Spectrism
21st November 2011, 05:53 AM
I had the unfortunate experience of forced conversation with someone who claimed he was conservative. After a short while, he made it clear that he thought the constitution was too old to be of value and that it meant little. Further, he disliked the tea party stand because they would not compromise by voting for a RINO- as if the only important issue was to get Obama out of office. I blew him away when I told him I would rather have Obama in office than Gingrich, Romney or any other fake conservative. I would only accept Ron Paul from the leading candidates. Why? Because the extreme tyranny of Obama & company will wake up more people quicker than the lulling of fake "good guys". I would rather see the trap sprung before everyone gets into it.
I just saw on zerohedge exactly my stand. Here it is.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-message-splc-montana-extremist
Guest Post: A Message To The SPLC From A Montana "Extremist"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/pictures/picture-5.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden)
Submitted by Tyler Durden (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden) on 11/21/2011 08:30
I’ll be the first to admit, people who refuse to compromise their principles under any circumstances can be utterly terrifying. Defiance, in its purest form, requires fearlessness; a brand of fearlessness we have little experience of today. For many in our society, fearlessness in the face of immeasurable opposition is unthinkable, and (unjustly) considered a sign of “madness”, or of “extremism”. To go against the tides of a culture, a collective, and point out its crimes and inconsistencies, is so counter to what they have been conditioned to expect, any sign of dissent triggers in them feelings of confusion and fury.
The Liberty Movement, and all it’s more specific and specialized branches, represents a resurgence of the immovable ideal. We refuse to set aside the truth. We refuse to relinquish our freedoms. We refuse to be silent. We refuse to negotiate. Regardless of the consequences, and despite contrary impositions of so called “national security”, we simply will not go away. This kind of philosophy is a serious obstacle for any establishment system which seeks to maintain or even expand its base of power. If you cannot buy off a person, if you cannot co-opt a person, and if you cannot frighten him into compliance, then all that is left to do is to demonize his public character, lock him up, or kill him. Men of conscience force the agents of centralization to expose their inherent tyranny before they are ready for the citizenry to know who they really are. Frankly, the Liberty Movement is a considerable pain in the neck for those who would see the American dynamic distorted to the benefit of a select few.
We wear this distinction like a badge of honor. If we were not a threat to the globalist corporatist strategy, then they would not consistently go out of their way to attack us. They attack us, because we are doing something right.
Only days ago the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the most prevalent propaganda think tank tied to the wretched tentacles of the Department Of Homeland Security (DHS), released yet another hit piece article slandering not just the Liberty Movement in general, or specific spokesmen like Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers, Chuck Baldwin of Liberty Fellowship, or James Rawles of Survivorblog fame, but also a specific action the movement has taken, namely, the relocation projects now gaining steam in the northwest Rocky Mountain regions of the U.S. You can read that disparaging editorial, called “A Gathering Of Eagles: Extremists Look To Montana”, here:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/extremists-are-coming-together-in-mon (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/extremists-are-coming-together-in-mon)
The hit piece was of course perfectly timed with the announcement of Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin’s run for Governor and Lt. Governor of Montana in 2012. However, beyond the obvious attempt to preemptively derail a campaign that would bring back 10th Amendment awareness to Montana and effectively restrict overt Federal involvement in state politics, there is a distinctive tone of dismay from the SPLC over Liberty Movement projects that involve active organization and community building.
From Liberty Fellowship’s relocation program, to James Rawles’ American Redoubt, Stewart Rhodes’ Operation Sleeping Giant, and my own Safe Haven Project through Alt-Market.com, the powers-that-be are noticeably perturbed at the very idea of Americans walking away from their computers, leaving their homes, talking to each other face-to-face, and forming mutual aid groups. God forbid…
Mark Potok, the frontman for the SPLC, has remained an entertainingly impotent figure, and I’ve always seen his bumbling media statements and actions as more helpful to the movement than hurtful, but there comes a point in any nation teetering on the brink of oligarchy when the propagandists start to gain more power and more sway in the way activist groups are treated.
For now, the SPLC’s job is essentially to make average people with little background information believe that what we are doing here in the Northwest is first, a fringe activity with little support or reach beyond the boundaries of the Rocky Mountains. Second, that it is a movement based on inherent violence and a threat to the safety of average citizens. And third, that it is organized around racist methodologies, or any other socially detestable lifestyles they can come up with off the tops of their heads. The SPLC engages in this propaganda using the ever popular fallback strategies outlined by Saul Alinsky, a mentor to Hillary Clinton who believed that in social debate, there are no rules of engagement, and that those who play honorably, play to lose. For Alinsky, being right or factual in how you argue your position was unimportant. Instead, the point was to win, at any cost, even if you know you are entirely wrong.
Alinsky tactics relied heavily on character assassination. If you cannot effectively counter the arguments of your opponent, he believed, then you must attack his personal integrity, so that no one will listen to his ideas.
In his book “Rules For Radicals”, Alinsky also claims that effective action requires the “passport” of morality, meaning, the appearance of moral compass, but not necessarily honest intent. He goes on to say:
“…You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments…Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or use of ends or means.”
He elaborates further:
“…The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action; in action, one does not always enjoy a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”
In other words, Alinsky taught that taking on a false position of moral righteousness was important in influencing popular support, and, in convincing people to accept criminal methods as long as the end result met some arbitrarily assigned “greater good”. For Alinsky, lying is acceptable, hurting the innocent is acceptable, creating chaos and crisis is acceptable, if his concept of a “better world” is ultimately achieved in the process. If this doesn’t describe the underlying corrupt nature of the SPLC perching on their fabricated moral high horse while casting down judgments designed to manipulate rather than inform, I don’t know what does.
“The Nesting Of Eagles” uses subversion, false association, fear mongering, and blatantly disingenuous accusations in a fashion classic to Alinsky’s strategies. However, its poor composition and remedial narrative give it the tone of a frustrated pre-teen lashing out at what he doesn’t understand. I suppose we can be thankful that the SPLC still refuses to hire any competent writers, otherwise, the Liberty Movement might be in trouble.
Below, let’s outline the generalizations made in the article, as well as the insinuations they construct. Here is what the SPLC is trying to imply about the relocation and organizational projects of the Northwest, and the people who were brave enough to start them:
We’re All Racists
The only real trick the SPLC seems to have up its sleeve is to constantly associate, directly or indirectly, every group that opposes corrupt state power as being racist or terrorist. They especially strive to make readers believe that Montana itself is some kind of breeding ground for neo-nazis. I have to say that in the course of my relocation and establishment here in the Flathead Valley, I have only met ONE dyed in the wool racist. In the first few months I lived in Pittsburgh, PA, I met dozens.
Does this mean that Montana is free of hate? No. But according to the SPLC’s very own “Hate Map” (…oh boy), our state actually ranks very low on the list:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map)
States like Idaho and Wyoming rank equally or even lower, and yet we hear endless diatribes from the SPLC on how White Supremacists hide behind every rock and tree in these areas. Could it be that racism actually has nothing to do with their obsessive focus on our efforts? Oh, I think so…
The white supremacist that is consistently mentioned in the article is April Gaeda. I have never run into this woman during my time here. I have never seen her at any of the many meet-up groups or preparedness classes that take place here. I have never seen her at Chuck Baldwin’s services. As far as I can tell, no one in the movement here cares to know her at all. But, because she happens to live in the same area as us, our organizations are all made guilty by proximity?!
By this logic, the SPLC, whose headquarters is in Montgomery, Alabama, must be loaded with racists, and Mark Potok must dance daily around a burning cross. I mean, the League Of The South hangs out right down the road from them. Surely, there is room on the Hate Map for the likes of the SPLC, being that they are smack in the middle of so much bigotry…
We’re All Extremists
The word “extremism” is thrown around quite liberally by the SPLC and its representatives, but I have yet to hear them actually openly define what they mean by it. What makes someone an “extremist”? What definition does the SPLC or the DHS apply when they accuse movements like ours as being extremist entities? Is an extremist merely anyone who protests the abuse of governmental power? As a matter of fact, yes…
The truth was exposed clearly in the leaked and now highly publicized MIAC Report and the Virginia Fusion Center Threat Assessment, which used such broad profiles of extremist behavior that literally anyone who does not agree with current government polocy could be labeled a danger, including veterans, and those who have Ron Paul bumper stickers on their vehicles:
http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf (http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf)
http://publicintelligence.net/virginia-fusion-center-educational-facilities-threat-assessment/ (http://publicintelligence.net/virginia-fusion-center-educational-facilities-threat-assessment/)
Whether or not the SPLC was wholly responsible for the creation of the MIAC rhetoric handed out to police officers encouraging them to politically profile people is unclear, but what is clear is that the SPLC fully supported the assertions in the document back in 2009 despite massive legitimate criticism and is now pressing for its guidelines to be reinstituted:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-urges-dhs-to-reassess-resources-after-key-analyst-reveals-unit-on-domestic-terror-was-scaled-back (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-urges-dhs-to-reassess-resources-after-key-analyst-reveals-unit-on-domestic-terror-was-scaled-back)
What is the risk in allowing a purely establishment motivated construct like the SPLC to dictate the definitions of extremism as well as being given license to train law enforcement personnel? Eventually, we will see multiple activist groups harassed without probable cause due to their cultural and ideological concerns, and nothing more.
Honestly, I couldn’t care less what the SPLC or the DHS thinks of the Montana Safe Haven or the people who reside here. Their opinions are not important. Their actions, on the other hand, are. Any implementation of unconstitutional legislation or executive power which impedes the lives and freedoms of any American, not just those in the Liberty Movement, should be met with unerring resistance. I and many others will NOT allow this particular path to gain favor. Government should always serve at the behest of the people. When it refuses to do so, it is no longer lawful. If this view makes me an “extremist”, then so be it…
We're All Kooky Conspiracy Theorists
If the racist label won’t stick, then the “conspiracy theorist” label is usually next in the SPLC’s toolbox. “Conspiracy theorist” is thinly veiled code for “crazy person”, let’s be honest. It is not uncommon throughout history for elites in power to accuse their opponents of insanity rather than face their factual arguments on their own merit. Insanity is like leprosy; no one wants to look at you, let alone listen to what you have to say. It is certainly an effective method to defuse a potential dissenting movement.
In the “Nesting Of Eagles” article, the SPLC makes a point to immediately pigeonhole Stewart Rhodes as being a “conspiracy theorist”, and Oath Keepers as being conspiracy oriented, without explaining exactly what Oath Keepers is. The bottom line? Oath Keepers encourages current serving or retired military and police to uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Gee, I didn’t realize that Constitutional law was so conspiratorial, or theoretical. I rarely if ever come across an SPLC article or interview which does not automatically mention Timothy McVeigh, white supremacists, or conspiracy theory in the same sentence when talking about Oath Keepers. This is not an accident.
Stewart Rhodes is a very good friend of mine, and a tireless champion for Constitutional freedom. Being a practicing lawyer, he could just as easily take on multiple wrongful arrest lawsuits (there are a lot of those nowadays) and make a tidy income for himself and his family. Instead, he struggles daily to ensure that police and military men and women know that following unconstitutional orders is not an option. He does this as much to protect them, as he does it to protect the citizenry. To see him lumped in with neo-nazis by the SPLC is more than disconcerting.
If our positions as a movement bear resemblance to falsehood or exaggeration, then I welcome the SPLC to confront those positions up front and in detail, rather than hiding behind words like “racist” and “conspiracy theorist”. Not only is it cowardly, but it is destructive of legitimate public discourse, because it prevents any honest debate from taking place. If Mark Potok wants to argue over the existing threats to Constitutional Law with Stewart Rhodes, the existing threats to freedom of speech and of religion with Chuck Baldwin, or the existing threats to the U.S. economy with myself, then let’s pick an unbiased forum to do so. Let us see how well the SPLC fares without the comfortable protections of the corporate mainstream media playground, shall we...
Always Pursue What They Fear
For the most part, SPLC and DHS attacks on our movement are a fantastic thing. Rarely if ever do they actually hurt the growth of our organizations. Instead, they draw more attention to our cause, and, they expose what the establishment fears most. Whatever strategies they try to persuade us from following, those are the strategies we should be exercising. If we aren’t making Mark Potok or Janet Napolitano progressively nervous on a regular basis, then we aren’t doing our jobs correctly.
Without a doubt, the relocation programs being instituted in the Northwest have struck a nerve. Large numbers of freedom oriented, intelligent, and talented individuals coming together to end participation in the rigged system and build something new? Of course they hate us! If we can set an example here, then millions of Liberty Movement participants around the country today might just follow it, or even improve upon it. Community without complacency has always been a threat to tyranny. Governments would much rather we stay idle in our homes in front of our TV’s and computer screens, and far away from each other. This is not how we do things in Montana, and I believe, it is not how most Americans will be doing things across the country very soon.
I just saw on zerohedge exactly my stand. Here it is.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-message-splc-montana-extremist
Guest Post: A Message To The SPLC From A Montana "Extremist"
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/pictures/picture-5.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden)
Submitted by Tyler Durden (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden) on 11/21/2011 08:30
I’ll be the first to admit, people who refuse to compromise their principles under any circumstances can be utterly terrifying. Defiance, in its purest form, requires fearlessness; a brand of fearlessness we have little experience of today. For many in our society, fearlessness in the face of immeasurable opposition is unthinkable, and (unjustly) considered a sign of “madness”, or of “extremism”. To go against the tides of a culture, a collective, and point out its crimes and inconsistencies, is so counter to what they have been conditioned to expect, any sign of dissent triggers in them feelings of confusion and fury.
The Liberty Movement, and all it’s more specific and specialized branches, represents a resurgence of the immovable ideal. We refuse to set aside the truth. We refuse to relinquish our freedoms. We refuse to be silent. We refuse to negotiate. Regardless of the consequences, and despite contrary impositions of so called “national security”, we simply will not go away. This kind of philosophy is a serious obstacle for any establishment system which seeks to maintain or even expand its base of power. If you cannot buy off a person, if you cannot co-opt a person, and if you cannot frighten him into compliance, then all that is left to do is to demonize his public character, lock him up, or kill him. Men of conscience force the agents of centralization to expose their inherent tyranny before they are ready for the citizenry to know who they really are. Frankly, the Liberty Movement is a considerable pain in the neck for those who would see the American dynamic distorted to the benefit of a select few.
We wear this distinction like a badge of honor. If we were not a threat to the globalist corporatist strategy, then they would not consistently go out of their way to attack us. They attack us, because we are doing something right.
Only days ago the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the most prevalent propaganda think tank tied to the wretched tentacles of the Department Of Homeland Security (DHS), released yet another hit piece article slandering not just the Liberty Movement in general, or specific spokesmen like Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers, Chuck Baldwin of Liberty Fellowship, or James Rawles of Survivorblog fame, but also a specific action the movement has taken, namely, the relocation projects now gaining steam in the northwest Rocky Mountain regions of the U.S. You can read that disparaging editorial, called “A Gathering Of Eagles: Extremists Look To Montana”, here:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/extremists-are-coming-together-in-mon (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/winter/extremists-are-coming-together-in-mon)
The hit piece was of course perfectly timed with the announcement of Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin’s run for Governor and Lt. Governor of Montana in 2012. However, beyond the obvious attempt to preemptively derail a campaign that would bring back 10th Amendment awareness to Montana and effectively restrict overt Federal involvement in state politics, there is a distinctive tone of dismay from the SPLC over Liberty Movement projects that involve active organization and community building.
From Liberty Fellowship’s relocation program, to James Rawles’ American Redoubt, Stewart Rhodes’ Operation Sleeping Giant, and my own Safe Haven Project through Alt-Market.com, the powers-that-be are noticeably perturbed at the very idea of Americans walking away from their computers, leaving their homes, talking to each other face-to-face, and forming mutual aid groups. God forbid…
Mark Potok, the frontman for the SPLC, has remained an entertainingly impotent figure, and I’ve always seen his bumbling media statements and actions as more helpful to the movement than hurtful, but there comes a point in any nation teetering on the brink of oligarchy when the propagandists start to gain more power and more sway in the way activist groups are treated.
For now, the SPLC’s job is essentially to make average people with little background information believe that what we are doing here in the Northwest is first, a fringe activity with little support or reach beyond the boundaries of the Rocky Mountains. Second, that it is a movement based on inherent violence and a threat to the safety of average citizens. And third, that it is organized around racist methodologies, or any other socially detestable lifestyles they can come up with off the tops of their heads. The SPLC engages in this propaganda using the ever popular fallback strategies outlined by Saul Alinsky, a mentor to Hillary Clinton who believed that in social debate, there are no rules of engagement, and that those who play honorably, play to lose. For Alinsky, being right or factual in how you argue your position was unimportant. Instead, the point was to win, at any cost, even if you know you are entirely wrong.
Alinsky tactics relied heavily on character assassination. If you cannot effectively counter the arguments of your opponent, he believed, then you must attack his personal integrity, so that no one will listen to his ideas.
In his book “Rules For Radicals”, Alinsky also claims that effective action requires the “passport” of morality, meaning, the appearance of moral compass, but not necessarily honest intent. He goes on to say:
“…You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments…Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or use of ends or means.”
He elaborates further:
“…The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action; in action, one does not always enjoy a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”
In other words, Alinsky taught that taking on a false position of moral righteousness was important in influencing popular support, and, in convincing people to accept criminal methods as long as the end result met some arbitrarily assigned “greater good”. For Alinsky, lying is acceptable, hurting the innocent is acceptable, creating chaos and crisis is acceptable, if his concept of a “better world” is ultimately achieved in the process. If this doesn’t describe the underlying corrupt nature of the SPLC perching on their fabricated moral high horse while casting down judgments designed to manipulate rather than inform, I don’t know what does.
“The Nesting Of Eagles” uses subversion, false association, fear mongering, and blatantly disingenuous accusations in a fashion classic to Alinsky’s strategies. However, its poor composition and remedial narrative give it the tone of a frustrated pre-teen lashing out at what he doesn’t understand. I suppose we can be thankful that the SPLC still refuses to hire any competent writers, otherwise, the Liberty Movement might be in trouble.
Below, let’s outline the generalizations made in the article, as well as the insinuations they construct. Here is what the SPLC is trying to imply about the relocation and organizational projects of the Northwest, and the people who were brave enough to start them:
We’re All Racists
The only real trick the SPLC seems to have up its sleeve is to constantly associate, directly or indirectly, every group that opposes corrupt state power as being racist or terrorist. They especially strive to make readers believe that Montana itself is some kind of breeding ground for neo-nazis. I have to say that in the course of my relocation and establishment here in the Flathead Valley, I have only met ONE dyed in the wool racist. In the first few months I lived in Pittsburgh, PA, I met dozens.
Does this mean that Montana is free of hate? No. But according to the SPLC’s very own “Hate Map” (…oh boy), our state actually ranks very low on the list:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map)
States like Idaho and Wyoming rank equally or even lower, and yet we hear endless diatribes from the SPLC on how White Supremacists hide behind every rock and tree in these areas. Could it be that racism actually has nothing to do with their obsessive focus on our efforts? Oh, I think so…
The white supremacist that is consistently mentioned in the article is April Gaeda. I have never run into this woman during my time here. I have never seen her at any of the many meet-up groups or preparedness classes that take place here. I have never seen her at Chuck Baldwin’s services. As far as I can tell, no one in the movement here cares to know her at all. But, because she happens to live in the same area as us, our organizations are all made guilty by proximity?!
By this logic, the SPLC, whose headquarters is in Montgomery, Alabama, must be loaded with racists, and Mark Potok must dance daily around a burning cross. I mean, the League Of The South hangs out right down the road from them. Surely, there is room on the Hate Map for the likes of the SPLC, being that they are smack in the middle of so much bigotry…
We’re All Extremists
The word “extremism” is thrown around quite liberally by the SPLC and its representatives, but I have yet to hear them actually openly define what they mean by it. What makes someone an “extremist”? What definition does the SPLC or the DHS apply when they accuse movements like ours as being extremist entities? Is an extremist merely anyone who protests the abuse of governmental power? As a matter of fact, yes…
The truth was exposed clearly in the leaked and now highly publicized MIAC Report and the Virginia Fusion Center Threat Assessment, which used such broad profiles of extremist behavior that literally anyone who does not agree with current government polocy could be labeled a danger, including veterans, and those who have Ron Paul bumper stickers on their vehicles:
http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf (http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf)
http://publicintelligence.net/virginia-fusion-center-educational-facilities-threat-assessment/ (http://publicintelligence.net/virginia-fusion-center-educational-facilities-threat-assessment/)
Whether or not the SPLC was wholly responsible for the creation of the MIAC rhetoric handed out to police officers encouraging them to politically profile people is unclear, but what is clear is that the SPLC fully supported the assertions in the document back in 2009 despite massive legitimate criticism and is now pressing for its guidelines to be reinstituted:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-urges-dhs-to-reassess-resources-after-key-analyst-reveals-unit-on-domestic-terror-was-scaled-back (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-urges-dhs-to-reassess-resources-after-key-analyst-reveals-unit-on-domestic-terror-was-scaled-back)
What is the risk in allowing a purely establishment motivated construct like the SPLC to dictate the definitions of extremism as well as being given license to train law enforcement personnel? Eventually, we will see multiple activist groups harassed without probable cause due to their cultural and ideological concerns, and nothing more.
Honestly, I couldn’t care less what the SPLC or the DHS thinks of the Montana Safe Haven or the people who reside here. Their opinions are not important. Their actions, on the other hand, are. Any implementation of unconstitutional legislation or executive power which impedes the lives and freedoms of any American, not just those in the Liberty Movement, should be met with unerring resistance. I and many others will NOT allow this particular path to gain favor. Government should always serve at the behest of the people. When it refuses to do so, it is no longer lawful. If this view makes me an “extremist”, then so be it…
We're All Kooky Conspiracy Theorists
If the racist label won’t stick, then the “conspiracy theorist” label is usually next in the SPLC’s toolbox. “Conspiracy theorist” is thinly veiled code for “crazy person”, let’s be honest. It is not uncommon throughout history for elites in power to accuse their opponents of insanity rather than face their factual arguments on their own merit. Insanity is like leprosy; no one wants to look at you, let alone listen to what you have to say. It is certainly an effective method to defuse a potential dissenting movement.
In the “Nesting Of Eagles” article, the SPLC makes a point to immediately pigeonhole Stewart Rhodes as being a “conspiracy theorist”, and Oath Keepers as being conspiracy oriented, without explaining exactly what Oath Keepers is. The bottom line? Oath Keepers encourages current serving or retired military and police to uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Gee, I didn’t realize that Constitutional law was so conspiratorial, or theoretical. I rarely if ever come across an SPLC article or interview which does not automatically mention Timothy McVeigh, white supremacists, or conspiracy theory in the same sentence when talking about Oath Keepers. This is not an accident.
Stewart Rhodes is a very good friend of mine, and a tireless champion for Constitutional freedom. Being a practicing lawyer, he could just as easily take on multiple wrongful arrest lawsuits (there are a lot of those nowadays) and make a tidy income for himself and his family. Instead, he struggles daily to ensure that police and military men and women know that following unconstitutional orders is not an option. He does this as much to protect them, as he does it to protect the citizenry. To see him lumped in with neo-nazis by the SPLC is more than disconcerting.
If our positions as a movement bear resemblance to falsehood or exaggeration, then I welcome the SPLC to confront those positions up front and in detail, rather than hiding behind words like “racist” and “conspiracy theorist”. Not only is it cowardly, but it is destructive of legitimate public discourse, because it prevents any honest debate from taking place. If Mark Potok wants to argue over the existing threats to Constitutional Law with Stewart Rhodes, the existing threats to freedom of speech and of religion with Chuck Baldwin, or the existing threats to the U.S. economy with myself, then let’s pick an unbiased forum to do so. Let us see how well the SPLC fares without the comfortable protections of the corporate mainstream media playground, shall we...
Always Pursue What They Fear
For the most part, SPLC and DHS attacks on our movement are a fantastic thing. Rarely if ever do they actually hurt the growth of our organizations. Instead, they draw more attention to our cause, and, they expose what the establishment fears most. Whatever strategies they try to persuade us from following, those are the strategies we should be exercising. If we aren’t making Mark Potok or Janet Napolitano progressively nervous on a regular basis, then we aren’t doing our jobs correctly.
Without a doubt, the relocation programs being instituted in the Northwest have struck a nerve. Large numbers of freedom oriented, intelligent, and talented individuals coming together to end participation in the rigged system and build something new? Of course they hate us! If we can set an example here, then millions of Liberty Movement participants around the country today might just follow it, or even improve upon it. Community without complacency has always been a threat to tyranny. Governments would much rather we stay idle in our homes in front of our TV’s and computer screens, and far away from each other. This is not how we do things in Montana, and I believe, it is not how most Americans will be doing things across the country very soon.