Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Doug1943 last won the day on May 18

Doug1943 had the most liked content!

About Doug1943

  • Groups I Belong To

  • Rank
    American Alpha
  • Birthday 12/21/1943
  • Location San Antonio, TX, USA


  • Occupation
    Retired lecturer in Computer Science
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,354 profile views
  1. Things like 'Q', the vaccine scare, the fear of 5G, etc etc have been going on for a long time. This book was written fifty-five years ago: https://www.amazon.com/paranoid-style-American-politics-essays/dp/B0006BMZF6/ It's rather disheartening. Robert Welch created a very promising organization, the John Birch Society. Then it was discovered that he believed President Eisenhower was 'a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy". That was the end of them as an effective force within the conservative movement. I see the same thing happening now ... It's almost as if there was a conspiracy ....
  2. This link is to an academic debate about, effectively, the possibility of civil war in America: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/05/response-to-symposium.html
  3. This is exactly right. If when you do something, they can put you in prison, then it's usually stupid to do it. No matter if you think you have the 'right' to do it. I say "usually stupid" because if you're doing it consciously as part of a plan, it might be the right thing to do. But actions done in haste, on impulse, out of emotion ... usually end badly.
  4. As for Arizona, I believe there are several active units there. However, it might be better for them to try to have a stall at the main celebrations in the cities, or at least leaflet the crowd. Assuming, of course, that the Chinese Communist Virus thing hasn't cancelled events. More information here: https://www.tripsavvy.com/the-biggest-fourth-of-july-celebrations-in-phoenix-4169907
  5. He's emptied his magazine on them. https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/24/the-doctrine-of-media-untruth/ The Doctrine of Media Untruth When knowledge, wisdom, independent thought, even basic competence were no longer requisites for success, then the media naturally slid into mediocrity, and mastered networking and obsequiousness instead of valuing independence. By Victor Davis Hanson • May 24, 2020 As a general rule, when the New York Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN begin to parrot a narrative, the truth often is found in simply believing just the opposite. Put another way, the media’s “truth” is a good guide to what is abjectly false. Perhaps we can call the lesson of this valuable service, the media’s inadvertent ability to convey truth by disguising it with transparent bias and falsehood, the “Doctrine of Media Untruth.” Take the strange case of the respective records of liberal New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Florida counterpart Ron DeSantis. Both states have roughly equal populations, with Florida slightly larger by about 2 million. Both have populations that travel daily back and forth between their respective major cities. Both are major international tourist and travel hubs. Both have widely diverse populations. Both have large numbers of retirees and long-term-care homes. Yet, New York has suffered 14 times the number of coronavirus deaths as has Florida. Florida is now increasingly open, and on May 19 saw 54 deaths attributed to the virus. That same day, New York was completely locked down and yet saw nearly twice that number at 105 deaths. One would never know from the media of the contrasting fates of the two states during the epidemic.DeSantis is often rendered little more than a reckless leader who exposed Floridians to needless danger. Cuomo, in contrast, increasingly is deified by the media as likely presidential timber who finesses press conferences in the lively fashion of his legendary beloved father, and iconic liberal, Mario Cuomo. Yet on the principle of media’s commitment to untruth, the public legitimately could deduce from the hagiographic news coverage that the frenetic Cuomo has proven the most incompetent governor in the nation in dealing with the virus. He sent the infected into vulnerable long-term care homes. He neither applied social distancing to, nor cleaned, mass transit. And Cuomo exaggerated his need for some medical supplies, while neglecting shortages in others. In contrast, the media furor at DeSantis is a good guide to his successes in both mitigating viral fatalities while charting Florida’s path back to economic normality. Hagiography of the Unfit and Unprofessional The media assures us that failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is a statuesque heroic figure who is an experienced state politician, a successful polymath, and would be a valuable asset as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, but even better—wink-and-nod—a likely next president. That new media consensus narrative is best typified by a recent and obsequious promo piece in the Washington Post. So given the media deification and the Doctrine of Media Untruth, we might assume that Abrams never has held statewide office, in incoherent fashion could not concede her legitimate defeat in the last Georgia gubernatorial race, and until recently still had not paid off an enormous credit card, student, and tax debt well over $200,000. In other words, read the media narrative on Abrams and without knowing much else, one could conclude that she is not a photogenic candidate; she is not gracious in defeat; and she is without much experience of victory. Her baggage and lack of even a statewide constituency would mostly hurt a Biden ticket, which explains why his opponents hope that she is the vice-presidential nominee. The Doctrine of Media Untruth was a valuable guide during the serial psychodramas to abort Donald Trump’s presidency. When Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee was canonized for tele-diagnosing Donald Trump as unhinged and in need of forced removal under the 25th Amendment, we knew the media glorification signaled she was unprofessional in making such a diagnosis of a patient she never met, and would never dare offer such a long-distance mental assessment of presidential candidate Joe Biden, based on his obvious cognitive impairment, memory lapses, and frequent cul-de-sac patterns of thought. The more that CNN and MSNBC put ambulance-chasing lawyer Michael Avenatti on the air, and gushed about his tailored suits, his possible presidential gambit, his cocky take-downs of Trump, and his advocacy of supposed female victims of the predatory Brett Kavanaugh, the more we knew he was a fraud, a criminal, and likely a legal predator of his own clients. That he was sent to prison was predictable the more one heard the media gush. Do we remember that for a while “Bob” Mueller was Washington’s hallowed prosecutor, investigator, or inquisitor par excellence? No wonder he had assembled a “dream team” of “all stars” who, as “hunter-killer” squads of legal eagles, would tear apart Trump’s supposedly doddering third-stringers and send Trump either to jail or into ignominious exile. So, the more that legal eagle narrative saturated the liberal media landscape, the more we knew the opposite was true. Mueller himself had a spotty history. He was both physically and cognitively unable to run an effective two-year high-intensity investigation. He was the un-Durham—as leaky and hodge-podge as the latter’s probe is quiet and professional. Mueller likely outsourced his tasks to an incestuous group of partisan and progressive lawyers, many of them incompetent, with conflicts of interest and blinded by partisanship. In the end, Team Mueller’s chief legacy was burning through more than $32 million in federal funds, hiding evidence, rigging a now-withdrawn indictment of Michael Flynn, initially hiding the amorous unprofessionalism of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok—and Mueller himself testifying before Congress that he knew little of anything about the Steele dossier and Fusion GPS, the fonts of his own investigation. Mythology of the Weak and Pathetic The country once knew little of Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). But once the media sanctified his role after the 2018 election as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, we knew what lay ahead. No sooner had the Renaissance Schiff assumed the chairmanship of the committee than we were lectured ad nauseam how he was a Harvard Law graduate, with a sly sense of humor, who had he not blessed the country with his stellar political career otherwise might well have been a successful Hollywood screenwriter. He ran his committee with flair and competence lacking under the former chairman, the supposedly plodding dairy farmer Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). In other words, we quickly discovered the truth through the Doctrine of Media Untruth. Within about a year, the public knew that Schiff was a fraud. He had suppressed key testimonies that long ago revealed that the functionaries in the collusion hoax had admitted under oath they had no evidence for the accusations they made daily in the media, and that CrowdStrike, in fact, could not prove a Russian genesis for the hacking of DNC emails. Schiff himself tapped into the communications records of his own colleague and the former chairman of his committee, Nunes. He lied habitually, most egregiously in denying that he or his staff had anything to do with the Ukrainian “whistleblower” when in fact his team had been in close communications with him. Each time Schiff assured the media of “bombshells,” that the “walls were closing in,” or that there were all sorts of new top-secret, classified, rarified information known only to him, which would shortly “prove” Trump “collusion,” we understood that he was a con man and prevaricator who had no proof at all or any such evidence. Whatever report he issued (cf. the “Schiff memo”), would certainly be dishonest and not factual. And, of course, it was. Empowering of the Deceptive Expertocracy Nowhere has the Doctrine of Media Untruth been more helpful than in following Trump during the coronavirus epidemic. The media fixated on hydroxychloroquine because Trump said it might be a game-changer and he took it himself as a prophylactic. That ensured that the ubiquitous, long-tested, mostly safe, and cheap anti-malarial, anti-lupus household drug would suddenly be declared useless and deadly. Would the media ever repent and empirically report that in some cases hydroxychloroquine is considered to be efficacious in treating the early symptoms of the disease by front-line doctors, in line with a series of pre-COVID-19 studies that it could be helpful against SARs-like viruses? If tomorrow Barack Obama gave a press conference, and should confess that when he travels he takes the drug, given its general safety and scattered reports it might have prophylactic value against COVID-19, we would soon read headlines of a “miracle drug” that is cheap, accessible, and vital to the world’s poor and at-risk. When readers are told that Trump is an idiot for suggesting that the virus might end up like a bad flu year, that his advocacy for opening up the country is a death sentence, that his travel ban was too late and too porous, and that the economy has been wrecked permanently by his incompetence, then we should assume that the death tolls by autumn might approximate or slightly exceed the flu’s lethality in years like 1957-8 or 1967-8, that states that open up do not have much greater spikes in virus morbidity than do states that do not, that the travel ban saved thousands of lives and would likely not have been issued by most traditional presidents so early, and that the economy likely will begin its ascendance by autumn. Finally, early on in the COVID-19 crisis, the media consecrated Dr. Anthony Fauci as the godlike man of science, in antithesis to the buffoonish, pre-Enlightenment fool Trump. If Fauci uttered a truism, it reverberated across the media world as gospel—but also as a sly putdown of the oblivious, oafish president. So, under the Doctrine of Media Untruth, the more the Fauci hallowing grew, the more we knew he had feet of clay. The more Fauci was brilliant, prescient and sibyllic, the more we knew that he came late to the danger, had once declared the virus to be not much of a threat, suggested that hook-ups and cruise trips need not be too much derailed by the virus, declared that opening up locked-down states would be a terrible idea, fueled wild modeling estimates of several hundreds of thousands soon to die from the virus, doubted the efficacy of masks, and warned we should not expect an effective vaccination for years. In other words, under the Doctrine of Media Untruth, the more Fauci was turned into a god and an anti-Trump avenging angel, the more he was human and not especially any more prescient medically than Trump was politically. Today, the public knows that if Fauci issues a periodic warning from on high, listeners should contextualize it as a valuable data bit, collate his warning with underappreciated economic realities, consider that it might be seen as a subtle putdown of Trump, and move on—all the more so as the media blares out that Trump ignores the latest brilliant forecast from the Einsteinian viral master. Trump Draws Them Out The hatred of Donald Trump explains some, but not all, media bias. During the Obama years, a media cohort came of age assuming that the hip, young, educated, urban classes like itself were in permanent ascendance. It did not need to worry about listening to others, venturing beyond coastal corridors, or questioning whether it was really educated or merely branded with mostly mediocre degrees. Being in the media was analogous to being issued a union card or belonging to the late Soviet party: one was part of an unthinking herd, mouthing platitudes, and hoping to get by and ahead that way. When knowledge, wisdom, independent thought, even basic competence were no longer requisites for success, then the media naturally slid into mediocrity, valued youth and looks, rank partisanship, obeisance to conventions and stereotypes, and mastered networking and obsequiousness instead of valuing independence. Trump’s antics simply lured the snails out of their shells and showed the public they were glorified slugs all along.
  6. About a third of the American people are conservatives. About a third are 'progressives'. About a third are in the middle. This doesn't mean that each third is made up of highly political, well-read people with worked-out positions on every question from the Federal Reserve to whether delegates to the Electoral College should be allocated in proportion to how many votes each party got in state. It's just basic inclinations. And this proportion is not fixed: it's moving in the direction of the Left, due to demographics and indoctination of the younger generations. How to influence the thinking of tens of millions -- about a hundred million people in the US actually bother to vote, roughly half of those eligible -- is the key question of politics, whether it's electoral politics or something else. It can't just be left to chance events, on the one hand. On the other hand, there are no magic formulas that will suddenly bring 20 million people over to the liberty-loving side. The first thing a medical student learns is : "First, do no harm." (Because a doctor who is too bold in his treatments can make his patients worse than when they started.) And this applies to the militia movement in a way it does not apply to the local Republican Party, or Libertarian Discussion Group. Because guns. So the first thing that anyone trying to build a viable group has to know is: ordinary people -- conservatives and liberals -- don't want to shoot their local policeman. Nor do they want to go to prison. Nor do they want to be known as someone who hangs around with people who talk casually about what is, in effect, shooting their local policeman. (An exception to the rule: AntiFa, certain Black militants, criminals.) That's why some of the posts on this website are so harmful, even if they are just casual expressions of frustration. Their effect is to drive people away. Of course, if someone thinks all is lost, it's hopeless, or that a militia movement cannot be built -- then he won't give a toss about driving people away, it would happen anyway. And of course an enemy in disguise will want to drive people away, even if he can't provoke an unstable personality into doing something stupid. However, that's wrong. A movement can be built, because events will drive people in our direction -- IF we have the skeleton of an organization there to bring them to. (It may well be the case at the moment that a local unit shouldn't grow beyond a couple of dozen, and if it does, it should split into two. That's just a contingent, tactical, question. Later, things may change. Our main weakness at the moment is the lack of a group of high quality national leaders. They may exist, but right now they have nothing to lead. A militia movement that has grown to a respectable size ... several hundred, or thousand, in each state, a hundred thousand or more nationally - may call forth good national leadership. My bet would be retired military men, senior officers. For any organization, the burning question is always: what to do next? And at the moment, that means patient groundwork, building durable local groups. This is an art. It doesn't happen automatically. We need to discuss how it's done. I would love to get advice from people who have been involved in 'church-planting', because a lot of the problems are similar. One idea: a successful militia unit has to be more than a few cranky old guys who like to shoot guns and engage in pissing contests around who knows the most about ballistics and weapon design. It's got to be a social group as well, and it's got to have a range of people in it, including people who are not going to be frontline combat infantry. And it's got to have a present purpose that makes it part of the local community -- a citizens emergency response unit, not a secretive cabal training for a future civil war. Even though ... yes ... it's not impossible that such a catastrophe might befall our country.
  7. The thing is, it's written about a huge upheaval and civil war, just over a century ago and on another continent. And unless you're a history major, or have a special interest in this country, a lot of it will be obscure. It needs a few pages of background, plus some vocabulary notes. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll have it. In the meantime, did you see the links to the would-be guerilla warriors, Guevara and Marighella? They're free to download, and although I don't think they have any positive lessons to teach, they do tell us what not to do. But they're interesting reading. Another book with negative lessons, also free to download, is Armed Insurrection, written by a collective of Comintern people at the end of the 1920s. with chapters on all the failed attempts at armed insurrection by the Communists in Europe, and in China: Shanghai 1925-27, Estonia, Germany, Hungary ... there are some common sense lessons there, about the importance of coordination, concentration of forces, communications ... but nothing that anyone with a brain wouldn't know already, really. What's in common with all the European examples is that they were really attempted putsches ... ie conspiracies behind the backs of the people, not the culmination of great popular uprisings. And in several of the countries they tried to seize power in, there was still the option of taking part in politics -- they weren't even trying to overthrow a dictatorship. (Even if you're trying to overthrow a dictatorship, you've got to first build your organization and wait for the right set of circumstances, where the mass of people come out into the streets and want to see the government brought down. And this isn't just an overnight event.... ) In fact, the Communists then were doing were exactly what people are advocating now -- and the results will be the same. You can get the book here, for free: https://libcom.org/library/armed-insurrection-neuberg-1928
  8. I am sure that everyone who is writing about how we should NOT go out and vote (and let the Left win), and, once they have won and have democratic legitmacy in the eyes of the great majority of American people, including the officer corps of the military, then ... we should provoke the beast and go to the rooftops so we can be killed... I am sure you are totally sincere, although mistaken. But here's a "thought experiment" for you: suppose the Left and/or "the government" wanted to destroy the militia movement ... or at least keep it very weak and isolated. What would it do? Well, for one thing, it would get a few people -- actually, just one guy with a VPN would do -- to keep posting lots of crazy, scary stuff on this website. Register a dozen or so accounts under various names and apparently from different cities, over a few weeks, and hey, he's ready to go to work. And his employers, the Left or government would either win big, or win little. Win big, if they provoke someone to go out and start shooting. Ideally they provoke a few dozen people to do it -- another TImothy McVeigh situation. That would be a BIG win for them, as these people were wiped out, with millions watching it on TV and thinking, "Whoa, glad they got those crazies. Our government is looking after us." But if they don't provoke anyone, they still win, just a lesser win: because with enough of these sorts of posts on this website, lots of people who might think a militia-type organization would be a good insurance policy for their commmunity, will log on, take a look and say, "Whoops, not for me!!" Or they may join, and as they read these posts urging sedition and violence, they will ask for their names to be removed, as has happened. And the crazy conspiracy theory posts will help the process. So either way, one guy with a VPN and, really, the world's easiest job, can do a lot of damage. Not to mention glavset in Russia, who want nothing better than to provoke violence among Americans. Now I know everyone who has posted this sort of thing is sincere, and not a government employee. I always trust people. But please please please, think again. Basically what you're doing is to try to get the Right, to follow the pattern of the Weathermen fifty years ago. I lived through this period, and everything you're saying now, is what they said then ... "Politics is hopeless, we'll never get the American people to agree with us about Vietnam, we've got to 'bring the war home', take on the beast." They managed to destroy SDS, which had a hundred thousand members. (Okay, I'm not crying about that. Just pointing out what this sort of stuff can do.) If you want to do to the militia movement, what Weatherman did to SDS, and destroy it ... then keep posting "Let's go to war now/soon" stuff. At least it's keeping Leftwing journalists in work, because I promise you every word is being copied now, or will be soon, by half a dozen people hoping to write frightening stories about the miitia. It's so obvious.
  9. You are basically right. We're talking about a change in mass psychology. But ... it takes an organized, disciplined leadership to ensure that there is a happy outcome. A spontaneous movement without leadership will fail, and always has. At some point I will recommend a (free) book which will change your view of how these things happen. I absolutely understand that most people will think 'What the hell????' ... but this book is the best description of how mood changes can affect millions of people, how they can swing back and forth, how people learn things over time, how a struggle for leadership takes place, and then how the most resolute, disciplined people, in their organization, can triumph. It needs some background notes to make it clear, first. It is by far the best book ever written -- and it's very beautifully written -- on this subject. Every militia leader should read it. But I need to write the background notes first.
  10. Fair enough. Start with awareness, then sit down with others who feel like you do, and talk through what to do about it. And please keep in mind, that the Enemy WANTS you to react NOW, to be another TImothy McVeigh, and that they have almost certainly planted people in the militia movement, and on this website, who will be actively urging us to go out and do something stupid now. It's EXACTLY what they want. Here's a story, probably made-up, but with a good lesson nonetheless. A small Western town lived in fear of a notorious bully, who had killed several men in gunfights. He swaggered about town, and everyone was afraid of him. They didn't argue with him. They tried to avoid him, and when they couldn't, they tried to humor him. One day a new fellow showed up in town. He was a mild-mannered dentist, come all the way from back East, to set up a practice. A few days after arriving in town, he went to the local saloon to have a drink. While he was drinking, the bully came in. Everyone else fearfully nodded hello to the bully, but the dentist ignored him. The bully went up to him and grabbed him by the front of his shirt ... "Whatsa matter with you, little man? You don't like me?" "No, I don't, " said the dentist. The whole saloon fell silent. "Well," said the bully, "let's meet tomorrow at noon on the street outside ... and see who's fastest on the draw... or you can get out of town tonight ... I'm feeling generous." "Okay," said the dentist. "Tomorrow, at noon? See you then." And he got up and walked out. The next day, the whole town was standing around on the main street... sad to be losing their crazy dentist ... but of course wanting to see the 'gunfight'. At noon, the bully swaggered out of the saloon, and walked into the middle of the street. But the dentist did not appear. "Ha! the little coward did the smart thing," laughed the bully. Then, a few people noticed that, behind the bully, on the second floor of the local hotel, a curtain was silently pushed aside. They saw the double barrels of a shotgun pushed out .. with the dentist holidng it. BOOM! BOOM! ... the bully's head went one way and rolled for a few yards. His body fell backwards. An hour later, the dentist was in the saloon. Everyone was trying to buy him a drink. Finally, one man said to him, "Fellow ... we're all happy for what you did ... but ... I know you're from back East and don't know our ways out here ... but ... you don't just do what you did... you're supposed to face off, man to man..." The dentist just downed a shot, and said, "Well, all I know is I'm alive, and he's dead, and that's the way I wanted it." Wise as serpents, gentle as doves, as Someone said.
  11. This is a good discussion, because it's about concrete, practical things: how to attract the right people, repel the wrong people, and then keep the right people coming back. It's the kind of discussion that needs the participation of people with actual experience of having some success in doing this. What did they do, what do they do, to keep people coming back? Perhaps it would be a good idea for this website to send out a mailing to everyone who has ever signed up, and to every militia unit it has an email address for, and ask this sort of question.
  12. Here's a good question: When should you abide by the law? Given that the rule of law is what distinguishes successful civilized societies from backward ones ruled by tribal militias or military dictators, it's an important question. We do NOT want to lose the reputation we have, of believing in the rule of law. So when should we abide by the law? There are only two answers to this, so far as I can see: (1) When the law is just. (2) When the is not just, but when not abiding by it would put you into prison or the grave, unless your non-obedience is part of a careful plan to restore just laws, and you're willing to take the chance. And note that 'non-obedience' to an unjust law, or the unjust application of the law, does not imply violence. One of the latest Official Heroes of the United States, with a street named after him in practically every city, earned his reputation by encouraging mass non-violent disobedience to unjust laws. But then, you have to be willing to pay the price. For example, if you travelled to the Soviet Union, when it still existed, your luggage would be routinely searched, and also your car if your drove. If they found some Bibles, in Russian (maybe in English as well) you were in trouble. It was against their law. So, if you wanted to be let into the country, and didn't want to take the chance of getting several years of free Russian lessons in a prison, you abided by that bad law. You were 'law-abiding'. On the other hand, if you wanted to take the risk, there were ways of getting Bible into Russia and into other Communist countries. This man spent his life doing that:https://www.opendoorsusa.org/about-us/history/brother-andrews-story/ and these people, the Tyndale Society in England, did likewise: http://www.tyndale.org/tsj05/cooper.html (For those interested in intelligence work and security techniques, read the fifth paragraph of the Tyndale Society story and see what absolutely elementary mistake they made in one of their trips behind the Iron Curtain.) So, normally, the smart thing to do is to be law-abiding, unless your non-abiding is a conscious decision and part of a plan to restore real law. (And speaking about this subject -- if anyone is planning a vacation to Cuba, or a trip there for any other reason, and is willing to take a very minor risk to help the democratic forces there, please contact me.) Vague threats to stop being law abiding, etc. are not helpful, except to the other side. Normally, they're just an expression of frustrated emotion. This is entirely understandable. But if they trigger an unstable person to go out and do something stupid -- as has happened several times in the past -- they are positively destructive -- of human life, and of the militia movement. For everything, there is a season. Now is the season for sowing and cultivating. We should sow, and cultivate, to create a well-regulated militia. (The other side is sowing the wind.)
  13. No, I think I'm wrong. I've changed my mind. These people really are much smarter than our side. For instance, I've tried for years and years, to figure out what this means. It's a quote from Judith Butler, one of the great authority figures of the Left, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler ] ... from an article in a 'scholarly journal', Diacritics, in 1997, called “Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time,” The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. Now ... I've read a few books in my time, I've got a PhD (in Computer Science), and I can explain to any reasonably-intelligent 16-year old tutee (after a few months of study) what a second-order partial differential equation is, but, for the life of me, I've never been able to understand what this brilliant woman is getting at. Several times on debate forums I've asked lefties to translate this into something a dumb old right-winger can make sense of, but the cruel things have always declined. I'm so stupid they can't even explain it to me in simpler terms. I don't know why they rant and rave about the results of IQ tests on various populations, because they so clearly have much higher IQs than their political enemies on the Right. They can read and understand things like Professor Butler's observations above, nod, and say, "Beautiful! If her words were clothes, they could dress an Emperor."
  14. The guy who drew this cartoon, and all the 'progressives' commenting favorably on it, probably couldn't change a tire on their own car.
  15. It's just about six weeks away. Start preparing now! The Fourth of July will be an ideal time for every militia unit to broaden its contact with other patriots in its community. Start planning now to have a July 4th barbecue, with appropriate ceremony. Try to get other patriots -- local Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, above all veterans' organizations (American Legion, VFW, VVA) to co-sponsor it. Maybe even put the Democrats on the spot by inviting them. Put out leaflets, and a press release, with all the sponsors' names. Sell tickets at cost -- perhaps offer them free to serving military and LEO. Even if you have to go it alone, do the publicity -- a press release, leaflets posted in laundromats or given out -- because this will allow people who are curious about the militia to come and check you out, without committing themselves. And a face-to-face encounter with people the hostile press portray as scary bogeymen is the best way to counter Leftist propaganda. But planning has to start now: getting a place, estimating numbers and getting ready to buy and prepare food, and above all, doing the publicity. This will be a good test of an organized militia group, and valuable experience will be gained if your group has never done anything like this before. Don't forget security, if you've got hostiles in the neighborhood. (Have a couple of people surreptitiously videoing everything and maybe a couple of more ready to video any incident.) Take photographs -- announce this in advance so anyone who doesn't want their face in the paper can turn away -- and write a short piece on your successful July 4th; send it, with a couple of photographs, to all local media outlets. The more a local militia unit is seen to be part of the community, the more 'friends' it has out there, the more secure it will be against legal attacks. And of course it's a good way to recruit new members. But planning for this has to start now.

  • Create New...