Jump to content
Todd A. Slee

'The Guardian' Report Rebuttal

Recommended Posts

In response to the article on May 8th, 2020, in 'The Guardian' by Jason Wilson and Robert Evans, entitled 'Revealed: major anti-lockdown group's links to America's far right'. The subtitle is 'American Revolution 2.o, which presents itself as bipartisan, has been assisted by far-right individuals-some with extremist links,'.

     Let's start with the title. What's been revealed? Nobody involved has made it a secret that marches and protests have been planned against the lockdown, in fact quite the opposite.

     Organizers have attempted to publicize the events far and wide, because nobody wants a lockdown, which is in reality martial law, in response to a virus which is now known to have a mortality rate no greater than the flu, and which virus has been reported to have killed an average of 300 people per year for a number of years.

     Facebook has removed postings calling for peaceful protests, both legal and the right of the American people. That is a violation of the First Amendment, which protects the Right to peacefully assemble for a redress of grievances against the government, to make one's voice heard and to believe in a well-chosen cause.

     What is the opposite of the First Amendment Right, which Facebook has quenched and 'The Guardian' article has demonized, by at least making the right to assemble and protest an exclusive right.

     What is the definition of far right? According to the Merriam Webster dictionary online, far right is "the group of people whose political views are the most conservative". Conservative means "holding to traditional values and cautious about change or innovations, typically in relation to politics or religion". 

     These two definitions are what militias, tea party groups, fundamental Christians, and the most successful businesses and individuals are.

     Another definition of far right is "a term used by mainstream media to refer to any person who is ideologically to the right of [against] Communism. Again, the above named groups fit into this category as well.

     Unfortunately, most of mainstream media have created a misnomer for far right, which is that the conservative groups are racist, violent and male chauvinist. This is what neither militias nor the Constitution is, but are both the antithesis of that definition.

     The article claims that Tea Parties and protesters against lockdown are not grassroots groups, but indeed they are, grassroots being the common man or woman, the root level or foundation.

     The U.S. Government is meant to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is it's true, intended foundation, it's core group.

     The average citizen of any political or religious affiliation, the grassroots conglomerate, does not want to be inhibited in movement, unable to provide for family and self.

    What is an extremist? By definition it is "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action". In America that would mean with a certain amount of restraint, i.e., Constitutional restraint with a view to being held in check by both conscience and ethics/morals which came from a Supreme Creator.

     Who would fit that definition, some well known people? Well, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Abe Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, John F. Kennedy, Aldi Murphy, Alvin York, Harold Moore...

     The main target of the article in 'The Guardian' is the website 'Mymilitia.com, grossly misrepresented, falsely stereotyped and unjustly castigated in the mentioned article.

     That website is simply an online gathering place for supporters of the rights to choose, to say, think and do for oneself, to advocate a free nation, is strictly regulated for content quality, and has no control over what members do offsite, and abusive, insulting, racist and violent content is prohibited.

     When a police officer or federal agent kills someone unjustly or commits some other crime, is the entire department or agency blamed? When a politician takes a bribe or lies under oath, is it the fault of the rest of the governing body?

     The recent protest of 50,000 armed militiamen in Virginia, being peaceful and orderly, is living exemplification that the militia movement is not a racist, bigoted or anti-government conglomeration.

     The militia movement is the national version of the homeowner enjoying and advocating the rights of private ownership, privacy, liberty, and self defense, a civilian version of the military.

     While news outlets are busy condemning militia groups, being ignorant of what they actually stand for, many of them help with disaster relief and performing guard duty, as well as instructing others in areas such as food preservation, first aid, political process and survival in emergencies. The militia is about much more than just firearms and battle field training, many of the members being current and former military, policemen and firefighters.

     The 'Guardian' article seems to hold people in contempt who value the right to protect and defend and the sanctity of life of the unborn. Do you suppose that they side with Obama, who as a Senator voted for post-birth abortion [murder] and Hillary Clinton, who voted for abortion in the third trimester?

     Who else condoned such atrocities? Who comes to mind is Herod the Great, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, the Vietcong, Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, to name a few, as well as the Muslim terrorists.

     The article cites that views about the Covid dilemma which oppose official claims are disinformation, yet synopsis by competent doctors not invested in the pharmaceutical industry (which is hurting financially and needs $$) are being found to be accurate.

     Quarantining is weakening people's immune systems; respirators are more harmful than good, at least often; a combination of three common, non-vaccine drugs is apparently working well to cure the virus; Covid death rates are being intentionally magnified, while deaths from heart attack, cancer, diabetes and even car accidents have decreased since the Covid outbreak started. How amazing!

     It has recently been factually shown that the infection rates from Covid are much, much higher than originally shown or known, resulting in something like a 0.375 percent death rate, no more than the flu.

     Reportedly, Dr. Fauci invested a couple of million dollars in the Wuhan lab two years ago. Is it possible that he didn't know a problem existed? Most people with a large investment would, I'd think, keep close tabs on the state of affairs concerning their money.

     According to Dr. Shiva, a physician of forty plus years, has shown that Dr. Fauci, who is not apparently currently a practicing doctor, claimed years ago that HIV causes AIDS, and panicked many, but evidently he was wrong.

     Eye witness reports testify that after receiving certain vaccinations, their children incurred serious problems. From 2000 to 2017, some 460,000 children in three nations overseas, suffered paralysis after receiving polio innoculations. There has been quite notable differences in people of the vaccination era compared to when about the only vaccination was for TB, and not better variations in behavior or demeanor.

     The writers of the article seem to condemn a movement or activity because of who is involved, instead of critiquing the cause and examining the facts from both sides. In 1999, the FBI enlisted the aid of select members of the La Cosa Nostra, to quench subversive activity of a group of alleged Constitutionalists, which were really far lefts masquerading as Patriots. It actually garnered desired results.

     The article goes on to imply that something is amiss with a website that includes articles and manuals on warfare. They conveniently leave out the fact that the U.S. Military trains for urban warfare, against the chance that war occurs in America.

     Are they, and others, so naive to believe that one of two worst case scenarios can't occur in America: invasion from without, or; tyranny from within? If we could ask, some 40,000 or more Christian Russians of the Stalin era would say that yes, it can happen anywhere.

     We train for war in order to have peace. Every single able bodied male in Switzerland, after mandatory military service, takes his automatic rifle home with him; the crime rate is quite low. Every able bodied man and woman in Israel is capable of waging war for many years after their compulsory military service, and at the rate it's going, America could also become a hotbed of invasions/attacks.

     What deterred Japan from attacking the American mainland during World War Two? Was it the military? Nope, they were already spread too thin. It was because the Japanese believed that every able bodied man, perhaps woman too, had a firearm. I'm certain that's why we haven't had serious problems from terrorists attacking in traditional style.

     The article presents the following, from Mymilitia.com. in a negative light: "...2017 manifesto for the site, Embrey wrote he hoped the site would "spearhead" the militia movement, and offered movement goals such as "to augment our local authorities in dire times and assist in our communities from all threats foreign or domestic", and

"to change the negative percepyion of the Militia by becoming a welcomed force, one that is preferred over militarized police".

     And that's bad? Apparently the writers of the article have never been in the military and taken an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, which protects their right to lamblast genuine Patriots, a volunteer force committed to much more than training for warfare.

     Many veteran and retired cops are concerned about the way law enforcement is being trained. L.A. style, a far cry from what needs to be. An FBI agent of many years, over twenty, told me in 1994, that "if the American people knew what the government was planning, there'd be instant revolution".

     If, as one example, American citizens were disarmed, the first likely thing to happen would be criminals wiping out law enforcement. The second event would probably be foreign invasion.

     Concerning a site which Embrey built, one in question, called Tinnitus Records, he had no idea that it sold white supremist music, an addon that the customer put in themselves, not Embrey. Once he learned of it, he refunded their money and removed the site. It was a simple mistake anyone could have made. Why doesn't 'The Guardian' condemn CBS for portraying a video of a Covid ridden hospital in Italy as being in America?

     In synopsis, the article I'm rebutting is only presenting part of the truth, and appears to be slanted against the militia movement and full implementation of the Constitution of the United States of America, not the creator of any rights, but rather the guarantor of naturally inherent and God given rights.


     Todd A. Slee, South Whitley, In


     Note: I will supply references soon. This rebut article is an off the cuff, first draft, written on May 8th, 2020. I sent it to the complaint department at 'The Guardian' on Sunday.






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a strange article, actually.


I read the Guardian fairly regularly, which, although it's a Leftist paper, is normally of pretty high quality technically.


But this article is, as someone above said, just a word-salad. A good sub-editor would have made many substantial changes before allowing it to appear.


I've been expecting an onslaught of articles like this, because of all the lockdown protests, although not necessarily with attempts to link the protests to the militia movement -- yet. 


Britain (where the Guardian is published, and where I live) is a much more centralized state than the US -- the national government makes decisions, and although local bodies carry them out, there is much less freedom of action for them. (Some local police forces have been much more zealous than others in tracking down people walking in the woods and there have been protests against this.)  So Brits don't quite understand the background to the protests in the US.


In any case, let this be a warning to us: everything that gets posted on this site will be carefully recorded by our enemies as representative of the site, and of the militia movement in general.  So I hope the new owner is vigilant for posts that in fact contradict the ethos of the militia movement and has them removed as quickly as possible and the violators excommunicated.  This site should not be an open bulletin board for any sort of hateful spewing, or calls -- direct or indirect -- for engaging in violence, so long as we have the legal right to engage in politics.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the nub of the Leftwing case against the militia movement: 


(1) there have been acts of terrorism in the US, carried out by individuals who are white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or who otherwise have values that the great majority of Americans (including the great majority of militia) members, decisively reject.  These terrorists are casually described as 'far Right'.


Note 1:  It's popular, on the Left especially, to talk about something called the 'far Right'. Since there is no precise scientific vocabulary to discuss human beliefs, we'll have to go along with that. The 'far Right', properly defined, means those people who see politics as the competition of racial groups, rather than political or economic or cultural groups which span races. Most of them therefore have overt, or covert, sympathy with those people who in the 20th Century upheld this ideology without any attempt to conceal it: the German National Socialists.  Note that the National Socialists, past and present, are anything but 'conservative': they are revolutionaries, who seek a radical transformation of the social and political order, and necessarily support a large expansion of state power and control over individual behavior.


Conservatives, on the other hand, are just the opposite, for at least two reasons.


-------------(i) While being realistic about the cultural differences among different groups, they see politics as the competition among political groups, not among racial groups. That is, when it comes to politics, they define 'us' not on racial or religious grounds, but on political grounds.  A typical conservative would see a Black preacher who opposes legalizing abortion, or a Black Medal of Honor winner who has demonstrated love of his country, or a HIspanic American who calls for halting illegal immigration, as one of them,  and they see a white American who burns the flag, or wants Open Borders, or who wants to expand government ownership of the economy, as NOT one of them, despite his race. 


------------(ii) In particular, conservatives are not 'socialists' of any sort, National or otherwise; do not support a one-party state; do not support a radical uprooting of society so that it can be reconstructured according to the nationalist -- often pagan -- fantasies of some Supreme Leader.  (That approach to society is what the Far Right has in common with the Far Left.)


Far from being 'racists' in the conscious ideological sense, over the past twenty years, the conservative base has been more than welcoming to Black conservatives.  Various Black candidates for the Republican nomination have received widespread support, for example.


Note-2: Because the charge of 'racism' and 'white supremacy' is manifestly  false when applied to the militia movement, its more cautious enemies have switched to using the conveniently-vague term 'anti-government' to describe the militia movement.  This has, from their point of view, the great advantage of being so broad, that it's impossible to refute: who, in America, is not, at some time or other, 'anti-government'?  The comedians who hold up severed heads which look like the President's? Noam Chomsky? Black Lives Matter? The elite national press, which, in the past, gloried in its exposes of government misdoing? (Remember The Pentagon Papers? Watergate?)  Not to mention the Socialist Rifle Association and the Redneck Revolt group, which are effectively far Left 'militias', but are NEVER labelled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as 'anti-government'.)


(2) What is the actual connection between far Right terrorists, and the militia movement?  Effectively, none. Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people when he bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma, had been to a couple of militia meetings, but was not a member of a militia group. The 'White Rabbit'  group of terrorists called themselves a 'militia' -- as anyone can -- but were a lone group of crazies. The leader, Michael Hari, had a long history of involvement in one fundamentalist church after another -- so why not say that he was part of the fundamentalist Christian movement? 


Because anyone can start a 'militia', there are, no doubt, some dubious people using this name. And it's of course true that the militia movement will attract more than its share of fantasists and conspiracy theorists, and people who are careless in their use of words.  But liberal journalists, fifty years ago, did not automatically brand every Black militant or leftwing student protestor who chanted "Off the Pig!" as a cop-killer, although some of them were.  The same discrimination should be offered to the militia movement today. 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well-said, Doug.  Extremely well-said.


I am a conservative who was raised in a conservative family.  In my life, I've been a professional opera singer (Lyric Opera of Chicago), and a minister in two different denominations ... the United Methodist Church (which is VERY liberal), and the Church of the Nazarene (which is getting liberal).  Concerning churches, you can tell whether they're going to the political Left when they join "Divestment" movement directed at Israel.  I'm now a happy member of a Southern Baptist congregation.


My family ... except for my sister, gone these last ten years ... is a Republican family.  Truthfully, I'd rather be shot than vote for a Dhimmicrat.  Since I reached the age to vote, I've voted for every Republican on the ballot.  If there isn't a GOP candidate, I refuse the mark the ballot for the sole candidate ... a DIM.  I always write in a name, in such a case.


I came back from Vietnam ... seriously wounded (and my spotter was killed in the same artillery barrage) ... in 1969.  Since then, I have not pulled a trigger on another human being.  I am not kill-crazy, as The Guardian would have us believe.  This, in spite of the fact that I have owned guns before and after Vietnam, and that I am a gung-ho militiaman.  I see dark times ahead, and I want to be among like-minded people, in case our worst fears come to pass.


And so, Guardian, you've written your little propaganda piece.  But I give you this "dare".  Write something critical of the UK government, and see how fast your writers and editors end up in prison.  In America, the militia movement has one purpose:  to defend our liberties.

Edited by Headhunter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. My cousin in Texas was a Methodist for most of her life (as almost all of our family were), until they started getting critical of Israel. Now she's married to a Baptist minister.  I don't understand why religous groups want to start narrowing their appeal by getting political. Of course, their religious beliefs may imply certain political attitudes -- some will be against abortion, others against Israel -- but they ought to leave that to their congregation members to pursue outside of the church.  Where I live (England) the Church of England used to be called, in the 19th Century, 'the Conservative Party at prayer'. Now it could be called 'the Labour and Liberal Parties at prayer'.  Leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I say.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted
1 hour ago, Doug1943 said:

Interesting. My cousin in Texas was a Methodist for most of her life (as almost all of our family were), until they started getting critical of Israel. Now she's married to a Baptist minister.  I don't understand why religous groups want to start narrowing their appeal by getting political. Of course, their religious beliefs may imply certain political attitudes -- some will be against abortion, others against Israel -- but they ought to leave that to their congregation members to pursue outside of the church.  Where I live (England) the Church of England used to be called, in the 19th Century, 'the Conservative Party at prayer'. Now it could be called 'the Labour and Liberal Parties at prayer'.  Leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I say.



     Yeah, the organized church is an entity of many hats. Each denomination has their set of particular views. I read that the Catholics leave the issue of abortion up to each member what to believe. Kinda odd. 'Course, in recent years the Pope has become quite liberal, and apparently a lot of parishioners, Cardinals and Bishops are calling for him to resign.

     On a recent video I posted, by a Catholic, he showed in a clip where the Pope stated that the United States is the only thing standing in the way of the NWO, and that we're trouble. Not good. Our sovereignty is very critical.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One argues against the other back and forth to the point of madness when there can be only one outcome with either affiliation.  Both left and right end in madness and Tyranny.  The goal should never be to end either perspective but rather to allow each to exist without giving full control to either for too great a time.  If either thought process is allowed to achieve complete government domination the Tytler cycle will complete and the people are enslaved.  Complete lack of control results in Anarchy rather than complete freedom as some idealize.  The people have to take control of the process in order to maintain balance.  Government must be made small but, not eliminated, space must be made for all perspectives without domination of one. 



Edited by Pauld2nd

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...