Saturday, November 01, 2008

"Knox the Younger"

Mindful Musings hosts the latest salvo. Click on the title link to read it. Here's what I want to say on this latest flare-up.

Jeff Knox is right when he cautions us there are no contemporary counterparts occupying similar elevated standing and commanding resources comparable to the Founding Fathers.

He's right when he observes the relative comfort most Americans enjoy, and the incentives we have to maintain the status quo. He is also right when he notes the pathetic apathy and all the talk vs. walk in the RKBA community.

He's right when he points out the terrible destruction that would be a result of a domestic insurgency, and the vulnerabilities/ opportunities that would become exploitable by enemies foreign and domestic. And he's right when he observes there is no new structure ready to replace the old.

Here's where I think we're disconnecting:

Mike Vanderboegh et al (and if, as you say, you've never heard of him before, Jeff, I respectfully suggest there is a growing phenomenon a gun rights writer of national standing needs to be at least aware, if not in approval of) are not targeting individuals for initiation of force. They are predicting that when enough people have their backs forced to the wall, some of them will push back, and extrapolating likely outcomes. They are also issuing a warning not only that this will happen, but there is a core of gun owners who are fed up with the abuses and will not back up, or I should say, down, any further.

You don't have to agree with that, but there it is.

I certainly have not given up advocating working "within the system" when I think there is potential to do something besides spin wheels and burn up energy and resources. But to rely on "majority rule democracy" in places like Chicago, or to rely on a just resolution in the federal courts as our only area of focus is not only self-limiting, but also widens the gulf we see opening between 2A camps.

Here's something I hope we can all stipulate: Growing tyranny already exists in this country, in government agencies at all levels. Tyrants always seek more power, and do not cede what they have willingly. Ultimately, even though such lust is a form of insanity, they can respond rationally when there's a strong enough "or else" behind a warning to back off, and do it now.

I think we all, prag and principle freak alike, agree that armed citizens deter violence on the individual level. If we didn't believe the same phenomenon works macroscopically, at the societal level, then what good is the Second Amendment?

I think those who invite the "radicals" to lead by example and start firing are missing the central point. Likewise are those who invite us to leave the country for insurgency opportunities (which, by the way, is the same argument used by the antis when they tell us we should join the military if we want to have "assault weapons.") And no, Mike and those like him are not responsible for the two racist thugs snared in the recent BATFU sting--they weren't practicing anything he preaches.

Here's the point: Like it or not, the fight may come to us, no matter what we do. 9/11 wasn't a wake-up call? Consider the militarization of police, the assignment of military units to domestic operations, the increased surveillance and intrusiveness on basic liberties we see growing every day, the characterization of Constitutionalists as "Homegrown Terrorists," the ability of government to lie, to conceal crimes under the blanket of "Classified Material," and we really can't see the potential for a natural or man-made disaster resulting in a perfect storm, a convergence, allowing for responsive measures that make what we endure now seem libertarian by comparison? You know, something we can't vote or sue our way out of?

Works by Mike and people like him are valuable for several reasons: They get people thinking along the lines of what they're prepared to do when TSHTF. They steel the hearts of those who do. And they send that clear warning that there is a line in the sand, at least with some, that there will be a cost to the perceived benefits of predation. And the lesson we all should not only know but be preaching is, warnings, combined with capabilities, discourage the darkness from approaching.

And works by Jeff and people like him are valuable, in that they provide a means to engage in the system, and try for civilized redress--something our Founders noted they attempted time and again. That's what I'd prefer, assuming we're not forestalling the frog hop until the water has reached full boil.

The major disconnect I see between the two camps, is that if we apply only one methodology to the exclusion and disparagement of the other, we're limiting our options. More tools in the belt are good.

I try to keep a foot in both camps, and perhaps it's a fool's hope. And thing is, I don't know anyone in the III camp who doesn't recommend using the existing structure to the advantage of freedom. What we never seem to hear is anyone from the other camp saying "I have a line in the sand that I will not allow to be crossed. If it is, I will concede my methods have been rendered impotent and take up arms to defend my life and liberty."

If we saw more of that, the line would be reinforced, the warning would be louder, and the chances for peaceable redress would be given new strength. But if the only response to a rapist is our pledge to vote for new masters, or to take him to court, don't expect it to do anything but embolden him, and increase the likelihood of the III scenario.

I respect both Mike, who I don't consider a domestic terrorist, and Jeff, who I don't consider a coward. I hope they can engage in some private correspondence and perhaps develop a respect of sorts for each other.

15 comments:

alan said...

Well said.

Sean said...

Extremely well said, and Thank You, David.

tom said...

My line in the sand was crossed many moons ago. I'm just keeping my powder dry and everything oiled and sighted in. Sometimes you got to spank a child or dog (I'd add politicians and activist judges) to get it to realize what side it's bread is buttered on and what it shant do anymore under penalty of pain or death.

Hitler didn't go away because newspapers said he was a "bad man". Hell, Senator Ted K murdered a girl and is an elected representative who claims to be against guns because they might be used to murder people. Kinda makes a sham of working within the system, doesn't it?

Biding our time, that's all we're doing, biding out time.

Never fight on the terms of your enemy, wait until conditions are favorable for your abilities and methods.

Don't expect a golden goose congress to lay the golden goose egg of giving us our REPUBLIC back without a hell of a fight. Expect political activity to get you a goose egg, but not a gold one.

Anonymous said...

I have despaired of our current government many times. Yet I'm very cautious about drawing my line in the sand. I'm a long term guardsman with a high level clearance. I do what I can on the civilian side in both vocation and citizen side to try and reverse the trend, and I do what I can on the military side to help the nation's national defense. So far all I can say is my personal line in the sand so far is I will refuse loudly and publically to aid any confiscations I ever get near. I will face jail time and the ruin of my career. Would I take arms and be willing to see a second American civil war, I am not at that point yet and may never be.

PolyKahr said...

Well said, David, well said. I have indicated on my own, the line in the sand. But I am not ready to give up on other means. The first amendment remains first because it is the most important. But it only remains so if the Second is there to back it up.

Anonymous said...

Very well said, David, and every point you made was valid, with I think the exception of one.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. The one thing I disagree with, and I admit, that this may just be an overreaction on my part due to the frustration of dealing with the pragmatists; is that I believe you are too optimistic as to their character(s). I cannot ascribe to them the defect of stupidity. Yet, that seems to me to be the only alternative to ascribing to them the defect of cowardice.

Were they stupid I could understand them not cleary comprehending what we say and what we try to do, and how just how peaceable we really are and wish to remain. In the absence of believing them stupid, I can conjure no other explanation for what seems to me to be purposeful incomprehension.

I firmly believe that the screeds we hear from them serve two purposes. One intentional, one not.

The intentional one in my opinion is for them to get on record with all the alphabet agencies as being no threat to them, and therefore implying that they should be immune from any actions taken to destroy those "principles freaks".

The unintentional message lets those of us who will not enter willingly into slavery that they cannot be relied upon to take a hand in the cause of liberty no matter the reasons or violations committed against those who would see our nation honor its founding principles. I don't think they intend to tip their hand that this is so. But they have.

For Christ's sake, some of them run away when just asked to talk. Do we really believe they will stand when ammunition with more substance than words are in the air? I don't. Knox is no exception, in my mind. Simply because not being stupid the only way he could have so totally misinterpreted Vanderboegh and others of like mind, including you, has to have been an intentional misinterpretation while making his declaration that he is no danger to any governmental abuser, and that he will be "reasonable" and "pragmatic". The definition of those terms to be adjustable.

Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with your premise. Perhaps I am wrong, God knows I would like to be. But after years and years of dealing with the spineless I can usually spot them without a great deal of effort and have become cynical.

Of course cynicism is much more comfortable that skepticism. I suspect you are an optimistic skeptic, and that could certainly explain our different assessments of the characters of the pragmatists.

Cynicism means one no longer harbors hope of desirable outcomes in the issue at hand. The skeptic may think that desirable outcomes are unlikely, but he still has hope.

So, in all honesty, I must admit that it is possible I have opted for the emotionally comfortable position that removes from me the weight of doubt. I hope that is the case, but my history is not one of choosing the emotionally comfortable at the expense of truth (not to sound too arrogant, Irealize that I may not always be correct in what I believe to be true). Having said all this crap, it is incumbent upon me to admit that you very possibly could be correct. I just don't think so.

But perhaps your hope is justified. I pray it is.

tom said...

grayfort55:

No Joke, one of my kin is in the military end and rather high up in the current line of succession to presidency, let's say (and he is) he's in the top 20 for his sake. He wouldn't be keen on me putting his name anywhere. Does nobody any favors.

He isn't going to go to war against the American people over firearms rights though you'd have a hard time getting him to put that on paper with a signature.

My dad's got a GI issue birdy on his shoulder and he's with me.

Nobody wants a civil war but the idiots that don't realize what they are pushing.

If the economy goes to sh*t, who's to say they won't take our firearms away as a "precaution" like in Katrina?

I signed a lot of federal forms in my life and they know exactly where I live. I don't do NFA/Title II S.O.T. stuff and I never harmed anything but game animals but I will if pushed.

If they up the game, that's their call. None of my friends in Law Endorsement or the Military want to see this happen but the twats that get hired to be "representatives of the public" that have NO CLUE what they are fucking with.

Line in the sand was drawn when WACO happened. Clinton was smart and backed off. Rules are different this time around. No Federal Agents are going to be allowed to collect their bodies and make up bullshit to get helicopters and reinforcements if they hazard such a stupid maneuver once again.

German-American friend said recently: "I watched what happened under the Wiemar Republic and Hitler's rise and fall. We aren't letting that happen again. If they don't want a war involving guns, they best not try to disarm us."

Anonymous said...

I do not know why everybody seems to think that when the JBTs come to steal our guns and either kill us or take us where we do not wish to go that it is time for open revolution. Oppressive governments are very well set up to deal with open revolution. What they are not set up for is dealing with anonymous problem solvers solving individual problems one problem at a time.

You do not even have to give up any of the comforts of home. You do not have to run around in the hills wet, cold, and hungry. While the JBTs and their lackeys have to make their identities known to carry out their evildoing, we can remain completely incognito as we engage in problem solving exercises.
Mark Spungin's book Neither Predator Nor Prey offers up a number of useful suggestions.

David Codrea said...

Anon, I do not know why YOU seem to think that "everybody" can be defined by your assumptions.

Anonymous said...

It is difficult to play good cop-bad cop when the good cop is telling the criminal not to believe the bad cop. Look at the civil rights movement. If Jeff Knox wants to play Martin Luther King successfully, he needs to have me as Stokely Carmichael scaring the white folks into his kinder, gentler change.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Wow, David. What you wrote is exactly the kind of thing I would . . . if I were vastly more articulate and more intellectually capable than I am.

I don't think I've made any secret of my huge amount of respect for Mr. Vanderboegh, but I have also had occasional dealings with Mr. Knox, and have never had occasion to doubt his commitment or courage.

Still, I think Jeff Knox is very wrong in his assumption that "Mike's Merry Band of 3 Percenters" are bluffing, and by helping the would-be tyrants to the same erroneous assumption, he is dangerously wrong.

Welshman said...

I agree that the 3 percenters are not bluffing. My line in the sand is gun confiscation, and once I made that commitment, the deal was done.

At the same time, however, I do believe in working within the system to attempt to bring about change culminating in liberty. For me it is both/and rather than either/or.

I had rather deal with the issue without armed resistance and will work toward that end. But, in the final analysis, it won't be me who starts any violence. The instigators will be government that decides it must force citizens into submission to concepts that are antithetical to our Constitution.

I still have hope we can avoid such a scenario. But as I watch the political landscape with a flat-out Communist coming this close to the Presidency, my hope is quickly fading.

I think there will be serious repurcussions down the road to an Obama presidency, not instigated by those who disagree with him but by those who advance his cause as if they are on a mission from the great messiah.

Anonymous said...

Vanderboegh said...

"It is difficult to play good cop-bad cop when the good cop is telling the criminal not to believe the bad cop. Look at the civil rights movement. If Jeff Knox wants to play Martin Luther King successfully, he needs to have me as Stokely Carmichael scaring the white folks into his kinder, gentler change."

Yes. Excellent.

If Jeff Knox wants to prove his mastery of the dialectic, he needs to warn those who are threatening our constitutional rights to choose an alternate path because he fears what will happen if the absolutists are pushed too far. Of course, Jeff needs to propose that alternate path, and it should coincidentally involve easing up on constitutional infringements by government.

The absolutists are a hard to identify group who are spread throughout our society by both geographic location and social status. It is not wise to pick a fight with what amounts to a natural, distributed network. Talk about Fourth Generation Warfare and Net War! Distributed networks are, by their design, robust against both attack and scattering. This is because centralized governments are unable to effectively fight against dispersed forces like absolutists. Also, it is not possible to scatter something that is already scattered: absolutists are already scattered all over the country in random and unpredictable locations.

A strategic and tactical note: this is is why Obama wants a Domestic Civilian Force. It will likely be used as a method to attack the distributed network of absolutists and constitutionalists. It will likely draw on Obama's experience as a "community organizer" to put Obama loyalists on the ground in every neighborhood. The basic gist is that these people on the ground in every neighborhood will gather intel on the possible threats posed by the distributed network of free citizens. It is an intel gathering and intimidation exercise that could never be performed solely by a centralized police or military force due to lack of manpower, money, and equipment.

This is one of the few ways to take down a distributed net. However, the weakness of this technique is that the informers and intel gatherers expose themselves in the neighborhoods where they work. Not every informer will be spotted, but enough of them will be spotted that they can be targeted for polite conversation and reeducation. These informers will likely be poorly trained and young. Widespread targeting of these informers would have a chilling effect on this particular tactic and could prevent a takedown of the distributed network of absolutists and constitutionalists.

For every move by the enemy, there is a counter to it. Do not ever lose sight of this, and you will know that there is always an opportunity for freedom to prevail.

Anonymous said...

For every move by the enemy, there is a counter to it. Do not ever lose sight of this, and you will know that there is always an opportunity for freedom to prevail.

Words of wisdom to live by. Thanks.

III

John Hardin said...

Tom:

> He isn't going to go to war against the American people
> over firearms rights though you'd have a hard time
> getting him to put that on paper with a signature.
>
> My dad's got a GI issue birdy on his shoulder and he's with me.
>
> Nobody wants a civil war but the idiots that don't
> realize what they are pushing.

So, what will they do if push comes to shove?