Escalation - What's Next?

[Gary Hunt]

Escalation - What's Next?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2015

 

We need to get a perspective on the patriot community that has been overlooked, probably because most of the people within our community are, although sincere, focused only where they stand on the "progression of involvement" (See The Other (not so) Thin Line) within their own community.  Quite simply, many have still maintained that the election process is able to effect the change that we seek, while ignoring the failure of that process over the past many decades.  Next, we have those who have recognized the failure of that process, but don't know where to go.  Then there are those who realize that nothing will change without violence, though they are not motivated, for whatever reason, to pursue that objective.  Finally, there are those who are ready to act, though they are constrained by their fear of other patriots as much as their fear of the government.

Let's put another perspective on the relationship between various groups of people who are known to commit violent acts.  First, we have the Muslims.  They are, by Mainstream Media (MSM), divided into two categories, Extreme and Moderate.  The Extremes perpetrate violent acts such as the well-known beheading of Westerners, directed attacks with rifles, as in Canada and Paris, France, and many other activities such as the Boston Bombing, that have cost the lives of innocent people without any justifiable targeting of those killed.  The moderates, however, sit quietly by, acting as if nothing is going wrong, yet they won't object to the actions of the extremes.  (See Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a "...)

Next, let's look at law enforcement in our own country.  Most tabulations of the number of unarmed people killed by law enforcement, this past year, approach or exceed 1,000.  This doesn't count those with serious, even lifetime, injuries, damage, or loss of a family pet that "threatened" the officer.  Let's call those cops that conduct these activities, even if only one, or many times, "extreme" cops.  The remaining "moderate" cops, even though their job is to enforce the laws of the land, state, etc., do not arrest or charge their fellow officers, they do, however, offer support, if only by inaction, and will readily defend those officers who have, "for their own safety", committed such acts.  Not much different from those moderate Muslims, are they?  (See To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop)

Finally, we get to the Patriots who realize that things are getting worse with each administration of government.  Within that group, we have both "moderate" patriots and "extreme" patriots.  The extreme patriots are those who are ready and willing to act, and often those contemplated acts, though directed, might result in the loss of innocent lives.  A example of this would by the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.  (See below)

Where the moderate patriots are making a mistake, to use the words of Chief Mark Kessler, is that we all "have an obligation to turn in to the government anybody who is going to do something that will cost innocent lives".  That quote is from a recent conversation I had with Kessler.  What happened resulted in the arrest of three men in Georgia is explained in Mark Kessler - The "Screw" Turns - Part 3.  The FBI promulgated the suggestion that innocent lives would be lost when they interviewed "Blood Agent" This theme was carried on by Kessler and the MSM, that their acts would be random and would take innocent lives.  However, recently the government has, in their official Indictment, made clear that "The three men were being monitored by the FBI in an online chat roo...."  Initial MSM reports did not detail the limitations that the FBI placed upon the acts that the three had intended, making their plot to be far more sinister than it really was.

Mainstream Media often plays an important role in demonization.  An example of this is the Hutaree Militia (2012-13), as explained in Thought Crimes, where the media, probably at the instigation of the government, laid out a story that was, well, fabricated.  Otherwise, the Court would not have eventually dismissed the charges.

Our susceptibility to these divisive means of splitting our ranks is a result of "propaganda" and our willingness to judge those within our movement, turning against them if what they may, or may not, have planned is beyond our current (where we are along that Thin Line - linked above) conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

So, Muslim moderates and Law Enforcement moderates both support their extreme elements.  Patriots, however, turn against our extreme elements, and, we turn them over to the government -- our enemy, in our efforts to restore proper constitutional limits upon the government.

We will have to visit the past to get a better understanding of what I mean.  In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed a government building.  Outrage was the response of the patriots, since there were innocent women and children in the building.  McVeigh explained why he targeted a government building when he wrote "Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building".  Now, where could he possibly get the idea that it was a "retaliatory strike, and that federal agents had become soldiers... it was a preemptive or proactive strike... against their control center."

In a Philadelphia Enquirer article, dated April 9, 1999, during NATO's Yugoslavia (Kosovo and Serbia) War, declared, with full support of the Pentagon, that,

• "In the air war, Pentagon officials said NATO's warplanes would increasingly target government buildings, industries and state-run television relays in an attempt to shake the foundation of President Slobodan Milosevic's regime [5th paragraph in the article]."

This practice has been carried through in all subsequent "wars" that we have been involved in, unless the government buildings were deemed friendly.

Let's suppose that anybody that is a patriot can find the point on this list where they would feel comfortable.  Go ahead, pick your number.  Now, think back.  Where were you a year ago?  Two years ago?  Presumably, you have progressed, as you realize the failure of your earlier position.

1. Voting for a political party
2. Voting for individuals (based upon their record)
3. Mass meetings to discuss problems (Tea Party, or other participation)
4. Street demonstrations (Overpass, etc.)
5. Trips to Washington for demonstrations (OAS, Veterans, truck drivers, tractors, etc.)
6. Civil disobedience (subjecting yourself to arrest by expressing yourself - Freedom of Speech)
7. Civil defiance (willing to retaliate with force, such as Bundy Ranch or the WWII veterans memorial)
8. Sabotage of government property (vehicles, etc.)
9. Breaking into government facilities (intelligence information, equipment, & supplies)
10. Sabotage of government property (destroying electronics, communication towers, etc.)
11. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in injury or destruction of property
12. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in death/serious injury of unarmed people
13. Targeting individuals who work for government
14. Sabotage of government property (destruction of facilities)
15. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities (Primarily serving Government facilities)
16. Prison breaks (selectively releasing political prisoners)
17. Ambushes (of targeted government vehicles or convoys)
18. Destruction of a Government Building (night time)
19. Raids (police stations, fusion centers, etc.)
20. Destruction of a Government Building (day time)
21. Prison breaks (releasing all prisoners)
22. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities - Primarily serving general population

Just for kicks, now suppose where you will be if Hillary becomes president, or the police kill another thousand unarmed people this year, or, well, use your imagination as to what events may change you position -- move higher in the numbers of the list.  That should bring to light what was explained in "The Other (not so) Thin Line".

We should be able to understand that each of us has, through our own experience, found that we continue to move into a greater sense of necessity, if we are to restore constitutional government.  The problem arises when we insist that others cannot go beyond where we are.

Unfortunately, if we continue to pursue this course, we chop off the experienced head, those who have, by their experiences, moved further along that line.  Does it make any sense, at all, to have such a detrimental effect on our community, just because we want to constrain them to what we impose upon ourselves?

Think very hard before you do anything that sets us back rather than moves us ahead.

 

This article can be found on line at Escalation - What's Next?