I suppose this is always the way it is with those who start the wars. They simply can't or won't see what the unintended consequences of their actions are going to be, even when others are completely unsurprised and even predict it publicly. Which brings me, as many of you familiar with my work have probably already guessed where I was heading, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.Mindful Musings brings us Mike Vanderboegh's observations following the most recent Olofson outrage.
Mike wrote me via separate email:
Olofson's sentencing has hit me pretty hard. They really don't understand that old saw about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, do they? God what ignorant arrogant asses. Where is the adult supervision here?
I think the adult supervision is pulling the strings.
I don't think it that far fetched to imagine a physical reaction is exactly what some in authority want--to provoke a weak link into snapping, and exploiting that to their advantage and against ours. And I don't think such calculating minds would think twice about sacrificing a few of their own pawns, and, in fact would require it as part of their strategy.
All decent men are outraged by what is developing around us by design. Let us be prudent in how we express that outrage, lest we play into the hands of creatures counting on a misstep.
Now go read Mike's great new article.
8 comments:
David Codrea said: "I don't think it that far fetched to imagine a physical reaction is exactly what some in authority want--to provoke a weak link into snapping, and exploiting that to their advantage and against ours."
I would agree with this. This also shows that they are not as powerful as they like to pretend and as we sometimes imagine them to be. If they were truly as powerful as they like to present to the public, they could just swat us like flies and be done with us. However, they have not done this because they have a key weakness and a key fear as revealed by their tactics. Their weakness is their small numbers, and their fear is organized resistance by even a small minority of the people.
Hence, the only way to beat us is to create leverage to improve the odds of the success of their small numbers against our larger numbers. One way to create this leverage is to trick the gullible masses into believing that we are a threat to the masses. The way to pull this off is to either trick a weak link into snapping and doing something stupid or to run a false flag operation that falsely blames us for criminal acts that make the average American feel threatened.
One way to prevent such an occurrence is to constantly challenge and expose potential trouble makers within our own ranks to either put them back on track if they made an honest mistake or to render them ineffective so they can not be the weak link that snaps. It also prevents provocateurs within our ranks from being the foundation of a false flag operation. The recent rantings by "Emma Gee" come to mind.
In case you want to see the effectiveness of routing out provocateurs from our ranks, see the youtube video of the SPP protests in Montebello, Quebec where peaceful protesters outed and stopped undercover police from starting violence. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow) It is amusing to watch the provocateurs skulk off. They are not as powerful as they like to pretend. We outnumber them, and we can outsmart them.
One observation; if they are going to sacrifice a pawn they had better do it soon.
If they wait too long enough people will be so tired of the crap that it could result in a physical reaction that is joined by so many people that it backfires on the puppet master(s).
DC:I don't think it that far fetched to imagine a physical reaction is exactly what some in authority want..
But isn't that what we want to?
Think about it. We've written books about it (Unintended Consequences/EFAD). We say "One day ATF is going to pick on the wrong guy" with the obvious allusion to a situation where we want to see force-of-arms against ATF's force-of-arms.
DC:..lest we play into the hands of creatures counting on a misstep.
If things keep going the way they're going, and we are forced to use force(defensive or offensive), the enemy will use it to try and prove their point anyway.
If something physical does happen, you'll have two sides beating their chests saying it proves their side's points: The ATF will say it proves hat we're all a bunch of terrorists; we'll be pointing out that it is ATF that has poked, prodded, tormented, and driven people to the point where even the most passive, reasonable individual just plain can't take it anymore.
My biggest concern is the moral question. One of conscience: When is it right and just to use physical force when their is no way out, and what's the proper procedure. I've read the two books mentioned above, and I do take issue with a lot of what the fictional "good guys" did as well as the bad guys. Things I would never condone.
Sincerely, C.H.
One thing I forgot to mention, and like all to think about this...
JPFO had an article where a critique wrote them, the guy said something along the lines of "If Jews has resisted with arms it would have only played into the
Nazi's hands, as Hitler would have just used it as evidence that the Jews were as dangerous as he claimed and thus justified the furthering of actions against them."
And of course, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, as the Nazis were determined to vilify the Jews and destroy them. Just as ATF goes after us gun-owners.
I guess the point is that the feds will use whatever we do -no matter what it is (physical or not; violent or non-violent; withing the law or outside the law)- to vilify us, so it should not be on that sole reason that we prevent ourselves from taking action. When push comes to shove, whatever self-defense measures we employ, the enemy will also use as justification for their own devices.
C.H.
Now I shall go read Mr. V's article.
C.H.
CH: That is very thought provoking commentary, and you pose an interesting quandary. It is not easy to answer, but I do think that we need to keep steady pressure on everyone involved in order to break the impasse.
CH: "...I do take issue with a lot of what the fictional "good guys" did as well as the bad guys. Things I would never condone."
Once these types of events get started, terrible things happen to everyone involved: good guys and bad guys. That is why so many of us are trying so hard to find an alternate path through this maze which has been created by the feds. It's not that we are pushovers, it's that we know how these things play out in reality. It is never as clean and just as anyone would like to imagine.
Unfortunately, we are not seeing any willingness on the part of the feds to make any concessions. Given the level of stress and distrust created by the feds, a good negotiator would expect to see some concessions coming out of them to diffuse the situation. This assumes that the other side is negotiating in good faith. If they are not acting in good faith, the negotiation is pointless. Perhaps if we apply enough pressure, they will blink and give up some ground. That would be a really good way for them to reduce the pressure at this point.
anon, nobody is asking them to make concessions, we are just asking they obey the law. The real law.
straightarrow said...: "anon, nobody is asking them to make concessions, we are just asking they obey the law. The real law."
I think we are saying the same thing, but just saying it differently from each other. Let me clarify - here is my perspective on things:
I frequently view things from the perspective of negotiations because I think that everything in life is a negotiation at some level. Whether or not we realize it, we are currently negotiating with the feds as to whether or not they have to follow the constitution and law. Currently, they are asserting that they are able to make things up as they go along and that we have to obey them. We are asserting that they are not allowed to make things up as they go along and that we don't have to obey them when they do that. So, when I say that they need to make concessions, I mean that they need to give up some ground, admitting that they do have to follow the constitution and law and that unless they do that, we don't have to obey them. Based on my perspective, I feel that they do need to make concessions.
Post a Comment