The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Sunday, August 30, 2015
"And the truth shall set you free." For those of you interested in the latest episode in the Kerodin soap opera: "George Patton" pulls Kerodin's fiscal shorts down around his ankles. What's exposed ain't pretty.
I got a phone call this afternoon, asking me "Have you seen what 'George Patton" is doing to Kerodin? Who is he?" I had to admit that I hadn't looked beyond the reference to him at Kenny Lane's site the other day and I had no idea who 'George Patton' might be. After sketching out in brief some of what George Patton had done, my caller asked, "Has anybody heard of a low-yield atomic explosion in Idaho?" I had to agree that Christian Hyman, aka Sam Kerodin, probably wasn't going to take this well at all. No doubt the mighty K will have his own informed guess about who General Patton is. It is evident that whoever he is, the new incarnation of GSP doesn't know how to spell my name. See "Why Miller and Why Now."
The attacks by the Kerodins centered on five people: Kenny Lane, JC Dodge, Mike Vanderbough, Jim Miller (and) Sam Culper.
It turns out that over the past two days 'George Patton' has been subjecting Hyman/Kerodin to a rolling artillery barrage of specific details and analysis (as well as some pointed ridicule). See, in addition to the link above:
In addition, he has posted some Downfall Fuhrer Bunker send-ups: here and here. Part One:
Here is Part Two:
Given such creativity, I believe I can find it in my heart to forgive General Patton for getting my name wrong. Heck, everybody else does. And like those of you who have been following this story since H/K began attacking me with a view to hijacking the Three Percent philosophy, I'll just get me some popcorn and watch what happens next. (Well, I would if I could still eat popcorn, maybe just a cup of hot Earl Grey tea.)
LATER: Other than a mild case of vicarious schadenfreude over all these chickens coming home to roost (and defecate) upon Christian Hyman's head, there is one question that I am seriously wanting to hear the answer to. This business cost me my then best friend, Peter White of WRSA. That still hurts deep down in a place I cannot reach. The only thing I am keenly interested in knowing is when will even Pete reach his gag reflex? Everyone else who followed Pete over to Kerodin's dark side has contacted me to apologize, but as I have written before no apologies are necessary, and that includes Pete. But I am interested in when he too will have finally had enough of the unrepentant federal extortionist ex-con. When will enough be enough?
Witnessing a narcissist being effectively challenged and/or not getting their way is a rare and sublime event.
It looks like Christian finally ticked off the wrong person. I haven't seen most of this, so I'm going to sit down with some snacks and a beverage and enjoy the links and vids. Thanks!
This has been delightful mike. I've been reading your site for a while now maybe 5 years. I am a regular reader to wrsa and have been for not quite as long as I've been a reader here. Lanes site is new to me and I've been a reader there maybe 6 months. I enjoyed their sites for their content and didn't enjoy that they were on the dark side "k". I'm thrilled mr lane has seen the light and I do hope wrsa gets with the program but if not you have to know I will always have the utmost respect for you and the SSI blog. God bless.
Well. you think this is epic just wait till the USJD starts looking at the III% books. I think they have enough for RICO, with the Idaho scam and Chris's offshore "nest egg" in Aruba, to send his ass back inside.
You're obfuscating principles, Mike, so that's why I'm writing this. I hope you know that I've got no dog in this fight. Hell, hardly anyone wants to hear the philosophy I've got to spout on any of these blogs anyway, and that includes Kerodin.
Transparency is a great two-edged sword, and its sharper edge favors the Good Guys by a ton. So by all means, set the facts out there; that part of it can only help. I've got no gripe with that; indeed, I encourage it.
Thing is, there's more going on here. This war of Liberty versus Tyranny is about one thing only...the initiation of force versus consent. ANYTHING else is a distraction from fundamental principles. There's not even a hint of coercion in any of these charges and that makes them irrelevant when it comes to individual liberty. Multiple corps and assumed names is not unusual at all; I thought that particular charge was worthless and distracting from the first time I read it, an appeal to both ignorance and emotion.
IMO the presumption has to be that self-owning responsible individuals can figure out for themselves what they wish to do and what they don't. Isn't that America? There are too many ACTUAL enemies--those who DO use force to get what they want--to pretend that those who don't may be enemies as well.
When guns come out, then there are real enemies. Without that, it's just peeps being peeps and in THIS country, peeps are supposed to do as they wish. That's not any problem, you know...reality will arbitrate who's rational and who's not.
Obfuscation? Rationality? What does any of the above have to do with the unrepentant extortionist, con man and former federal prisoner Christian Hyman/"Sam Kerodin"?
I think that the fact that people have in the past fallen for this kind of "patriot scam" indicates that there is value in reiterating the danger, and using the example of an actual case is instructive. I know that some might view it as overly vindictive, but as long as the perp is still trying to run his scam, there is a direct purpose in debunking it, and after the perp has moved on from scamming it's not like bringing up the past actually hurts his current interests (of course, scammers rarely actually give up scamming, they usually just pretend to be reformed so they can more effectively run more scams).
That said, I take less personal interest in this particular case (and such cases in general) because I haven't fallen for any myself.
Simple...none of that is about liberty in America and IMO this is a critical time to focus on liberty in America. It's being obliterated and a whole bunch of us are going to have to take it back. That is the basic SITREP, isn't it?
Look, there's no secret that both of you have plenty of enmity for the other. That's understood and I'm not griping about that; the two cliques can race to the bottom to their heart's content. I don't do cliques and it's none of my business.
The gripe concerns a different implication...that any of this DOES have something to do with freedom in America. Fact remains that neither one of you has done anything violative of individual liberty, at least not recently, and I'm taking the current posts as charging that maybe he has. I only care about the facts, and none of these facts--especially the silliness about multiple corps and assumed names--give the slightest hint that Kerodin has violated anyone's freedom.
Rationality is the way we discern such things and obfuscation is detrimental to that, that's all. There's nothing wrong with stating that you judge another person as an asshole--all of us do that regularly--I'm just reading the current posts as pretending to say something else. If they're not, then my mistake and sorry.
Maybe an analogy would help. I think racism is about the basest form of collectivism, but it simply doesn't matter to the cause of liberty in America. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the foolishness of racism, but there is something wrong with implying that a racist on his own is some "enemy of liberty" just because of that, in the absence of any forceful action. That's the analogy to me.
"The battle has ALWAYS been Individualism versus Collectivism." Either individuals are free to do as they choose, or they are not. I acknowledge that none of your posts literally hindered anyone's freedom, but they struck me as seeking to lean in that direction. So I piped up. If your only point is that you think Kerodin is an asshole but should be free to run his life as he chooses, then I'm sorry. It just wasn't the impression I got.
Freedom, the condition of being in a position to determine one's own outcomes through one's own decisions, requires three essential elements, the restriction of any one of which eliminates meaningful enjoyment of freedom.
First, you must have available options from which to choose. Second, those options must have consequences that are significantly different. Third, you must have knowledge of which consequences is associated with each option. A famous short story, "the Lady and the Tiger", illustrates the problem in simple terms by presenting a scenario in which an (unjustly) condemned prisoner must choose between two doors, one of which leads to a beautiful courtesan and the other to a hungry tiger (the whimsical injustice of the 'oriental' sovereign who devises this game is part of the original story).
Let us modify the scenario in the original story so that there is actually only one door (we can call this story "the Tiger behind the Door"). The prisoner knows that there is a Tiger behind the door, but there are no other options presented. The door opens, the prisoner is devoured, and nobody at all would suggest that the prisoner chose his fate freely. He was deprived of other options, thus the significance of the consequence and his knowledge of the connection between his only option and that consequence does not mean he was free.
Another modification we will call "the Bengal Tiger and the Siberian Tiger". This time the prisoner may choose between two doors, each of which leads to a different type of tiger. We even correctly label the doors so that the prisoner knows exactly which door leads to which tiger. But it doesn't really matter which door the prisoner picks, since he doesn't care what kind of tiger devours him. Despite having options, he is not free to choose his fate in any meaningful sense.
And then the scenario of the original story (but be prepared for the introduction of an unsurprising twist). There are two doors, one door leads to the lady, the other to the tiger, and our prisoner very much prefers spending a night in the arms of the one rather than the jaws of the other. Unfortunately, the arena has been carefully prepared to leave no indication of which door leads to the lady, and which to the tiger. The lack of any knowledge of which option leads to which consequence makes the apparent freedom of the prisoner to choose his fate into nothing but a cruel mockery for the amusement of a sadistic prince.
Let us introduce our unsurprising twist, and say that sometimes the prince is definitely in the mood for the more savage entertainment rather than the more tamely prurient, and thus arranges for the prisoner to receive some unexpected hint as to which door leads to the tiger, and which to the lady. An overheard conversation between the keepers of the tiger, a tiny scrap of silk caught on a nail by one door, an imperfectly swept tiger paw print by the other. The prisoner, playing for the first (and last) time, and being a simple fellow, does not know that the subtle clue is faked. He confidently makes his choice based on the 'knowledge' he has gained about which door leads to which fate, and the prince is very amused at his own cleverness.
And the prisoner is not free.
People do have to be free to say and do what they like. That doesn't mean that nothing they say or do will ever have consequences for themselves, or make them enemies of freedom. Creating an elaborate web of lies (even an elaborate web of the same lie repeated incessantly) makes other people less free. Doing so deliberately for the express purpose of undermining the ability of other people to choose their fate based on correct understanding of the consequences of their actions makes one an enemy of freedom.
Jim, I think it's about being an honorable person and not a film-flam artist. People in the patriot community seen to value honor alongside of liberty. The freedom to not be hoodwinked and defrauded is a valuable freedom. I'm not sure how you can envision true liberty without that freedom being a component. We particularly value honor and integrity in those who were held up (or would hold themselves up) as leaders. Mike makes the grade. K, obviously "not so much" as they say.
Jesus, Jim. Do you know how many of his old friends have recently had to publically and very loudly tell everyone in the community that this guy does not give a tinkers cuss about the movement, or you, or me, or anyone else. Christ, his entire board left him. No one in the "K inner circle" wanted to be an accomplice to milking Patriots and not performing. He has even had to force himself out of his self apointed presidency of the IIIPS to keep up illusion that he is not conrolling all of the strings. You think there really will be an independant audit of all of the funds?
Seriously, Jim, why carry all that water for this guy? What do you think you or the community are getting out of it?
"The freedom to not be hoodwinked and defrauded is a valuable freedom."
Well, at least that gets in the territory of what I'm trying to say. No, this is wrong and it's all wrong.
That's not a "freedom" in any social sense, not any more than housing, food or quality medical care...all of which are very nice too. All are RESPONSIBILITIES for a person to earn, and then only if one wishes to live as a sane being.
Funny thing about obligations. Not a soul alive has even a single one that they don't acknowledge and agree to be an obligation. But somehow, they figure that everyone else has bunches of them, that those people didn't choose.
If you chain someone to a wall, they are less free.
That doesn't mean that people can't be free to choose to be chained to a wall, it just means that if they can't choose to NOT be chained to a wall, then they are in fact less free.
If you hoodwink and defraud someone, they also are less free.
But while people can choose to pretend to be hoodwinked and defrauded (and many do), they cannot choose to actually be hoodwinked and defrauded, because if you know you're being fooled, you aren't really being fooled, and if you don't know you're being fooled, you aren't getting a choice.
So, the freedom to be able to choose not to be chained to a wall is a valuable freedom, but it also entails the freedom to choose to be chained to a wall. But the freedom to choose to not be hoodwinked and defrauded is even more valuable, while the freedom to choose to be hoodwinked and defrauded cannot logically exist.
"If you chain someone to a wall, they are less free."
Aw, this is getting silly already. That's MY point! AND it's ALL I'm trying to express.
Information is all good...I've written that already at least twice here and I hope it keeps flowing and flowing. And free people should make their choices accordingly.
Fact is, there has been NO chaining to any wall, for anyone that I've seen, and that's the end of THAT. You're trying to use WORDS to make it otherwise, and THAT'S where my gripe lies.
"carrying water" Yeah, that's close; not. The guy doesn't even want me writing my philosophical yipyap on his blog, so I don't any more. It's STILL no reason to say that someone has chained someone to a wall, when it simply hasn't happened.
What's so tough to grasp about this? You want a society where thugs are stopped? Then stop 'em; that's what this is all about anyway. I just don't see how charges of thuggery ("chain someone to a wall," for crissakes) can possibly help focus anything on that one foundational principle. That's what I wrote, that's what I meant, and it remains true to this moment.
18 comments:
Oh boy. His handlers a gunna be PISSED.
K is toast doing ya know!
Witnessing a narcissist being effectively challenged and/or not getting their way is a rare and sublime event.
It looks like Christian finally ticked off the wrong person. I haven't seen most of this, so I'm going to sit down with some snacks and a beverage and enjoy the links and vids. Thanks!
This has been delightful mike. I've been reading your site for a while now maybe 5 years. I am a regular reader to wrsa and have been for not quite as long as I've been a reader here. Lanes site is new to me and I've been a reader there maybe 6 months. I enjoyed their sites for their content and didn't enjoy that they were on the dark side "k". I'm thrilled mr lane has seen the light and I do hope wrsa gets with the program but if not you have to know I will always have the utmost respect for you and the SSI blog. God bless.
Well. you think this is epic just wait till the USJD starts looking at the III% books. I think they have enough for RICO, with the Idaho scam and Chris's offshore "nest egg" in Aruba, to send his ass back inside.
He hasn't attacked you yet?
K is toast. Time is short. Time to move on, and fast.
You're obfuscating principles, Mike, so that's why I'm writing this. I hope you know that I've got no dog in this fight. Hell, hardly anyone wants to hear the philosophy I've got to spout on any of these blogs anyway, and that includes Kerodin.
Transparency is a great two-edged sword, and its sharper edge favors the Good Guys by a ton. So by all means, set the facts out there; that part of it can only help. I've got no gripe with that; indeed, I encourage it.
Thing is, there's more going on here. This war of Liberty versus Tyranny is about one thing only...the initiation of force versus consent. ANYTHING else is a distraction from fundamental principles. There's not even a hint of coercion in any of these charges and that makes them irrelevant when it comes to individual liberty. Multiple corps and assumed names is not unusual at all; I thought that particular charge was worthless and distracting from the first time I read it, an appeal to both ignorance and emotion.
IMO the presumption has to be that self-owning responsible individuals can figure out for themselves what they wish to do and what they don't. Isn't that America? There are too many ACTUAL enemies--those who DO use force to get what they want--to pretend that those who don't may be enemies as well.
When guns come out, then there are real enemies. Without that, it's just peeps being peeps and in THIS country, peeps are supposed to do as they wish. That's not any problem, you know...reality will arbitrate who's rational and who's not.
Obfuscation? Rationality? What does any of the above have to do with the unrepentant extortionist, con man and former federal prisoner Christian Hyman/"Sam Kerodin"?
I think that the fact that people have in the past fallen for this kind of "patriot scam" indicates that there is value in reiterating the danger, and using the example of an actual case is instructive. I know that some might view it as overly vindictive, but as long as the perp is still trying to run his scam, there is a direct purpose in debunking it, and after the perp has moved on from scamming it's not like bringing up the past actually hurts his current interests (of course, scammers rarely actually give up scamming, they usually just pretend to be reformed so they can more effectively run more scams).
That said, I take less personal interest in this particular case (and such cases in general) because I haven't fallen for any myself.
Simple...none of that is about liberty in America and IMO this is a critical time to focus on liberty in America. It's being obliterated and a whole bunch of us are going to have to take it back. That is the basic SITREP, isn't it?
Look, there's no secret that both of you have plenty of enmity for the other. That's understood and I'm not griping about that; the two cliques can race to the bottom to their heart's content. I don't do cliques and it's none of my business.
The gripe concerns a different implication...that any of this DOES have something to do with freedom in America. Fact remains that neither one of you has done anything violative of individual liberty, at least not recently, and I'm taking the current posts as charging that maybe he has. I only care about the facts, and none of these facts--especially the silliness about multiple corps and assumed names--give the slightest hint that Kerodin has violated anyone's freedom.
Rationality is the way we discern such things and obfuscation is detrimental to that, that's all. There's nothing wrong with stating that you judge another person as an asshole--all of us do that regularly--I'm just reading the current posts as pretending to say something else. If they're not, then my mistake and sorry.
Maybe an analogy would help. I think racism is about the basest form of collectivism, but it simply doesn't matter to the cause of liberty in America. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the foolishness of racism, but there is something wrong with implying that a racist on his own is some "enemy of liberty" just because of that, in the absence of any forceful action. That's the analogy to me.
"The battle has ALWAYS been Individualism versus Collectivism." Either individuals are free to do as they choose, or they are not. I acknowledge that none of your posts literally hindered anyone's freedom, but they struck me as seeking to lean in that direction. So I piped up. If your only point is that you think Kerodin is an asshole but should be free to run his life as he chooses, then I'm sorry. It just wasn't the impression I got.
Freedom, the condition of being in a position to determine one's own outcomes through one's own decisions, requires three essential elements, the restriction of any one of which eliminates meaningful enjoyment of freedom.
First, you must have available options from which to choose. Second, those options must have consequences that are significantly different. Third, you must have knowledge of which consequences is associated with each option. A famous short story, "the Lady and the Tiger", illustrates the problem in simple terms by presenting a scenario in which an (unjustly) condemned prisoner must choose between two doors, one of which leads to a beautiful courtesan and the other to a hungry tiger (the whimsical injustice of the 'oriental' sovereign who devises this game is part of the original story).
Let us modify the scenario in the original story so that there is actually only one door (we can call this story "the Tiger behind the Door"). The prisoner knows that there is a Tiger behind the door, but there are no other options presented. The door opens, the prisoner is devoured, and nobody at all would suggest that the prisoner chose his fate freely. He was deprived of other options, thus the significance of the consequence and his knowledge of the connection between his only option and that consequence does not mean he was free.
Another modification we will call "the Bengal Tiger and the Siberian Tiger". This time the prisoner may choose between two doors, each of which leads to a different type of tiger. We even correctly label the doors so that the prisoner knows exactly which door leads to which tiger. But it doesn't really matter which door the prisoner picks, since he doesn't care what kind of tiger devours him. Despite having options, he is not free to choose his fate in any meaningful sense.
And then the scenario of the original story (but be prepared for the introduction of an unsurprising twist). There are two doors, one door leads to the lady, the other to the tiger, and our prisoner very much prefers spending a night in the arms of the one rather than the jaws of the other. Unfortunately, the arena has been carefully prepared to leave no indication of which door leads to the lady, and which to the tiger. The lack of any knowledge of which option leads to which consequence makes the apparent freedom of the prisoner to choose his fate into nothing but a cruel mockery for the amusement of a sadistic prince.
Let us introduce our unsurprising twist, and say that sometimes the prince is definitely in the mood for the more savage entertainment rather than the more tamely prurient, and thus arranges for the prisoner to receive some unexpected hint as to which door leads to the tiger, and which to the lady. An overheard conversation between the keepers of the tiger, a tiny scrap of silk caught on a nail by one door, an imperfectly swept tiger paw print by the other. The prisoner, playing for the first (and last) time, and being a simple fellow, does not know that the subtle clue is faked. He confidently makes his choice based on the 'knowledge' he has gained about which door leads to which fate, and the prince is very amused at his own cleverness.
And the prisoner is not free.
People do have to be free to say and do what they like. That doesn't mean that nothing they say or do will ever have consequences for themselves, or make them enemies of freedom. Creating an elaborate web of lies (even an elaborate web of the same lie repeated incessantly) makes other people less free. Doing so deliberately for the express purpose of undermining the ability of other people to choose their fate based on correct understanding of the consequences of their actions makes one an enemy of freedom.
Jim,
I think it's about being an honorable person and not a film-flam artist.
People in the patriot community seen to value honor alongside of liberty.
The freedom to not be hoodwinked and defrauded is a valuable freedom.
I'm not sure how you can envision true liberty without that freedom being a component.
We particularly value honor and integrity in those who were held up (or would hold themselves up) as leaders.
Mike makes the grade. K, obviously "not so much" as they say.
Jesus, Jim. Do you know how many of his old friends have recently had to publically and very loudly tell everyone in the community that this guy does not give a tinkers cuss about the movement, or you, or me, or anyone else. Christ, his entire board left him. No one in the "K inner circle" wanted to be an accomplice to milking Patriots and not performing. He has even had to force himself out of his self apointed presidency of the IIIPS to keep up illusion that he is not conrolling all of the strings. You think there really will be an independant audit of all of the funds?
Seriously, Jim, why carry all that water for this guy? What do you think you or the community are getting out of it?
"The freedom to not be hoodwinked and defrauded is a valuable freedom."
Well, at least that gets in the territory of what I'm trying to say. No, this is wrong and it's all wrong.
That's not a "freedom" in any social sense, not any more than housing, food or quality medical care...all of which are very nice too. All are RESPONSIBILITIES for a person to earn, and then only if one wishes to live as a sane being.
Funny thing about obligations. Not a soul alive has even a single one that they don't acknowledge and agree to be an obligation. But somehow, they figure that everyone else has bunches of them, that those people didn't choose.
If you chain someone to a wall, they are less free.
That doesn't mean that people can't be free to choose to be chained to a wall, it just means that if they can't choose to NOT be chained to a wall, then they are in fact less free.
If you hoodwink and defraud someone, they also are less free.
But while people can choose to pretend to be hoodwinked and defrauded (and many do), they cannot choose to actually be hoodwinked and defrauded, because if you know you're being fooled, you aren't really being fooled, and if you don't know you're being fooled, you aren't getting a choice.
So, the freedom to be able to choose not to be chained to a wall is a valuable freedom, but it also entails the freedom to choose to be chained to a wall. But the freedom to choose to not be hoodwinked and defrauded is even more valuable, while the freedom to choose to be hoodwinked and defrauded cannot logically exist.
"If you chain someone to a wall, they are less free."
Aw, this is getting silly already. That's MY point! AND it's ALL I'm trying to express.
Information is all good...I've written that already at least twice here and I hope it keeps flowing and flowing. And free people should make their choices accordingly.
Fact is, there has been NO chaining to any wall, for anyone that I've seen, and that's the end of THAT. You're trying to use WORDS to make it otherwise, and THAT'S where my gripe lies.
"carrying water" Yeah, that's close; not. The guy doesn't even want me writing my philosophical yipyap on his blog, so I don't any more. It's STILL no reason to say that someone has chained someone to a wall, when it simply hasn't happened.
What's so tough to grasp about this? You want a society where thugs are stopped? Then stop 'em; that's what this is all about anyway. I just don't see how charges of thuggery ("chain someone to a wall," for crissakes) can possibly help focus anything on that one foundational principle. That's what I wrote, that's what I meant, and it remains true to this moment.
Post a Comment