It's no secret I am good friends with Mike, but that's not relevant to my personal assessment of this entire endeavor, at least I try my best not to let it be. Having looked at their publicly-revealed plans, I've determined it's not for me, but the reasons why are unimportant for this discussion. If your informed decision is that this is a place you'd like to invest in, I wish you well. Peaceable people paying their own freight have the right to live wherever and under whatever conditions they choose.
I'd have probably maintained silence, except the whole thing just got a big boost from Glenn Beck, making it newsworthy and noteworthy, and I have an observation I don't see anyone else making that I think merits further explanation and discussion.
Go to 12:56 in the first video, listen to Beck's question and to the answer he gets.
Q:
Idaho says -- no more open carry. No more even having a gun in the house, we're going to go ahead and do that. What happens then?
A:
The laws of the land will be followed, Idaho as well as the federal laws. Even laws that we believe are unconstitutional. We are not looking to pick a fight with anybody. We would do the best we can to make sure those laws don't pass.Idaho being unlikely to pass such edicts notwithstanding, since one of the reasons people are attracted to the Citadel in the first place is as protection against SHTF scenarios, and since government has a documented proclivity for exploiting emergencies to impose total control, I think this is appropriate to explore further.
To that end, I'll entertain name-calling-free comments on the specific point raised in the Q&A. Note I'm not interested in assessments of the project itself or of the personalities involved. If the principals don't want to have this discussion here because my being friends with Mike makes me a suspect broker, I'd encourage them to have it somewhere more to their liking.
24 comments:
I like the general sentiment, the concept, but quite frankly, in light of modern technology controlled and exercised by the Feds, the whole town is nothing more (if it holds to the true Constitutional veins which its 'founders' espouse) than Hellfire Fodder.
The one aspect of how difficult the Feds will (not if) find it to control the armed American populace, is that we're so spread out; too many of us and too few of them, so that despite their weaponry, numbers end up being in our favor.
Putting all your 'eggs' in one basket in light of the above, I would argue, is not a good idea.
Lastly, I plead severe ignorance of the acronym "SHTF", would you please enlighten me?
Thanks.
I think the current reality in this police-state is that you have to say things like that to the media/Rulers to avoid being kidnapped, caged, or flat out murdered before the walls are even built.
I would hope that once the walls ARE built, that bit of nonsense would drop away quickly.
Lying to the liars. Maybe not the best situation to find oneself in, but a reality one must deal with while living in a police-state.
Or, maybe that is the truth. But I sincerely hope not.
I long ago decided that Citadel isn't for me. This is one reason.
The last time I looked into it, the Citadel was a lifetime lease-based system in which the "management" rather than individual residents were property owners. Such being the case, the owners can set any rules they want. Some of the rules struck me as being as restrictive as any government: requiring specific weapons/training is as bad as forbidding those weapons and training. I think the choice of obeying a hypothetical ban should be up to the ethical positions of the individuals, regardless of the laws. Being the property owner, "Citadel" makes that decision for them. In a very real sense, "Citadel" becomes as much an oppressive goverment as is an American government ignoring/violating the Constitution; with the sole redeeeming factor that members can choose to become part of it.
Unless Citadel takes a "condominium" approach in which actual ownership is vested in the residents buying, I think it's a very poor choice, and this refreshingly honest admission that the management will cheerfully side with the violation of residents' rights reinforces my opinion.
(Note to trolls: Please observe that my opinion herein is based on the business model and positions presented by Citadel. It does not draw upon any opinion I hold of Kerodin. If you want me to talk about him, let's go to another forum where everyone can post and rebut freely, without wasting David's blog space on what is an unrelated issue.)
Look, I'm no fan of Kerodin's, as anyone who recognizes my name/handle will attest.
I must, however, give him credit for what he's accomplished.
As for the Q&A that you pointed out, what would you have him say? I stopped watching Beck after he left Fox, so Glenn might have changed his tune since, but while he was on Fox, there were places he wouldn't go, and armed resistance to even illegal laws is one of those places. GBTV is not the place to holler Molon Labe.
"No guns in the house? That's settled law, ruled on by the Supreme Court: Such an order would be unconstitutional."
No hollering needed and nary a "Molon Labe" in there.
True enough. Some people think more quickly on their feet than others, I suppose.
There's also more of this interview behind a paywall, so we're all speculating without access to the whole thing.
@Peter
You are absolutely correct about Beck. He had repeatedly said even recently, that he believes the solution to our current situation with Fed Gov is civil rights style marches and such. While he alludes to civil disobedience, I would note that about a year ago he called for a national "lemonade stand and bake sale day" to "protest" the government's restrictions on these activities. He then proceeded to tell people to make sure they get all their permits, etc. first. Seriously.
This amazes me. I was good friends with an elderly gentleman that was a boy in Gandhi's India. From what he told me, the whole idea was disobeying unjust laws. He used the example of "weaving". The Brits wouldn't allow the Indians to weave their cotton into cloth (punishable by imprisonment). And so, Gandhi had the whole country "weave". My friend recalls hearing his mother say to all the kids "weave! weave! weave".
Indeed, it appears Beck doesn't even have the stones to tell people to have their lemonade stand without getting a bloody permit? My guess is Kerodin et al sussed this out, and told him what he wanted to hear.
David: Thank you for raising this point for discussion, because you are correct, it deserves more explanation than we had time to give on Beck's show. You are a professional journalist, so you know all about time restraints, especially with so much ground to cover.
Point One: We all (all of us) follow unconstitutional laws to one extent or another, every day, to the degree each of us chooses to obey or disobey. Whether one pays his taxes, chooses not to carry an automatic weapon into the local convenience store in open defiance of the obvious unconstitutionality of that "law", to the fact that I, personally, choose to comply with the Federal restrictions imposed on my 2A as a "Prohibited Person". (Because I read your work, I know you agree that even I, as a federal felon having satisfied my sentence, should have all of my civil rights restored, including 2A, or be banished forever if I am a threat to society.)
We all follow the laws we choose to follow - until we choose to no longer obey.
Point Two: I am certain your journalistic integrity will admit, though you did not include it above, that I noted the hypothetical nature of the question before I answered, and I felt no need to educate that particular audience that the odds of Idaho going anti-2A are nil prior to full-blown counter-revolution, nor did I feel that audience needed me to remind them that such tyrannical attempts to impose absolute disarmament has a clear history in America - we call it the Revolution. I felt no need to offer Citadel "street cred" regarding our commitment to 2A, given the fact that Jim Miller and his employees will be legally building firearms in the community. There was no need for a "...not one more inch..." or "Molon Labe" hyperbolic display.
Running around screaming "...not one more inch..." and then surrendering a firearm to LEO or applying for an unconstitutional carry permit is a bit hypocritical, and I don't do hypocritical.
The Citadel is not about Kerodin - it is about thousands of Patriots who are working to push back toward Constitutional respect (by our politicians and fellow citizens.) My answer to the hypothetical does not invalidate the 2A resolve of ANY of the Patriots supporting the Citadel Project - I think it shows we are committed to Restoration using all of the tools in the Constitutional toolbox.
Peter: I have given you no reason to defend me, and I know you weren't defending "Kerodin", but I do respect the intellectual honesty you showed above.
Kerodin
III
Running to a castle is not a way to fight tyranny. It just gets a lot of resistors together in one spot for mortars, artillery or bombs. The world is not going to care if a bunch of "terrorists" (the regime's term) on a mountain top get blown up.
The regime is doing its best to maintain legitimacy even as it stabs its own population in the back. If the regime bombed a town full of innocent people just to get a few resistors, the world, which already hates this country, would sanction and isolate the regime to hell. The regime would lose international support and so would any foreign regime that helps the regime's crackdown.
Israel has had to put up with Hamas launching rockets at THEIR civilians because the actions needed to end Hamas once and for all would isolate Israel economically and politically.
Staying mixed in the neutral population not only forces the regime to restrain itself, it opens up the neutral population to the resistance's ideas.
Everyone so far has made many of the arguments I have against The Citadel, arguments I've kept to myself till David's solicitation. IMHO, the whole affair is based on bad premises starting with...
1) The $208 nonrefundable application fee. They have stated that this fee doesn't go toward anything but "a place in line". Which is fine if you don't min throwing away $208.
2) The place you get is leased: The creation of a castle-themed landlord/tenant community smacks of a feudalistic post-SHTF society. This disturbs me deeply. A landlord/tenant relationship gives all power to whomever is running the place and disenfranchises the people who paid to live there. Not the sort of thing that patriots & constitutionalists, if they are what they say they are, would be promoting.
3) Neanderthal57 made a comment about Citadel being a Hellfire magnet. Even before that were to happen, there is still great potential for the place to be the special target of a pre-SHTF police state. It could easily become the next Waco, because nobody is seriously going to live there as preppers if they aren't also prepared to resist and disobey unconstitutional state or federal laws; and if the guys running the place (including Kerodin) think they can force the residents to obey anything they don't want, there will be a mutiny. If one person disobeys an unconstitutional law and the management doesn't hand him over to the fibbies or the BATFEces, this forces everyone into defending collectively against a federal siege... Thus, it is the sort of place that increases the risk to yourself and yours without any appreciable benefit.
4) There are so many flaws in the business plan, I really don't see the whole thing as being workable... Frankly what I have seen convinces me that they do not have the business savvy to be their own chamber of commerce or economic development commission. Prepper communities have been tried before, especially in the Northwest, and those have not fared so well. What makes them think they will do better??
5) I must also agree with the fellow who posted about Glenn Beck. He's a real huckster, not to be trusted, and tries to appeal to the patriots of America by imitating - of all people - Alex Jones.
The prospects for The Citadel are not that good to start... but a community like this is something that also shouldn't be advertised too broadly and that cat is out of the bag already.
I don't have anything against these people nor do I care what they do with their lives, but frankly I'd have to have a hole in the head before I would trust them for anything. The only thing they have going for them is the location they have selected for their community. Nice real estate.
I'm inclined to agree that Kerodin told Beck what he figured Beck wanted to hear.
But I'm also inclined to give Beck some slack. He has been evolving quite nicely. To the point where several weeks ago he was making the case for the Second Amendment right to keep cannons and tanks. He's still behind most of us in how we've progressed. Oh, maybe by six months. But he may yet arrive where we are.
I'm of the same ilk as you, David, in that I've stopped saying that I am law abiding and persist in saying I am a "peaceable citizen" or "peaceably armed citizen" depending on the context. Beck may not be there. Yet. And regardless of where Beck stands, I think it's true that Kerodin at least believed that he had to say what he did or risk swarms of state actors descending upon the Citadel even before the walls are built. Not that that won't happen, anyhow, just that that is what Kerodin likely believes.
I also think that Kerodin is in a directly parallel position that Randy Weaver was. "We caught you, now be an informant for us, or we'll find something else to get you on again, or, gee, nice family you've got there. Shame if something happened to them." Not that he is an informant, just that even if his intentions are angelic, it means absolutely squat: he is a liability.
Randy Weaver refused to cooperate with the federal thugs *spit*, and he paid dearly for it, while the murderer of his wife and son roams free. Will Kerodin fold in face of such a threat? Hard to judge anyone who does fold, given the cost, but that just demonstrates the liability that he is.
There's not a lot of additional info behind the paywall (I'm a paid subscriber) except maybe for one thing. And that is what exactly Kerodin spent time in jail for. It may have been publicized before, but I hadn't heard it. It had to do with what he called 'aggressive marketing'. He basically made mall security officials look like fools after 9/11. Would have been fine if he was just doing the yeoman's work that James O'Keefe does in exposing mostly government and MSM (but I repeat myself) waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption on a shoestring budget operating as a non-profit. But instead he was doing it for his own financial gain. He served 24 months of a 30 month sentence.
However, he also mentioned a rifle with barrel length that the Feds 'didn't like'. Beck didn't press him on that charge. Still, I suspect that was just a 'piling on' charge, and possibly a bald faced lie / setup much like Ruby Ridge.
Is the Citadel a good idea? Personally, I think it's most useful as a target rich environment for collectivist monsters. Many aspects of it sound great on paper, but pale in comparison to giving an enemy exactly what they may want: containment. I wish them well, but I also fear for them. They may indeed draw fire away from other targets.
Kerodin's claim to adhere even to unconstitutional "laws" notwithstanding, I'd steer away from what seems to be another Waco-in-the-making, for all of the reasons given above. I also would steer away from any community that is owned and run by any strong personalities, since investment in time, money and effort can be wiped away at a moment's notice (or a "vote" by go-along-to-get-along council of 'leaders'). A lone wolf, in both temperament and intelligence, is rarely given the latitude needed to accomplish what he can for any so-called community. Indeed, in my experience few communities really are what they claim to be, whether it be religious, political, ideological or philosophical.
Besides, places or groups like that are too easily infiltrated (and manipulated into line-crossing misdemeanors/felonies) by the alphabet soup agencies. I saw that up close one time and have no inclination to repeat the lesson.
Hi David, great work on everything you do. Good Q&A you highlight above; the metadata behind this Q&A is important to addressing why what was said must be said.
We all live in a thought prison in which any deviation from the norm is punished in many ways, including having legitimate economic opportunity denied when the elites are offended by our words. That will change as the wheels rattle off and more and more people have to return to traditional ways of living to simply live, but for now the situation is what it is. The implication of this is that, for now, some things must be said for public consumption which gnaw at our zeal for true freedom.
I continue to resist publicly nitpicking about who said what in which venue regarding certain Great Projects, including the Citadel. Public speaking is difficult enough in public, even when one is among friends; there is always some knucklehead who will panty-wad or conflate one's words for their own advantage, or perhaps simply out of ignorance. When one of us speaks in public, let's try to give them some benefit of the doubt; the next time the speaker in question might be you, dear reader. Learn from their mistakes, and be prepared to do better yourself the next time when the time comes.
I've said before that each venue, including yours, Mike's and Kerodin's, represents one or more "bins" of thought where a particular person is at a particular point in their journey of enlightenment to tyranny and freedom. To be of value, each bin has to provide different points of view to best help the weary travelers, particularly the newbies, on their journey.
Knowing this need to help the newbies along, and given the circumstances, I think the specific Q&A you mentioned above was done just as well as could be expected. To me, this Q&A, as handled, presents the correct public image needed at this time for that project in that venue.
From this entry point, our fledglings might then fan out to discover other points of view.
Most importantly, kudos to all for avoiding those tempting Jerry Springer Moments which so often sideline our best work.
Tom
"The laws of the land will be followed, Idaho as well as the federal laws. Even laws that we believe are unconstitutional." -Chris Kerodin
Kerodin, I call bullshit on your explanation here. You weren't speaking in terms of individuals making individual line in the sand choices, you said "we"throughout, and were officially speaking for the Citadel. Outnumbering Beck 5 to 1, you had plenty of support to jump in if you needed help.
You're the co-leader of this and you set the tone. Of course aggressive hyperbole would not have been appropriate in that setting. But your first impulse wasn't to ask Beck what he'd do if they abridged the 1st Am. or to recite the example of Rosa Parks or remind him and the audience of Heller and McDonald, it was to preach state obedience, and now, when you have plenty of time, you come up with a deflection that turns into another cheap shot at Vandebough.
Why don't you just directly answer the question? If it comes to a guns are being targeted situation, Beck asked you "What happens then?"
Another school shooting and watch political knees buckle on semi-autos. A big enough Reichstag fire and watch what they'll do under emergency orders, and screw niceties like legal precedents.
What happens then?
If it's a different answer than the one you gave Beck and a million viewers, which one should we believe and why?
I liked the Citadel idea but the pissing contest it aroused put me off it.
I am just a poor working stiff and couldn't get in if I wanted too. So it set me to thinking. Why not just do the same thing on a smaller scale with a few people of like mind who join their resources,skills and assets together and build hundreds of communities around the country. This, to a poor redneck like me, seems more workable than the citadel idea.
I live in one of the most beautiful parts of the country,Western NC. I have family roots here going back generations. I love of the history and the people of Appalachia.I am not going to give that up. I am sure that a lot of you folks feel the same way about your part of gods country too. This sense of place and people is the rock I stand on and one of the reasons I defend liberty to my best ability.
Some folks like the Citadel idea and I get that,but, others just want to be left alone do as we please without any contracts, leases etc. We just want to be free like we were promised.
On the one hand the Citadel sounds like it could become the HOA from hell or it could become the model of a future constitutional republic of independent city states.How you run the place will show us if your headspace and timing are right.
I like the idea of resilient communities John Robb has put forward but on a small local scale. It seems that it is the best way for people to operate. We need safe havens all over the place not just in one area.
Why not have a Freedom fighters "Peace corps"? Small groups of trained motivated people who go to small towns organize,train and help establish freedom based communities all round the US.It is in small rural communities that we will find freindlies so why not give them a hand. Let's help them buy farms, win local elections, elect freedom friendly sheriffs etc to win their support. If it sounds familiar to some of you SF guys well you can figure it out from there.
What we need is the will of the people to succeed and that comes from empowering them to be self reliant and self sufficient not dependent on another group.
ALl you guys, Mike V, Kerodin, Codrea and all the rest are the Thomas Paines of our times. It might be good for the cause to set aside your differences, have a peace pipe or whatever because a lot of us look to you for guidance and wisdom in these times that try our souls.We need quality leadership not more castles made of sand. Give us that and we will follow you through hell. Keep up the Fire, gentlemen and let's win this.
Anon 7:31 - You may call BS all you wish, and you may have answered Beck differently than did I. But you weren't there, you are Monday-morning Quarterbacking a game you aren't even playing.
I'm good with my answer, and I'm good with the fact that I was on the set in front of millions, with several Patriot allies, able to advance our III Brand, Liberty, and the Citadel, as well as to knock-down - to many millions of people - some of the BS spread about me and the Citadel that originated within the "Patriot Community" itself, based on zero facts or evidence.
This goes to David's suggested answer regarding "The Supreme Court has determined this to be settled law..."
SCOTUS edicts do not settle anything, folks. They are 9 people acting unconstitutionally every day of the week. There is no way I would even enter such a dialogue with Beck. Wrong venue, wrong audience, wrong time, and an argument that 99.9% of people don't even understand properly. Most people don't even want to understand it, because to understand that SCOTUS is acting unconstitutionally is to rip the face off the very essence of reality for too many people.
SCOTUS has made it Constitutional for Obamacare, a ruling with which most people reading this disagree. Yet you kinda-sorta like Heller & MacDonald, yet you'll claim the same SCOTUS that upheld 1934 NFA and GCA '68 were wrong and those "laws" are unconstitutional - sorry folks, cherry-picking the rulings you like and will obey is the same as I mentioned in my first comment above - we all pick and choose every day which unconstitutional laws we will abide, until we choose otherwise.
SCOTUS and "Settled Law" are strawmen arguments that avoid the very premise of why this country is dying. Those nine judges have no more Right to make your guns "legal" than to make them "illegal".
I would suggest that folks pick the right battle and devote your energy properly. That battle isn't me, nor is it the Citadel - the Citadel is a done deal even if I stroke out tomorrow. The infrastructure is in place, the support is in the hearts of too many people, there is too much momentum.
It may not be for "you", and you may not be for "it", but that doesn't change the reality - you're fellow Americans have a Right to build whatever they want, and live among whomever they want, with whatever "rules" they choose to impose upon themselves, whether you like Kerodin or not.
David - thank you for the opportunity and forum. I'm done on this thread.
Kerodin
III
Kerodin,
You can't in one breath say that we all follow some unconstitutional laws (I agree; we ALL do) and in the next, tell everyone how you "don't do hypocritical".
It just tarnishes your credibility.
Sean King
Mesa, AZ
Subject: Fire Ants
I'm in the same resource crunch as davy, and although Citadel has arguements for and against, I couldn't afford it if I wanted to.
The listed Thomas Paines of our time are inspirations to many and if it weren't for them, would we even be having this conversation?
Living in the South has taught me several things, but one thing in particular comes to mind as it relates to davy's "small groups".
You may kill one fire ant when he is out by himself, but what fool would come up and deliberately stomp a fire ant mound? Once you disturb the mound, it's all for one and one for all as the fire ants see it.
If you don't live in the South study up on the lowly fire ant. Mess with his bunch and he will kick your ass.
You know, I do not think I would care to live in this community; however I am happy to see it happen and think that in the long run a place where folks who would like to live in such a community can go is a great thing.
Having something that would be a much tougher nut to crack than the compound a Waco is a plus if/when the dot gov decides the must try to reduce it.
I wish them all the luck in this endeavor.
-Bubba Man, One of the Bubba’s of the Apocalypse.
Whether or not one thinks the Citadel project is a good or bad idea strategically, operationally, or tactically, the point of the Citadel project is for like-minded people who wish to participate to do so.
I'm not participating, but I support the idea. Only time will tell if it was a good choice or a bad choice for those who go there.
But not to support a voluntary association based upon the belief in the values of the Constitution?
Come on, folks.....
So long as the activity doesn't violate the founding principles and encourages Constitutional literacy (in this case living it under voluntarily accepted rules of engagement), it is a good thing for what it does.
If the time ever comes that it violates those principles, well, then it's no longer a 'freedom' or 'constitution supporting' endeavor.
So until then, it might be a good idea, even if one does not choose to be involved, to at the very least say, "Good Luck!"
Curious. Has anyone who commented actually met Sam in person?
With all due respect to the Trainer....the Citadel is already violating the founding principles as they apply to private property.
Just because participants are willingly giving away their rights doesn't make it any less of an infringement on human liberty.
It's like people signing up for a restrictive HOA that takes away any property rights they should have had. That doesn't mean HOAs support property rights any more than the Citadel will.
Guys,
I REALLY like the idea that 'Davy Crocket' put forward about a "Freedom Fighter's Peace Corps". We could call it the 'Resilient Community Liberty Corps' or something similar. I too read John Robb's stuff, and he has great ideas IMHO. Everywhere people can adopt these ideas, and adapt it to their local needs.
Someone should pick this up and run with it, and if they do, I'd like to hear from them. 765 six ZERo two 00Eight2 or HqIndMilCorps [AT] lavabit [DOT] com -
It was the location that made my decision for me , I couldn't take the winters out there .
Post a Comment