believe that armed self-defense or resistance to federal abuse or power is wrong? What if they keep voting for more politicians who believe that they can do whatever they want because that's what most of the voters support? When it isn't the politicians or their agents that is the problem, but actually our fellow citizens, what then?
I just got home and have become aware of this post. I've just gotten started on reading.
A note --
Rivrdog wrote: "Gunning down non-combatants who APPEAR to be on the wrong side is NOT on any of our agendas, but I repeat, using the guns you are so willing to talk about for SOME patriotic purpose at SOME point will, in the Final Tally, mark you as a patriot or not."
This is referring to what was called "The Big Sort" at Samizdata a couple of weeks ago. Brian Micklethwait had remarked on Terry Teachout's original article ("America Sorts Itself"). Here is a comment, posted at my place, with links to Micklethwait and Teachout.
I don't believe that either of them are looking far enough down the road at what all this means. To me, the concept of a "sorting" of American culture is obvious both in theory and practice, and at a much deeper level than they are looking at. And one implication of it is that -- sooner or later -- everyone is going to have to make really fundamental choices of the kind under discussion here.
We don't get to choose the times in which we live, ladies and gentlemen. Not on this kind of scale. Speaking in Parliament, Edmund Burke once said that "the call upon us is authoritative". The issue at hand had to do with the administration of India but the essence of the thing is that the times demanded the convictions of responsible men.
My view is that "history is a list of consequences". (I quote myself. I enjoy that.) A necessary element of this is the fact that we can inherit the consequences of decisions taken by others before we were ever responsible for our own lives, just as well as those taken by others in our own times. Nobody enjoys unpleasant contingencies, but that doesn't mean that they will not sooner or later demand action.
~~~~~
This is the most compelling discussion -- everywhere it's been taking place -- that I've seen online in longer than I can remember.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/07/threshold-of-outrage.html (48 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Before further chastisement of the man from Pinson, perhaps you would do well to look yourself in the mirror, and ask the image you see these two questions:
1. Can you bring yourself to actually wage war for (to save) your Constitution?
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes", what damage to that Constitution is it going to take to get you to get YOUR gun out of the safe and take it to war?
We ALL owe ourselves, our families and above all, our Constitutional brethren, the answers to these two questions.
If you can't bring yourself to answer them, please don't imagine that you might be a patriot.
So, Rivrdog, a 'patriot' can only be a person who is willing to stand up and start killing people when some arbitrary line is crossed? Bullshit. People that are willing to make every last effort to use the soap, ballot and jury boxes first are hell of a lot more patriotic than the yammering assholes like Vanderboegh. Reckless screaming how you're going to grab the cartridge box and run amok proving how fucking patriotic you are by waging war doesn't do anybody any good in this fight. And puffing out your chests and telling the rest of us that we're pansies because we don't share your self-righteous ego-centric eagerness to threaten violence isn't helping your cause, either. God all-fucking mighty I wish you dunderheads could get a glimpse of yourselves. You'd be so embarrassed you'd crawl up your own ass to hide.
"That's not the picture I want attached to the battle for my individual rights."
It's hard to argue with this.
And yet, the very concept of a threshold of outrage predicts that we will see more Dregas, et al. In ever increasing numbers, even. What, if anything, should we do with that knowledge?
Advise the general population who don't know it in hopes of getting them to ease off? That's the logic behind the Vanderboegh letter, which logic you seem to reject.
Preach patience and forbearance to our own side? If we have any effect, in the long run it only strengthens the hand of police and civil authorities before they encounter resistance.
Practice and teach self defense so we and our neighbors can resist rampages? Incidentally this increases the numbers of people with the capacity either to resist authority or rampage, but hopefully the culture and discipline of shooting is enough to counterbalance that.
Well, hell. Typing the last paragraph raises the intriguing possibility that some on our side are playing a deeper game, and helps me better understand the logic behind not scaring the white people.
Those 3%ers you are talking about, Kevin, won't be walking into a church with a shotgun and trying to commit suicide by cop after committing a bunch of murders.
They will be killing the tools of their oppressors, whether by bunkering in or by going out after them where they live.
This church shooting is just mindless violence.
I agree, this guy isn't the face we want attached to our cause, and it's up to all of us to make it that way, just like it is up to all of us to expand the base of our cause by taking n00bs out shooting, thereby denying the hoplophobes the fertile ground of the uneducated forever.
Trackback message
Title: An important discussion
Excerpt: ...is taking place over at The Smallest Minority. Kevin, the proprietor at that thinker's blog, is a solid citizen who frequently blogs about guns and the right of self-protection with them.
Blog name: Nom de guerre: Rivrdog
Well, hell. Typing the last paragraph raises the intriguing possibility that some on our side are playing a deeper game, and helps me better understand the logic behind not scaring the white people.
Yes, doesn't it though?
Those 3%ers you are talking about, Kevin, won't be walking into a church with a shotgun and trying to commit suicide by cop after committing a bunch of murders.
I never said they would. But Carl Drega, Garry Watson, Melvin Hale, Arthur and Steven Bixby, Stuart Alexander and Marvin Heemeyer? Adkisson's lumped in with them for reaching his threshold of outrage, no?
I've got another post überpost brewing on this topic. Give me a few days.
Oh, and Rivrdog? I've answered your question. Why haven't YOU started shooting?
"That's not the picture I want attached to the battle for my individual rights."
I can certainly understand that, but no one can do that without one's consent. By accepting that, I think one legitimizes (however unconsciously) the notion of collective responsibility. I refuse to play the game by Gramscian rules.
I refuse to play the game by Gramscian rules.
Unfortunately, the general public does not. It's all very well to say "I don't accept that label," but it doesn't stop Joe and Jane Sixpack from mentally slapping it on you.
That's perfect illogical horsesh-t and you know it. What principle did this mental case a--hole stand for? By one report, he hated Christianity. By another (the one more pimped in the media) he hated liberals. What attack on his liberties was involved here? Did the feds, or the cops, come to his house, attempt to take his property or his liberty and so he used legitimate self defense to repel them? (Which as you should bloody well know is what I'M talking about and have been for 15 plus years.)
You self-serving fuzzy thinkers kill me. You're not really worried about the majority of the citizenry being scared by my letter. You're the ones that are scared -- scared that one day you'll get sucked into actually being forced into making the choice between standing for your rights or just talking about it while others fight and die for the words that you mouth without belief.
It's the FEDS who are bringing this fight to OUR doors. Can't you see THAT?!? The only way to prevent it is to make sure they understand the full consequences of doing so. The liberal moke who advocated that without thought needed to have the unintended consequences of his plan pointed out to him.
So tell me again, what does any of that have to do with a drunken mental church shooter? Or are you just reaching into thin air for excuses?
-- Vanderboegh
I never thought I'd see a liberal journalism trick in your writing Kevin, but you managed to put one in here. You have made a false assumption and built a theme around it.
Re-read the questions. They do NOT say to go out and start shooting, they just ask every patriot to evaluate him/herself by looking in the mirror and asking if and when they would be willing to fight for their Constitution.
Some would call that a line in the sand.
I STILL assume you have drawn that line in the sand, but you have so much fear of being lumped in with the forthright Mike Vanderboegh that you have to lash out at people like him who have only the best interest of the nation and it's Constitution at heart.
Gunning down non-combatants who APPEAR to be on the wrong side is NOT on any of our agendas, but I repeat, using the guns you are so willing to talk about for SOME patriotic purpose at SOME point will, in the Final Tally, mark you as a patriot or not.
The curious thing is that you have also assumed that those who have put their answers to the Two Questions out front are whackos as well as those of us who have kept that counsel to ourselves, just because we support the forthright ones.
Strategy, of course, says keep the element of surprise. I don't mind saying that I have guns, maintain them and practice with them because I am prepared to use them to defend my Constitution, but I am not going to list targets, put names on a hit list or anything of that nature, any more than the US Army, which knows that someday it will likely have to fight China (or a Chinese client state), declares China to be an enemy in the present tense.
Preparation makes the patriot. State of mind makes the patriot. Patriotism doesn't have to be worn on the sleeve, but if it is, it should be respected none the less.
BTW, I've kept my writing in opposition civil, and I would appreciate it if you do the same. Civility in the face of opposition is a desirable trait in a warrior, don't you think, Kevin?
"That's not the picture I want attached to the battle for my individual rights."
What makes you think that we have any control at all over what picture gets attached? You said it yourself:
"No one is able to accurately gauge the egregiousness of the insults and injustices - or lack thereof - visited upon those whose personal "thresholds of outrage" were crossed. Our media hasn't done it."
It seems that any time someone gets pushed too far, the media focuses on the person's reaction and digs for other reasons for his instability and somehow glosses over the unjust actions of petty tyrants which was either the final trigger or was the major contributing factor. Guys like this who apparently actually did have real mental instability get splashed all over the news for weeks on end, whereas those who truly do have a legitimate complaint get a brief mention then quickly forgotten lest the truth be discovered and the "rampager" gains public sympathy. It happens way too often to be mere coincidence.
Rivrdog,
Those are important questions. Here's one potential trigger that would indicate that the waste products are about to impact the rotary air circulation device: If the oath sworn by military personnel is changed by removing just 3 words.
The current oath reads like this:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Simply removing "the Constitution of" from the military oath would be such an apparently small change that it's possible that most military personnel might not even notice it, and if they did they probably would not realize its significance.
Yet such a small change would have huge ramifications. It would mean that they would be bound to follow orders, but not to disobey illegal orders. Confiscate privately held guns? No problem. Confiscate all the property of someone accused of terrorism? Go for it. Military "papers please" checkpoints? Done. In short, just following orders would become primary, and obeying and defending the supreme law of the land would no longer have any part of their mission.
Another potential trigger would be the formation of Obama's civilian "defense" force. The obvious parallels with Germany's Brown Shirts makes me think that intimidation tactics would be just around the corner. Once such tactics start, the cartridge box would probably have to be unwrapped.
Geez, I sound too much like a raving loon. But I don't see any way around these markers, quite simply because they are so similar to armed robbers or rapists tying up their victims. Only instead of making the victims helpless, it's removing the protections against misuse of military power against the civilian population.
That's why we need to start pushing for the enforcement of the Constitution now. When judges ignore put themselves above the law, they need to be impeached. When law enforcement breaks the law, they need to be punished. When lawmakers and other government officials violate the Constitution (both the federal and state level) they need to be removed from office and barred from touching the levers of power ever again. They also need to be prosecuted for more common crimes such as bribery and abusing their office for their own gain or for that of their friends.
People place too much by unearned/presumptive popularity. The people who interact with me know my character (assuming I have any).
...it doesn't stop Joe and Jane Sixpack from mentally slapping it on you.
So let 'em, Kevin. Seriously. If some complete stranger wants to hang a label on me, knowing nothing about me, he has merely made a meaningless noise with his mouth. In any case there's little I can do about it so I choose not to invest in it, apart --perhaps -- from trying to teach by example that the rule of the individual is better than the rule of Gramsci for this game of life.
The best way I can think of not to be tarred with the Jim Adkisson brush is not to be Jim Adkisson. One has limited ability to do much more than that.
"So, Rivrdog, a 'patriot' can only be a person who is willing to stand up and start killing people when some arbitrary line is crossed?"
MBV: For the purposes of my work, the "people" being discussed are rogue federal agents who operate contrary to the law and the Constitution yet under the color of that law. They are the lawbreakers, not me or mine. The "arbitrary line" that is being crossed is my front door, my property and my liberty. If you don't have an "arbitrary line" at your front door, you must have homeless folks drifting in and out all the time. How do you keep food in your refrigerator?
"Bullshit. People that are willing to make every last effort to use the soap, ballot and jury boxes first are hell of a lot more patriotic than the yammering assholes like Vanderboegh."
MBV: You will find NOTHING in my work to suggest that such methods should be abandoned, I am simply saying that given the present evidence in light of the Olofson case (among others) THEY WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO THE NEED OF DETERING FEDERAL AGGRESSION.
"Reckless screaming how you're going to grab the cartridge box and run amok proving how fucking patriotic you are by waging war doesn't do anybody any good in this fight."
MBV: Which fight? I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes I think you "pragmatists" aren't on the side of the Founders' Republic if its going to cost you anything. Some of you are more similar to the "Judendeinstordnung," the "Jews who keep order" that the Nazis used as tools to accomplish the Holocaust. This isn't some game of Freedom Whack-a-mole, where the lesson y'all are pushing is "don't stick your head up and you won't make the guy with the hammer mad and get hit." We're ALL for the hammer if the guy with it thinks he can whack us without risk to him.
"And puffing out your chests and telling the rest of us that we're pansies because we don't share your self-righteous ego-centric eagerness to threaten violence isn't helping your cause, either. God all-fucking mighty I wish you dunderheads could get a glimpse of yourselves. You'd be so embarrassed you'd crawl up your own ass to hide." tkdkerry 07.28.08 - 10:32 pm
MBV: History will judge which of us was correct. And if I were you, I wouldn't invoke God and copulation in the same sentence. He might one day take it personally. ;-)
-- Vanderboegh
I STILL assume you have drawn that line in the sand, but you have so much fear of being lumped in with the forthright Mike Vanderboegh that you have to lash out at people like him who have only the best interest of the nation and it's Constitution at heart.
I have, over the past several days, made it clear that I have my lines in the sand, and that I do agree with Mr. Vanderboegh's position. I just disagree with the utility and/or usefulness of providing verbal ammunition to the media that is ridiculously happy to paint every gun owner with the Adkisson brush.
Vin Suprynowicz wrote a book extolling the actions of Carl Drega (as I understand it - I haven't read it and wasn't aware of it until just recently). The Amazon reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
But who, besides us, remembers Drega? What did his acts gain anyone?
As I said, I have another überpost brewing. Give me a few days.
And in the mean time, unbunch your undies.
"And in the mean time, unbunch your undies."
I'll tell you what, Kevin, why don't I find a nice picture of a Judendeinstordnung doing his job in 1943 (just before he too got tossed in the showers), put YOUR name on it and post it on a blog? Then we'll see if you get as p-ssed as I am at having a drunken mental case murderer put on yours as an example of MY work?
You cheesers are really something. But don't worry. I'm sure you'll get victimized last.
Mike,
That was over the line. The simple fact is that Kevin is not equating you with that loser, but the media is. That is a fact of life that we have to deal with.
Making enemies out of your natural allies is a good way to make sure that no one has your back when you need it.
Mr. Vanderboegh, I sincerely apologize for offending you.
Honestly.
But if you cannot see that your letter to the editor was fodder for what I described, I can't help that.
Throughout all of this controversy I don't think anyone (well, damned few) asked you to shut up. They asked you to consider your audience and to choose your words more carefully.
Consider the definition of "Irish diplomacy": the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip.
"Mike, That was over the line. The simple fact is that Kevin is not equating you with that loser, but the media is. That is a fact of life that we have to deal with."
MBV: Wrong. He is SAYING the media is, or will, or whatever. Indeed, perhaps he's just voicing a fear of his own. In any case, it is HE who links my work with maladjusted loner killers in the same "analysis." Read it again, pal. There is no excuse available.
"Making enemies out of your natural allies is a good way to make sure that no one has your back when you need it." Ed "What the" Heckman 07.29.08 - 8:25 am
MBV: "Natural allies?" The "pragmatists" are going out of their way to say to everybody, AND ESPECIALLY THE FEDS WHO MONITOR THIS STUFF, "Hey, man, they're not US. Don't link us with them." That sound like a "natural ally" to you? I'll tie my flank to somebody who's a little more reliable. If you're smart, you will too.
"Mr. Vanderboegh, I sincerely apologize for offending you. Honestly. But if you cannot see that your letter to the editor was fodder for what I described, I can't help that. Throughout all of this controversy I don't think anyone (well, damned few) asked you to shut up."
MBV: You haven't been paying attention. One wanted David Codrea and me dead in a ditch. Others speculated openly how we might be "shut up." Ask David if you don't believe me. But we're not talking about them right now, we're talking about you. I refer you to my comments above to "What the" Heckman (great moniker by the way).
What ARE you afraid of? Lies are told by our enemies all the time. It is what they do for a living. They will always lie and distort to achieve their objectives. That is what collectivists do. There is NOTHING that you can do about that. The Southern Poverty Law Center has hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, all the proceeds of serial lying. They have been dissected in the press from time to time, even from the left. Yet the media still considers that their excrement does not stink and they are cited as "experts" in stories all the time.
Indeed, I could make a case that the only time the real truth gets told about the the Founders' intentions for the Second Amendment is when one of my "offending" letters gets published.
But the media will lie whether I get column inches or not. Worrying about it is pointless.
"They asked you to consider your audience and to choose your words more carefully. Consider the definition of 'Irish diplomacy': the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip. Kevin Baker 7.29.08 - 8:28 am"
MBV: Gee, I thought that was what I was doing. I ALWAYS consider carefully what I say, as well as my audience, which is both broader and narrower than you might think. Insofar as dictionaries, I just consulted one on-line to fully answer a fellow who, seeing my characterization above, to wit, "cheesers," emailed me and asked what that meant.
I referred him to the Slang Dictionary. "'Cheesers,'" I told him, "is a truncated form of 'cheese dick' which is defined as 'someone who kisses ass and does not care who knows; Often volunteers before any one else can speak up.'" See:
http://slangdictionary.forgematrix.com/browse.php?word=cheese%20dick
Prior to today, I have used this most recently to descibe Sebastian "Snowflake," et al., when he (and they) first made excuses for the Feds' victimization of David Olofson.
In their case it certainly applies. If I have unfairly applied the term to you, history will tell. But eliding the differences between my work and a drunken killer still gets you the appellation in my book. == Vanderboegh
BTW, as David Codrea was so kind to remind me (see http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/militiasuhmalicious-lies.html), if I were uninterested in "working within the system" would I bother with this?
Mr. Craig (Editor, Pittsburg Tribune-Review),
Yesterday I sent the email below to Mssrs. Fryer and Gazarik, to no reply. Thus today, I am again seeking a responsible adult who can address your newspaper's egregious mishandling of, and indeed inventing, the facts regarding militias, Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing as presented in Mr. Gazarik's lamentable presentation. I am copying this to more folks today, including Mike McNulty, who produced two documentaries on Waco. If you are unable to address this, will you kindly direct me to someone who does take responsibility for what you print?
Mike Vanderboegh
(contact info below)
Sir,
You need a better editor, and we need a retraction
Kindly have a competent adult fact-check this outrageous paragraph in your story:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_579637.html
"Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh was linked to a militia. The siege and eventual destruction of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, was tied to militia activity."
McVeigh was not "linked to a militia." He was NEVER a member of any constitutional militia. The only militia meeting that I'm aware of that he and Nichols attended, they were asked to leave. McVeigh was linked to a Christian Identity compound in eastern Oklahoma called Elohim City, a place of refuge for neoNazis terrorists such as the Aryan Republican Army bank robbers and the Kehoe brothers racist murderers. McVeigh called Elohim City, if memory serves me correctly, two days before the bombing to talk to a shadowy figure named Andreas Carl Strassmeir, later alleged to be a federal snitch.
If you are serious about your facts, then call Professor Mark Hamm (author of In Bad Company) or email Dr. Robert Churchill (churchill@hartford.edu). Either can provide you with a far more nuanced and informed opinion of militias and the neoNazi terrorists such as typified by McVeigh than the biased cartoonish depictions offered by that fact-challenged fat FBI troll Pitcavage or the liars for money at the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL. It has always been the habit of these left wing organizations who use the militia boogeyman scarecrow to generate contributions to blur the absolute differences between the Klan, neoNazis and Identity racist terrorists and the constitutional militias. This is perhaps because the militias are far more numerous than the green-teethed sheetheads and neos. Hard to make much of threat from a bunch of the terminally stupid who hold their conventions in phone booths. Far better for the purposes of fundraising for these groups to deny or obscure the differences between the racists and the militias.
That's bad enough. But what crack pipe hallucination were you in when you wrote that the massacre of innocents at Waco had ANYTHING to do with the constitutional militias that sprang up in its aftermath? Waco was an ATF initiated, FBI concluded federal operation against a loony reclusive Christian sect. The militias, those few that existed then, had no part in that federal atrocity.
Look, I realize that reportage standards have slipped badly in the modern era, but don't you think that facts, rather than ignorant smears devoid of facts, are rather more to be preferred in an alleged NEWS story. Let your editors misrepresent the militias on your editorial page, but kindly do your supposed job and GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
What ARE you afraid of?
Getting dismissed out of hand as a kook by our own words.
...that fact-challenged fat FBI troll Pitcavage or the liars for money at the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL.
...what crack pipe hallucination were you in...
Yeah, there's some Irish diplomacy. Here's a link to some letters I wrote to Laura Washington for comparison.
I'm not kissing anybody's ass, Mr. Vanderboegh, and especially not yours.
Carry on, sir. I shall as well. But my opinion of the benefits of your verbal hand-grenades will remain unchanged.
It has been my experience that writing about the facts, and that the facts are the facts, has little effect when the facts are submerged in hyperbole. The reading of such writing often focuses on the hyperbole, thus ignoring the facts, and the attempted refutation of the facts often focuses on the hyperbole as a diversion.
To me, such writing is tiresome reading. It is to Kevin's great credit that he tries very hard to avoid hyperbole, and thus he presents the facts in a style that makes him mighty goddamned difficult to refute.
And, the same observation applies to opinions. Some are worth reading, but very few are worth wading through manure and hyperbole to find out.
Why are you posting this loser's picture, or his name, or analysing his opinions? The next killer is watching.
And if he was under an order of protection, he was prohibited.
And if he was under an order of protection, he was prohibited.
Without defending Mr. Adkisson in any way, this malum prohibitum is of no relevance to me. I frankly fail to see why it bears mention. There are a great many prohibited for no reason other than the vindictiveness of a former partner.
Without defending Mr. Adkisson, the order of protection dated back to 2000. It is highly doubtful it was still in effect.
Some people are tone deaf and can't understand music, some have no sense of humor and can't understand a joke, an some have no sense of political reality and can't understand why their position isn't obvious to everyone. Mr. Vanderboegh falls into the last category.
Frankly, I agree with him on most of what he says but saying such things loudly in public is, imho, beyond stupid. One percent or even three percent is such a small number that it can easily be politically marginalized and ignored. Small violent uprisings have happened in America since its beginning, all have been crushed. Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't seem to teach some people anything.
The general population would not turn a hair if the power of the state was unleashed on those espousing such actions as proposed by Mr. Vadderboegh.
"The general population would not turn a hair if the power of the state was unleashed on those espousing such actions as proposed by Mr. Va(n)derboegh."
Nor, I dare say, would you or Kevin. Having beliefs that risk nothing in their sustainment aren't worth very much. Nor are those who espouse them.
Live free, or die, as the license plate states. With, or without, you "pragmatists." -- Vanderboegh
III
Mike, that's going to be the topic of my next long essay.
Nor, I dare say, would you or Kevin. Having beliefs that risk nothing in their sustainment aren't worth very much. Nor are those who espouse them.
My initial reaction to your challenge is "You didn't saddle-up either when Olofson was railroaded. Pot? Meet kettle." But that's not really fair. You're deliberately waving a red flag at the BATF (see your "open letters"), and you expect... what? That a horde of 3-percenters will come ride to your rescue? Good luck with that, sir. Truly. Because you're right - I wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect it of you if they came for me.
Give me until Sunday to tell you why. I'll try to get my thoughts together and put down by then.
Re: "Live free, or die"
For some reason this exchange from Serenity popped to mind:
The Operative: Are you willing to die for your beliefs?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I am...
[they draw. Mal fires first, and the Operative is forced to take cover]
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: 'Course, that ain't exactly plan A.
As a christian, I'm not afraid to die, though when I do, I'm really hoping it's painless 'cause that's the part I find disagreeable. But I gotta go with Mal on this one, dying isn't exactly my plan A either.
You might be suprised,Kevin, who would come to his aid,I for one would,if needed,as well as yours. You just never know.....
And do what, exactly, Chris? Not that I'm not touched by the offer of support, but what would you be able to do?
And, if you don't live in his basement, how would you do it?
Guys, guys, you don't need to COME to my aid. Just follow Bob Wright's advice to the FBI SAC of New Mexico when he asked him back in the 90s if Wright and his boys would really come to the aid of another Waco type situation in another state:
"Why would I want to do that? There's plenty of you federal sonsabitches around here." ;-)
Vanderboegh
III
And as another friend of mine observed the other day, "Freedom fighters fight."
"What the" Heckman: It ain't my plan A either. I have my own local arrangements. Despite my apparently low reputation amongst the "pragmatists," I'm not without friends. But I'm not asking anybody to do anything on my behalf. I will live, or die, by my principles. As a Christian, I know that our side wins in the end anyway, and I am commanded to live my life in such a way as to make my death a culmination of my service to my God. Which is to say, without fear.
As far as other people, they will have to make their own decisions and look themselves in the mirror afterward. MBV III
But I'm not asking anybody to do anything on my behalf.
After stating: Nor, I dare say, would you or Kevin.
Then you're sending very mixed messages.
I will live, or die, by my principles.
As will I.
As a Christian, I know that our side wins in the end anyway...
I'm not touching that one, tempting as it is.
As far as other people, they will have to make their own decisions and look themselves in the mirror afterward.
Indeed.
TECUMSEH & PUSHMATAHA
In the spring of 1811 Tecumseh, of the Shawnee, spoke with warriors from the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. After he spoke, Pushmataha, a chief of the Choctaws, spoke. Excerpts from these two powerful speeches graphically illustrate the views and conflicts nearly all native people wrestled with once the white man came to their land.
TECUMSEH:
"The whites are already nearly a match for us all united, and too strong for any one tribe alone to resist; so that unless we support one another with our collective and united forces; unless every tribe unanimously combines to give check to the ambition and avarice of the whites, they will soon conquer us apart and disunited, and we will be driven away from our native country and scattered as autumn leaves before the wind....
"Where today is the Pequod? Where the Narragensetts, the Mohawks, Poncanokets, and many other once powerful tribes of our race? They have vanished before the avarice and oppression of the white men, as snow before a summer sun. In the vain hope of alone defending their ancient possessions, they have fallen in the wars with the white men....
"Are we not being stripped day by day of the little that remains of our ancient liberty? Do they not even kick and strike us as they do their black-faces? How long will it be before they will tie us to a post and whip us, and make us work for them in their corn fields as they do them?....
"Shall we give up our homes, our country, bequeathed to us by the Great Spirit, the graves of our dead, and everything that is dear and sacred to us, without a struggle? I know you will cry with me: Never! Never! Then let us by unity of action destroy them all, which we now can do, or drive them back whence they came. War or extermination is now our only choice. Which do you choose? I know your answer. Therefore, I now call on you, brave Choctaws and Chickasaws, to assist in the just cause of liberating our race from the grasp of our faithless invaders and heartless oppressors. The white usurpation in our common country must be stopped, or we, its rightful owners, be forever destroyed and wiped out as a race of people....
"And if there be one among you mad enough to undervalue the growing power of the white race among us, let him tremble in considering the fearful woes he will bring down upon our entire race, if by his criminal indifference he assists the designs of our common enemy against our common country. Then listen to the voice of duty, of honor, of nature and of your endangered country. Let us form one body, one heart, and defend to the last warrior our country, our homes, our liberty, and the graves of our fathers."
------------
PUSHMATAHA:
"The great Shawnee orator has portrayed in vivid picture the wrongs inflicted on his and other tribes by the ravanges of the paleface....We sympathize with the misfortunes of his people....
"If Tecumseh's words be true, and we doubt them not, then the Shawnee's experience with the whites has not been the same as that of the Choctaws. These white Americans buy our skins, our corn, our cotton, our surplus game, our baskets, and other wares, and they give us in fair exchange their cloth, their guns, their tools, implements, and other things which the Choctaws need but do not make. It is true that we have befriended them, but who will deny that these acts of friendship have been abundantly reciprocated? They have given us cotton gins, which simplify the spinning and sale of our cotton; they have encouraged and helped us in the production of our crops; they have taken many of our wives into their homes to teach them useful things, and pay them for their work while learning; they teach our children to read and write from their books. You all remember the dreadful epidemic visited upon us last winter. During its darkest hours these neighbors whom we are now urged to attack, responded generously to our needs. They doctored our sick; they clothed our suffering; they fed our hungry; and where is the Choctaw or Chickasaw delegation who has ever gone to St. Stephens with a worthy cause and been sent away empty-handed? So, in marked contrast with the experiences of the Shawnees, it will be seen that the whites and Indians in this section are living on friendly and mutually beneficial terms....
"It is unnecessary for me to remind you, O Choctaws and Chickasaws, veteran braves of many fierce conflicts in the past, that war is an awful thing. If we go to war against the Americans, we must be prepared to accept its inevitable results. Not only will it foretoken deadly conflict with neighbors and death to warriors, but it will mean suffering for our women, hunger and starvation for our children, grief for our loved ones, and devastation of our beloved homes. Not withstanding these difficulties, if the cause be just, we should not hesitate to defend our rights to the last man, but before that fatal step is irrevocably taken, it is well that we fully understand and seriously consider the full portent and consequences of the act....Therefore, let me admonish you that this critical period is no time to cast aside your wits and let blind impulse sway; be not driven like dumb brutes by the frenzied harangue of this wonderful Shawnee orator; let your good judgement rule and ponder seriously before breaking bonds that have served you well..."
------------
After Tecumseh and Pushmataha both spoke, and the warriors sided with Pushmataha, Tecumseh declared Pushmataha a coward and called the Choctaw and Chickasaw warriors squaws. Pushmataha answered Tecumseh's remarks with the following.
------------
PUSHMATAHA:
"Halt, Tecumseh! Listen to me. You have come here, as you have often gone elsewhere, with a purpose to involve peaceful people in unnecessary trouble with their neighbors. Our people have no undue friction with the whites. Why? Because we have no leaders stirring up strife to serve their selfish, personal ambitions. You heard me say that our people are a peaceful people. They make their way, not by ravages upon their neighbors, but by honest toil. In that regard they have nothing in common with you. I know your history well. You are a disturber. You have ever been a trouble maker. When you have found yourself unable to pick a quarrel with the white man, you have stirred up strife between different tribes of your own race. Not only that, you are a monarch and unyielding tyrant within your own domain; every Shawnee man, woman, and child must bow in humble submission to your imperious will. The Choctaws and Chickasaws have no monarchs. Their chieftains do not undertake mastery of their people, but rather are they the people's servants, elected to serve the will of the majority. The majority has spoken on this question and it has spoken against your contention. Their decision has therefore become the law of the Choctaws and Chickasaws and Pushmataha will see that the will of the majority so recently expressed is rigidly carried out to the letter.
"If, after this decision, any Choctaw should be so foolish as to follow your imprudent advice and enlist to fight against the Americans, thereby abandoning his own people and turning against the decision of his own council, Pushmataha will see that proper punishment is meted out to him, which is death. You have made your choice; you have elected to fight with the British. The Americans have been our friends and we shall stand by them. We will furnish you safe conduct to the boundaries of this nation as properly befits the dignity of your office. Farewell, Tecumseh. You will see Pushmataha no more until we meet on the fateful warpath."
---From "Indian Oratory," Compiled by W.C. Vanderwerth, Published by the University of Oklahoma Press
MBV: Before Tecumseh left the council, he turned to Pushmataha and predicted, "After you help the whites defeat me -- after my death -- they will turn on you and your people next." And Pushmataha replied, "Well, then I will live longer than you."
History records that they were both right, and the last chance for the Native American tribes to unite east of the Mississippi and secure a more favorable recognition of their rights from the new American government was lost forever. As Tecumseh had foretold, Pushmataha and his people did not benefit from their allegiance to the United States and were unceremoniously shoved west shortly afterward.
Anybody who sees any parallels to our current argument between "Absolutists" and "Pragmatists" should feel free to chime in.
-- Mike Vanderboegh
III
Anybody who sees any parallels to our current argument between "Absolutists" and "Pragmatists" should feel free to chime in.
Ooooh! Ooooh! I know! I know!
Your method of arguing your position is every bit as endearing and effective as Tecumseh's?
(But you'll have the high moral position and the ability to look down from Heaven and say "I told you so!"?)
Give me until Sunday, as I asked.
Just an interesting aside here ...
I'm not a betting person, but I suspect a fair bet would be that these "quotes" are mostly poetic license on the part of other persons unknown. I claim no evidence other than the words themselves. I can't help but wonder what Indian of the time would use these terms (for example): "marked contrast", "veteran braves", "foretoken deadly conflict", "not withstanding these difficulties", "frenzied harangue", "heartless oppressors", "undervalue the growing power", "fearful woes", or "criminal indifference". This might well have been what was meant (beats me; I wasn't there), but I suspect that it isn't what was said.
It is disconcerting that more and more people are driven to suicide and decide that their ego, rage or whatever requires them to take more lives than their own. Almost like if those they kill will become servants to them in the afterlife like some Viking legends.
This man was disparate and he lashed out against the dreaded liberals. The most liberal voice in his locality was the Unitarian church and their tolerant church teaching and approval /acceptance of LGBT.
So he chose those dreaded liberals to be his enemies in his last act of rage. Yet those who died or were injured may or may not have been liberal, but they were human. He denied them their humanity in order to focus on a political identity.
We are also in danger of doing the same in placing labels on others even those among us.
Despite our anger at the foolish or deliberate people who support gun control, we must always realize that they are our fellow humans and unless they are coming to kill us, we should refrain from the same.
Don’t like the BATF, then lobby against it. Bring attention to their abuses, get local, state, federal representative that agree to abolish the BATF. Change the culture of the BATF.
The alternative is to go outlaw and use force against the BATF like Timothy McVeigh did. I do not believe he knew about the daycare center, but their deaths was his unintended consequence and very few of his supposed enemies died.
Dammit, DJ! Next you'll be telling me that Custer's last words weren't "Holy shit! Look at all those fucking Indians!"
Say goodnight, people.
People: Goodnight
(that's as close as you'll ever see ME writing from multiple personalities.)
Sorry, I'm back aboard "Lofoten Girl" now for the rest of the week, and flame war participation is not allowed for the blogging crew members, including the Captain.
"Dammit, DJ! Next you'll be telling me that Custer's last words weren't "Holy shit! Look at all those fucking Indians!""
It's a damned shame that we'll never know!
RAH sez: "Don’t like the BATF, then lobby against it. Bring attention to their abuses, get local, state, federal representative that agree to abolish the BATF. Change the culture of the BATF."
MBV: I am reminded of the scene at the beginning of The Patriot, where Benjamin Martin, sounding like he is trying to convince himself as much as anybody else, speaks against the SC militia levy because he fears the outcome of the war WHICH HAS ALREADY STARTED.
Tell me, RAH, how you propose to do those things? Exactly how? Do you know about the internal culture of the ATF from the "Good 'o Boys' Roundup" onward? Have you seen JPFO's documentary called "The Gang"? How, in an upcoming administration that will be saturated with anti-gunners do you expect to get oversight hearings on the ATF? How? And absent that, do you really think the ATF is going to be restrained by anything short of defensive violence in their unconstitutional predations?
Then you say: "The alternative is to go outlaw and use force against the BATF like Timothy McVeigh did."
MBV: NO, NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Have you not paid attention to a word I've said? The initiation of this upcoming conflict will be at somebody's doorstep, in a reflexive act of self defense against a predatory ATF which seeks to make another Olofson, only this time they'll pick on the wrong guy.
Then you say: "I do not believe he knew about the daycare center, but their deaths was his unintended consequence and very few of his supposed enemies died."
MBV: The heck he didn't. ANYBODY who looked at the windows in the front of that building knew from the daycare artwork and stuff that was posted there in order TO BE VISIBLE from the street to attract customers. The reason "very few of his supposed enemies died" is because the ATF knew something was up and were nearby, not in the building, IN THEIR RAID GEAR, which by the way the early photos show them WITHOUT DUST ON THEM. Anybody IN the building was covered in it. Don't extrapolate kind feeling for either McVeigh or the ATF from such abysmal ignorance of the crime.
Mike Vanderboegh
III
So this is probably a stupid viewpoint, but it may not be too far out of line with what this guy believed.
What if our social degeneration has gotten so bad that most people actually want a socialist, nanny government? Not just the out of control federal agent scenario, but what if most people have come to believe that armed self-defense or resistance to federal abuse or power is wrong? What if they keep voting for more politicians who believe that they can do whatever they want because that's what most of the voters support? When it isn't the politicians or their agents that is the problem, but actually our fellow citizens, what then?
Isn't that what this nut job apparently believed?
Why not ask your fellow citizens if they're a-ok with out of control violent government? Seems like it'd be a good idea to make it plain to them...
Kusabi,
The problem is that they don't realize that's what they're voting for. They think they're voting for a government that can solve unsolvable problems.
I just got home and have become aware of this post. I've just gotten started on reading.
A note --
Rivrdog wrote: "Gunning down non-combatants who APPEAR to be on the wrong side is NOT on any of our agendas, but I repeat, using the guns you are so willing to talk about for SOME patriotic purpose at SOME point will, in the Final Tally, mark you as a patriot or not."
This is referring to what was called "The Big Sort" at Samizdata a couple of weeks ago. Brian Micklethwait had remarked on Terry Teachout's original article ("America Sorts Itself"). Here is a comment, posted at my place, with links to Micklethwait and Teachout.
I don't believe that either of them are looking far enough down the road at what all this means. To me, the concept of a "sorting" of American culture is obvious both in theory and practice, and at a much deeper level than they are looking at. And one implication of it is that -- sooner or later -- everyone is going to have to make really fundamental choices of the kind under discussion here.
We don't get to choose the times in which we live, ladies and gentlemen. Not on this kind of scale. Speaking in Parliament, Edmund Burke once said that "the call upon us is authoritative". The issue at hand had to do with the administration of India but the essence of the thing is that the times demanded the convictions of responsible men.
My view is that "history is a list of consequences". (I quote myself. I enjoy that.) A necessary element of this is the fact that we can inherit the consequences of decisions taken by others before we were ever responsible for our own lives, just as well as those taken by others in our own times. Nobody enjoys unpleasant contingencies, but that doesn't mean that they will not sooner or later demand action.
~~~~~
This is the most compelling discussion -- everywhere it's been taking place -- that I've seen online in longer than I can remember.
Tried to post what follows as a comment - HaloScan told me I had too many "carriage returns":
Sitrep: August, 2008
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>