Tuesday, February 2, 2016

David Codrea: "Responses to Malheur Crisis Show Deep Divisions within Patriot Community."

"A common factor among many is that some of the loudest voices are complaining about what others aren’t doing. What they themselves are doing, and their qualifications for expecting others to follow their recommended courses of action, is in many cases left unsaid. . ."
When we don’t have complete information, sources are trusted or distrusted by varying degrees depending on who’s listening and what agendas are in play. Add to that instances where breaking information about significant developments has been sent out, supposedly by people in the know, only to be refuted later by others with access to those on the ground at Malheur.
It happens, and not always by malice. But it does demonstrate the critical need to verify reports before acting.
Right now, what we don’t want, is another Waco. And a factor preventing that, so far, is the government realizing it is being watched, and any repeat of such brutal rules of engagement is likely to make containing things problematic. In a very real sense, that’s been beneficial to the wildlife refuge occupiers throughout, and to the remaining holdouts.
It’s understood that’s not enough for some. That said, we can’t ignore two undeniable truths:
The Hammond family declared from the outset the Malheur takeover was not what they wanted. And now, on the other end, Ammon Bundy is calling for the remainder of the occupiers to “Turn yourselves in and do not use physical force. Use the national platform we have to continue to defend liberty through our constitutional rights in an Article 3 Court with an Article 3 judge.”
That Bundy’s call has not produced an immediate stand-down, and that his own father has now declared they “will retain possession of the Harney County resource center,” shows strong divisions exist even within the family, and then within the small band involved in the takeover.
It’s no wonder we see such distrust and anger — including that being directed by some liberty activists at others.
Now might be the time to ask ourselves who that benefits.
Stewart Rhodes comments:
Yet another Bundy writing checks he expects the rest of us to cash with our blood. I have lost all respect for their entire family. They appear to think they are patriot royalty, who get to decide, all on their own, what is best for the rest of us, and presume to speak for us, when it comes to spilling our blood.
And now Cliven is even going against Ammon's recent call for the remaining occupiers to leave. Ammon has finally caught a clue, but the old man remains clueless. All he will do is get people killed, and make this worse. Nothing like starting a fight off with a Fort Sumter, and a defeat, all wrapped into one. At least Sumter was a victory, though an empty one.
Stewart and I have had our differences but I concur with this assessment and frankly I'm getting bloody sick and tired of this apocalyptic vision of Latter Days Saints theology that the Bundys are trying to chain around all our necks. You know, John Brown at least had the guts to lead his own sons into disaster at Harper's Ferry. Cliven sat back from afar and directed his own sons to do what he believes is "God's will" -- a religious vision thing for him without personal risk.
I am also appalled by the apparent inability of self-described "Three Percenters" to be able to exercise discernment, judgment and simple command and control of their own emotions, mouths and troops. I would refer them to the Three Percent Catechism, but that presupposes that they have the ability to read and understand basic English.


Chiu ChunLing said...

In a genuine revolution, the fact that nobody has the authority to negotiate a surrender is an indispensable strength early on. I call it indispensable simply because any resistance that can be made to stand down by identifying and suborning/imprisoning/killing a small group of leaders is going to meet that exact fate as a matter of historical certainty.

Only when the former regime is on the run and incapable of directly attacking significant areas under control of the rebels does it become feasible to rally around a unified leadership. Only when the former regime is actually defeated (or at the point where defeat is inevitable) does it become necessary to resolve such internal divisions.

Who benefits from a liberty movement that cannot be fully controlled by any core leadership subject to capture, intimidation, bribery, or murder by the Feds?

Is it really that hard to figure out?

Anonymous said...

". . . sick and tired of Cliven Bundy's interpretation of this apocalyptic vision of Latter Day Saints theology that the Bundys are trying to chain around all our necks."

There. Fixed it for ya. Not all LDS believes the same.

And sorry for the brevity. Touchpad typing on a mini kindle.

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

Well Dutch, you are expecting to much. To get where you think we should be, we'd need yourself, Bob Wright or maybe one of the next generation thought leaders like Max or Bracken to lead, or even Rhodes.

What you have is the Bundy Brothers, who are nothing more than cowboy community organizers with no real tactical experience, and questionable strategic ability. On the security side, they were screwed with Ritzheimer, Payne, and Buddha. Pull their 201 file and find out they're marginal veterans w/o real experience, and then they are backed up with civilians who have bought a set of cammies, an AR and a couple hundred rounds of ammo. Santilli out there documenting the thing, working on his pulitzer and screwing OpSec in the ass. Leadership helps people keep their mouth shut.

I've heard the whole thing about being the wrong time of the year, bad logistics, bad location and all that and I agree the situation sucked. What it lacked most of all was real leadership, and numbers. I also view this effort as a group of guys who went out on a freelance mission, and then were left hung out until it turned into a mess. Part of the reason that Bundy Ranch worked was the volume of people, and that any shooting would have too many witnesses and victims to cover up. LaVoy didn't have enough people around him to keep the troopers from pulling a trigger on him, and that is a damn shame.

We better find some people like Ex SF types who can train and lead CIDG groups, in a big hurry. We ought to get some balls underneath us too. If we don't, this thing we're in isn't a serious movement, it is just a bunch of people with a gun locker full of ammo cans and a couple ARs. We need to do better.

oughtsix said...

Disappointed, Mike...

One apocalyptic vision right about now differs from another only in minor details insofar as the greater pathology is concerned.

"At this point, what does it matter?"

We are all bound to the wheel by the very same chains.

Anonymous said...

All this certainly makes it easier for the Feds to blow something to smithereens and cry "those crazy right-wingers did it" a-la Oklahoma City..

Richard Evey said...

This is not Waco or Ruby Ridge, the feds started those. The Bundys started this and they wanted a fight and they got one, now they, the Bundys, are totally fucked and some people are waking up to the fact that the Bundys were WRONG.

FSHB said...

I'm with B Woodman, we LDS are a very diverse group. Cliven Bundy does not speak for the patriot movement, or for the LDS who are with the patriot movement. We can be split apart by factional differences very easily, but division makes us weaker, not stronger. Set aside our differences of theology and understand we all want a limited constitutional government that promotes individual freedom. It is unfortunate that Cliven sees himself as being a voice to call others to action, without seeing the full implications and tactical reality of the situation. As Luke 21:25 & Matthew 16:2 both point out, we may see signs of the times, but differ as to what they mean and how to react. I don't agree with the Bundy's at all on their actions in Oregon, they have been very secretive and backhanded and seem to be influenced by provocateurs. I respect what Mike here and Stuart Rhodes have both said about the situation. I appreciate the efforts of the Pacific Patriots Network to defuse the situation and am appalled by the way their efforts were seemingly snubbed and or ignored by those provoking the Oregon standoff.

Normally I just sign my posts with FaradaySheildedHeadgearBrigade, which is a tongue in cheek way of saying ground your tinfoil hat. But, today it's important to sign what I write.

Jon Dansie

Meister said...

"Always take a good look at the horse before you hitch your wagon to it." Something I learned from the Dutch farmer I worked for in my youth. Much like the gal in Kentucky refusing to issue marriage licenses after she had already broken the sanctity of marriage several times through divorce and living in sin. Rosa Parks wasn't the first arrested for refusing to go to the back of the bus, but the young unwed mother that did it first wasn't deemed worthy of fighting for by civil rights leaders.

It's all subjective. You must take a side in this fight, or your choice will be made for you. In my 40 some years, I've learned to react once all the facts come out, and with a modicum of respect for my upbringing. To allow fear mongering and disinformation to control you is a horrible thing.

Beware the Fury of a Patient Man. -Dryden

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

I agree that this was no Waco, even though I believe that there were no grownups in the room on either side. I think the OSP/FBI, had they been more patient, would have seen the protesters leave, once they found a decent exit strategy. I have heard rumors that the roadblocks and arrests were the result of the insecurities of politicians who did not have the statesmanship or wisdom to wait it out for a peaceful ending. If this is true, those people are also responsible for a man's death even if they are not guilty of murder.

That said, I do believe that there needs to be a response, although it should not be to start a violent revolution.
Rather, public prayers fro the dead and for a restoration of our country on the part of the 3% and the militias? At least some show of concern for the situation and the danger that we face. Right now we are sitting on a powder keg, as we have been for some time. I wish I could say that I believe that there is a political solution. I see this as something like John Brown and hope that we do not proceed to Bleeding Kansas, which was a precusor to the Civil War.

Right now, I can only ask that the Master of the Universe give us time and the wisdom to use it wisely.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Rhodes thinks that Ft. Sumter was one that 'we' won, though with concequences, as pointed out here mNY times.
Count me out of this 'we'.
This does clarify where Rhodes is coming from.
I am not a confederate. In more ways than one.

Anonymous said...

This wasn't about protestors, this was about making an example of those who would stand up to TPTB. they wanted to massacre to set an example to DETER OTHERS from opposing them (especially after the Bundy Ranch event), and nearly got away with it. Nothing more. It was about bloodthirsty power wanting to come out and ruthlessly crush dissidents. I remind people, Alexander Solzhenitsyn told of his bare survival of the same murderous governmental oppression:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Sign Me, Neal Jensen