Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Tom Baugh and Me: Clearing up some confusion about "White Hats" and "Black Hats." (I wear an olive drab boonie hat myself.)

Since the Guilford Court House rally there has been created in the minds of some folks the impression that has arisen that I agree with what Tom Baugh said (or would have said) simply because I gave him some of my sliver of time at the end of the rally and that I posted the link leading to his entire Black Hat/White Hat presentation.

This is false.

He has points, don't get me wrong. Pete at WRSA rightly calls Baugh "an important contrary voice."

For me, the operative word is "contrary."

My initial reaction back in late February to Baugh's writing was favorable. Although I hadn't read Starving the Monkeys in its entirety, in my rapid skim I found that there were things I agreed with and things that I certainly didn't. Indeed, at the urging of friends, I went ahead and recommended that folks read his book. In retrospect, I should have read the whole thing and written a review, something I still do not have time for.

But insofar as Baugh's talk on the subject of white hats and black hats, found here, it is both a false dichotomy and a siren song. Here's a snippet:
White hats hold rallies to convince others of the importance of their cause, hoping that if enough people could be educated, then the phantom majority would rise up and set things right. Black hats understand that the majority of people, addicted to their checks, want things just as they are. And black hats also understand that liberty, and a man's ethical claim to his rights, aren't dependent on, and shouldn't be dependent on, the whim of others, no matter to what numbers the tyrants may grow.

Which brings us to the upcoming election, and the hope for change. White hats believe that an election will change everything. Black hats accept the reality that it probably won't change anything, and that history shows that tyranny ratchets ever legally and legitimately forward at the whim of the populace, until chaos reigns.

White hats are afraid that their time is coming to a close. Black hats are confident that their time will come.
The image of black hat as worn by the only folks in the room who are hard-headed and far-seeing enough to recognize objective reality AND THEREFORE MOST ABLE TO FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE BATTLE OF LIBERTY VERSUS TYRANNY AND GOOD VERSUS EVIL is a seductive one.

It is also false. In my experience, black is the color favored by our collectivist enemies.

Here's a collectivist wearing a black hat.

Here's another.

Here's the ultimate in black hats.

Now as for me, I don't wear a white hat and I certainly don't wear a black hat. I wear an OD boonie hat and sometimes a woodland one. Why? Because I find them functional in both sun and rain, and are easily tucked into a back pocket when going indoors. It is a hat which attempts to avoid moral error without self-destructive naivete.

More to the point, I don't sneer at folks simply because they are not as far along the political continuum as I am. As I'm sure all of you know, political awareness is usually a process, not divine inspiration. Most of what radicalizes folks against the collectivist lie are the concrete examples that they are given in life. Some folks require a louder alarm clock than others, but that doesn't mean they won't ever wake up.

In between the time I began this essay and now, Malthus had some criticisms of Baugh that I believe are spot on.

Anyone who is familiar with Marx's "you are either on the side of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie" argument will have a head-start on the nature of Baugh's debating trick. He does not want a discussion concerning ends and means; he wants to poison the well.

I posted this at WRSA and offer it here also:

The black hat/white hat dichotomy ought to be the tip-off that author Baugh is confronting us with a false choice.

The question is not black or white but black (anarchism) or non-black (constitutionalism). There are countless permutations of constitutional government and most have a demonstrated superiority to Rousseau's noble savage in a state of nature.

Neither law nor ethics will support Baugh's world-view and thus he is obliged to gin up support for anarchism by employing a threadbare logical fallacy. This is disingenuous, nonproductive and a sure road to moral bankruptcy.


And later he added:Delete

Point of clarification: I do not wish for anyone to conclude that Tom Baugh is morally suspect. I am not offering an ad hominem attack in response to his black-and-white logical fallacy.

Instead, the problem is his philosophical defense of anarchism. Those who continue to pour time and treasure into this epistemological sinkhole will find themselves increasingly indebted to nihilism.

Nihilism is handmaiden to irrationalism and brute force in politics. We have seen this scenario played out before in the history of Europe and know it always ends badly.

Black hats weigh heavily on their wearers.


Some will think that Malthus is being unkind to Baugh. He is not. As evidence I offer an excerpt from my first run-in with Baugh's concept of who he sees as a black hat, and who a white hat.

It began with this email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom (Starve Monkey Press)
To: pete
Cc: georgemason1776@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:42 pm
Subject: SPLC and ADL

Pete and Mike,

Thanks to Mike, I'm developing a direct channel into the SPLC right now.

Question: Are the ADL and SPLC in tune with each other or are they competing propoganda machines?

If they are buds, I think I can get the SPLC to alert the ADL for me which ultimately would probably provoke a more genuine response.

What do you guys think?

I answered him, in part:

They sneer at each other behind their backs but they also share info. I assume SPLC has asked you for an interview. Tape it and tell them you're taping it. Or, if you can't get a tape of them, make sure it is by email. Tape is better. Is Georgia a one-party state? I think it is. They will ask you about "associates" by name. Remember they're trying to blow up their conflation balloon. Don't give them anything unless you've checked in advance with whoever they're mentioning. But don't tell them any lies -- tell them you can't recall.
I also offered an idea that we might use the contact to flip SPLC's known propensity for lying back on them in an actionable case. Baugh demurred. His response, in part:

I'm more into an investigative journalism thing to discover for myself whether they (either/both) over-hype allegations of hate to draw in donations LOL. We'll see.

One of the things I haven't yet discussed with either of you is that I think there is a very real possibility of the forces-that-be trying to spark a race war to stir up conflict in order to consolidate unjust power. I've reached out to a lot of various people who should have a horse in the race, and so far the only ones who have welcomed my advances have been those who have borne the brunt of hate allegations. Such as you guys, and in a different dimension, James Edwards of The Political Cesspool. People who get the benefit of media doubt tend to wander off to find lesser prey, comfortable in their nests of bias.

I'm going to give them (SPLC and ADL both) the benefit of the doubt to start, and a clean slate with me. If they are what they say they are, they will be happy to join me (us?) in promoting a message of unity among all liberty-loving Americans of all races and creeds to ward off impending tyranny. If not, they will reveal themselves and their biases, which I will duly report to my readers as I have about my experiences with Glenn Beck's staff. There are others who, to protect their own pies, have refused to participate in this unifying message, whom I have yet to out as I haven't yet exhausted my benefit of doubt with them, or consolidated my position yet.

Regardless, I plan to reach out to those on their hate lists and give them the benefit of the doubt as well. This includes the Nation of Islam, which, as has been reported on WRS, has a history of encouraging its members to be on guard against tyranny. I can't tell you how proud I felt to be associating with Americans who would report this issue fairly. Thank you for that.

I can think of nothing more threatening to a tyrant than to have his minions take their hands off each others' throats (for those who are genuinely angry at each other), or refuse to be pitted against each other any more for his benefit. And then, in unison, demand that he step back from the precipice. It is our country, all of us, not that of tyrants or those who assist them. Nor the country of the electorate who would demand tyranny in its behalf.
"Reaching out" to racial collectives appalled me. This was my response, in part:
----- Original Message -----
From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: tom@starvemonkeypress.com
Cc: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: SPLC and ADL


It's not about fun. It's about attacking your enemy (and, I might add, the enemies of the Founders' Republic) on every level, at every opportunity, especially when you have an opportunity to get between his ears. I've been at this fifteen plus years and giving these professional liars "the benefit of the doubt" is from my experience merely naive. . .

Insofar as your fears of a race war, we all share them. See http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/08/vanderboegh-birmingham-race-and-armed.html ; However, having anything to do with the race collectivists at NOI or Stormfront merely discredits you . . .

(Pete, for your benefit: "The Political Cesspool is a weekly radio show syndicated by Liberty News Radio Network, Accent Radio Network, and Stormfront Radio, a service of the white nationalist and supremacist website Stormfront.org" -- Wikipedia.) . . .

My enemy is collectivism in all its forms. I do not attempt to find common cause with my enemies -- and those of the Founders' Republic -- out of some misplaced good intention or mistaken belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." A man who practices that ends up with no friends at the mercy of his enemies.

Indeed, were you to seek common ground with such people, you would either be:

a: Unconsciously giving support to SPLC's lie that we are the same or

b. Consciously attempting to discredit my cause, that of the Founders' Republic.

I have been through this shit in the 90s, when people, mostly out of a false sense of weakness, sought allies in all the wrong places. It was shitheads like Edwards that killed 176 of our people at OKC, all in a failed sting arranged by the FBI through their principal provocateur Andreas Carl Strassmeier. . . There isn't a neoNazi, Identity or Klan group in this country that doesn't have its own FBI control agent monitoring a half dozen CIs. And this ain't a new story. Where do you think the 1963 Birmingham church bombers got their dynamite? From Gary Rowe, the FBI informant. The Fibbies were very careful to wait until Rowe died to re-try the bombers for that very good reason. From my point of view, THERE IS NO COMMON CAUSE WITH COLLECTIVISTS. Period. End of story.

Look, I haven't read your book. I'm struggling to finish my own and don't have time at the moment. I skimmed it a bit and took Pete's word for it. You wanted a mention to get SPLC interested in you, I did that. I endorsed it. I can un-endorse it in a New York minute.

I urge you to reconsider attempting to find common ground with collectivists. Unless you are a collectivist yourself, there is none. From their point of view, they look at conservatives, libertarians or Christians who make common cause with them as merely useful idiots and future victims once they have served their purpose. Ever read The Turner Diaries? If not, you should.

But understand this if you don't already. This is not fun. It is not a game. It is a dangerous, deadly struggle played for keeps that has been going on for a long time. Our side cannot afford mistakes. Nor can we afford being identified with our enemies. So, choose this day whom you will serve.

Mike Vanderboegh
Baugh answered as follows in toto:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom (Starve Monkey Press)
To: georgemason1776@aol.com
Cc: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:48 am
Subject: Re: SPLC and ADL

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the impassioned email!

Let me quote you: "It's about attacking your enemy ... on every level..."

Let's now switch gears for a moment. We are on a path. Where we perceive we are on that path is reflected in our behavior. We can break the populace down into a few key groups and examine their beliefs.

1) Ostriches (some call these sheeple): Don't bother me, there is no problem.
2) Hopeful Activists: Things suck, but I think there is still a chance.
3) Skeptical Activists: I hope there is still a chance.
4) Careful Skeptics: There is no chance, so I'm treading carefully while I collect information.
5) Crypto: It's over the edge and I'm just waiting.

Where on this spectrum do you think I am? Where on this spectrum do you think my hard-core readers fall?

912 and Tea Party are in group 2. I think the 3Ps are in groups 3-5. I think that groups 3-4 will show up on 4-19, group 3 with guns, group 4 without. Group 5 isn't showing up for anyone, and not making a peep anywhere.

"Infiltrators": We have to assume that every movement is riddled with agent provacateurs who are trying to goad people into foolish action. Every movement. And of their victims the stupid ones are already in jail or dead or soon will be. Which leaves ...

Denounce or endorse, at your pleasure. I highly recommend that you take time to read it first, though. Doing either, or for the wrong reasons, without having read it might look foolish later.

You also might want to review your principles of 4GW.

And then ask yourself whether I am scaring the shit out of some people right now. And whether a lot of infiltration is getting teased out of hiding or otherwise rendering it impotent for getting good people killed or arrested just to serve a political agenda.

But even being denounced by you as a "collectivist dupe" can serve a purpose. I leave it up to your judgement.
So, with that last paragraph firmly in mind, I let the matter drop. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I figured that sooner or later the issue would resurface. And it has.

And now you know where each of us stands, I think.

If it remains unclear for any of you, feel free to comment and I will try to clarify.



Dedicated_Dad said...

Seems to me that Baugh's got some valuable input, and is another piece of the puzzle we'll need to sort to get to Restoration.

Like you I've often questioned his apparent anarchist leanings, but that's not enough to stop me from recommending his book and talks to others.

We're **LONG** past where we can afford to alienate all others who don't align with us 100%. While I agree with you about SF and the NoI, the difference to me is simple: including them would mean EXcluding others.

Add SF to the mix, and how many blacks do you think would join up?

Add NoI and... likewise whites.

We are the *TRUE* "rainbow coalition"...


Dakota said...

My reaction is that if Tom is trying to warm up to assholes he has a very "real" surprise coming.

Characterizing people in groups is a waste of time to me. You are either on the side that wins or loses. All these side issues are a distraction and another chicken shit reason to keep us apart and divided. My focus is restoration of Constitutional governance by whatever means necessary ... period!

Trust your instincts Mike ... they have rarely been wrong. I will support you in whatever you decide.

Sean said...

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

pdxr13 said...

Not mentioned is that serious #1's and #5's are almost indistinguishable until cornered or threatened.

Tom Baugh may be correct about some of his mass-man behavior predictions, which is likely right out of military history. People aren't different now than they ever were. We have new toys but the same motivations. Toys break/get lost, leaving classical scenarios involving hungry/tired/wet/cold/hot/angry/tribal/vengeful people.

I can understand the value of "reading out" to understand the teachings of various groups, but bringing the Jihad or Race War collectivists home sounds like a bad idea for me and mine.

They have us surrounded, the poor bastards.


Old Pablo said...

I have gotten more out of this website (sipseystreetirregulars) than any other source. A close second place goes to westernrifleshooters. To say it plainly, Mike's site is a great resource that has never steered me wrong. His willingness to admit mistakes and his knowledge of history set it apart. Good job, buddy.

Temnota said...

I read Tom's book on Pete's recommendation, and it has a lot of good information and some useful ideas, but in both the book and in other material from him, there's a common thread. "Sit tight, don't fight, if you do you'll die, just wait and everything will fall into your lap." An oversimplification and perhaps a little unfair to Tom, but sums up my impression.

My issue with this is twofold: I don't believe we're as helpless against the .gov and its Green Machine as he thinks we are, if it ever comes to that sorry pass, and I think that before the monkey collective collapses and the monkeys starve and the country is saved for liberty-lovers, a lot of really bad crap is going to come our way, and Tom and people who follow him will have passived themselves into a very solid set of chains backed by a very efficient security-and-surveillance state.

I think Tom's heart is in the right place, even if his head isn't (completely). I certainly don't lump him in with Pod Patriots like Glenn Beck, although I think both of them would lead us to the same failure. Use Tom's excellent analysis for the context it provides, but draw your own conclusions as to what to do about it.

Justin said...

I see your point of view, Mike. You make many good points, as does Tom. I think I wear a black hat in that I do not think, at this point, that our begging and pleading and demonstrating serves any useful purpose, other than to perhaps draw in like-minded souls. Writing and protesting and rallying earns us only the derision of the ruling class.

In that sense, and in the sense that I think the outcome of the current course is inevitable, I wear a black hat. Normally though, I prefer a multicam boonie. OD works, too.

Sometimes, one needs some sort of camo. Sometimes an inconspicuous color such as black works best, especially if you don't want to draw suspicion.

White hats? White hats don't stay white for long. They ALWAYS get stained and spoiled one way or the other. Usually with the stains of statism.


EJR914 said...

Characterizing people in groups is a waste of time to me. You are either on the side that wins or loses. All these side issues are a distraction and another chicken shit reason to keep us apart and divided. My focus is restoration of Constitutional governance by whatever means necessary ... period! Great post, Dakota. I couldn't agree more.

Anonymous said...

What I love best about these comments is the ability to see perspectives other than my own
(which can be wrong too) and then digest the whole thing. Tomorrow one can see things through new eyes, if so inclined. I am grateful for those of you who have a deeper understanding of the subject matter to enlighten others, myself included, so that some day we may all read from the same page.
I also recognize that we have the right to individuality, but for the common good we must be able to agree on more things too.
I see myself as a black hat also, just because I believe we are too far gone to vote/fix our way out of this quagmire. The shit will hit the fan in way too many directions before we can even think of implementing a new gov't. Come what may, we still need the tools to see that we restore the Republic.

Semper Fidelis, 0321

Anonymous said...

I read the book based on your reccommendation and was somewhat disappointed.
I think the main point he missed was that Tyrants do not voluntarily give up power. Freedom and liberty is not given to people, it is taken by people.
I also detected an unusually high level of egocentric platitudes and claims. I got the feeling he was stroking his ego at my expense.
I am 66 years old and have little formal education, however I base all of my decisions and conclusions on the premise that there is no free lunch. He is right in his opinion that we must starve the monkey and in my opinion the best way to do this is to make County and State government more powerful as it relates to Federal government.
We could easily eliminate over half of federal spending by eliminating many departments, Homeland Defense, BATFE, Education, etc.
In the meantime, I plan to vote against all incumbents with 2 notable exceptions.
Paul in Texas

Toaster 802 said...

To those statist of every stripe who they claim have us surrounded;

In the spirit of the soldiers of the 101st Airborne, and their General, Anthony Clement McAuliffe, and the United States Marine Corps and their most decorated Marine, Chesty Puller, The 3 percent give you a uniquely American answers to your claims of mastery and domination over us, free men who owe that freedom and a debt to those men who preserved it for us into this critical period in our republic's history. We say to you all;



All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time."


"Great. Now we can shoot at those bastards from every direction."

And finally;

"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."

Hugs and kisses, the Boonie hats.

Goodcomdeadcom said...

Greetings, and God bless.

Mr Baugh is honest and sincere, I believe (benefit of the doubt), but the black hat/white hat dichotomy is indicative of a dialectical framing of the thought process he is bringing to bear on the issue. Dialectics mandates movement. History and experience (as well as intent in too many cases) demonstrate that when the discussion/process/worldview is couched in dialectic terms the movement is always from foundation to shifting sand. That's why it's so useful to Marxists and other breeds of collectivists.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Any man who desires to make common cause with Storm Front and the Nation of Islam will have to surrender the "Judeo" of Judeo-Christian culture.

I am certain that the resultant political configuration would look utterly alien to those of us who labor assiduously to reclaim our God-given liberties.


Mayberry said...

Mike, all I can say is read the book, and the best part comes in the last couple chapters. But you've got to read the whole thing to truly appreciate the end. Y'all are not as far apart as you might think....

Anonymous said...

Patrick Henry was a black hat.

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.

Can't argue with that.

Dennis308 said...

1) Ostriches (some call these sheeple): Don't bother me, there is no problem.
2) Hopeful Activists: Things suck, but I think there is still a chance.
3) Skeptical Activists: I hope there is still a chance.
4) Careful Skeptics: There is no chance, so I'm treading carefully while I collect information.
5) Crypto: It's over the edge and I'm just waiting

Up until the Clinton years I was at stage 1. of this Grading if you will and I was surprised when Clinton won the election I could´t believe that people voted for such a bald faced liar, Smoked Dope But Did´t Inhale? It was beyond me to understand that the American Population Bought that story. The People that I knew would open up a can of whip-ass on someone for waisting their dope like that.

Then during the rest of the Clinton Years I was up and down this scale between stages 3 and 4 for the most part. Depending on the Tragedies, Investigations, Impeachment, and Acquittals.

After these Clinton years I went back I´m sorry to say to somewhere between stages 1. and 2. again up until the 2008 elections, You see It did not dawn on me that the Patriot Act would ever be used against Patriotic Americans or one Political Party against the other, Naive of me.

Now I can not see how people could not see Obama for the Socialist Raciest that he is. ¨Redistribute the Wealth¨
¨that so called church¨ in Chicago where the Pastor gives sermons about killing the ¨White Devils¨
I did´t know that we had so many socialists/progressives is what they call themselves this time around. Collectivists still and all.

It´s like you say Mike it sometime takes a little more to wake up some people and I guess I´m guilty of my Naivety. I know better but still try to have some trust of my fellow man.

Well to get on to where I´m going with all this B/S is after the 2008election, and first getting involved in The Tea Party Movement and then on to Oath Keepers (I´m a Merchant Marine)and then on to here Sipsey Street and Western Rifle Shooters and a couple of educational side steps. I can now say That I am somewhere between stage 4 and 5 and nearly some days to stage 6, I think you know where that is. I am sometimes ready to start this restoration that I now know is coming, or the attempt at least. But a voice of reason remind´s me of the history of hasty actions.

If Mr.Baugh does not wish to listen to you about the SPLC he travels that path by himself. We have seen the Biases of there views on the News Programs this year alone, To call or label the Little old Ladies of The Tea Party as Radical or Racist or a recruiting ground for extremists. Is all one should need to know about the SPLC it is they that are the Extremists, Anyone that would not agree with the Progressive/Socialist plan for a New Society is Dangerous to Civilized People Everywhere and should be Imprisoned or at least watched very closely, in their view at least.

Mr. Baugh will find himself on their list of Suspected Terrorists or Extremists or at least a Person of Interest before he will know the truth about the SPLC. Maybe them he too will awaken to how profound the danger is that we face in our lifetime the possible end to all personal Liberty for all Men. With the help of people like Mark Potoc and his SPLC.

You have offered your sound advice, If he chooses to head that wisdom the better off he will be. And if not may the lesson he will learn be a not to bitter pill to swallow.


Happy D said...

The thing I notice about Baugh is that if you don't jump on his band wagon (like Glenn Beck's staff) or question his view and/or plan. He gets pissy!

Mike B in NM said...

Mike, you better go read Pete's reply on WRSA. I'm the one who sent you the email. Look, what you need to understand is that we have the same goals and that even tho we don't always agree 100% on everything (how often does that happen between two grown men anyway?) we are extremely like minded. I agree with the "No more Ft. Sumpters" mantra. Fact is "Them" do have us surrounded. How in the hell did "Barack Hussein Obama" ever become POTUS?
I dont agree with everything Baugh says or does either but I wear a black hat. I'll exchange it for a boonie or a helmet if need be. I just won't be wasting any more time at rallies. I'm in the choir, I don't need the preaching.

Ace said...

One of the foundations of collectivism, in all of its forms, is to divide people into groups. Then, make you feel like you belong to one of the groups. Then, pit one group against another.

With his white hat / black hat comments and his list of groups on the "spectrum," Tom strikes me as yet another collectivist -- he just wants his group to be in control, instead of what we have now. No thanks.

Unless and until we start treating people as individuals rather than groups, tyranny will continue to flourish. Individual rights are the ultimate antidote to collectivism.

Anonymous said...

I bought and read the book last year.

I wish I had instead spent the $20 or so on another standard capacity magazine for an AR or something like that.

Baugh's whole thing is to make money by persuading people to buy his book, etc.

The way he does that is by posing as a different flavor of activist.

A standard way of posing as something new is to be antagonistic to what's come before.

Only the super-smart kool kids "get it," you know?

The people who go with the old ideas, well, they're just sheeple, or they've got good hearts, but are just deluded.

They don't really KNOW what all us kool kids know, you know?

And if you want to be one of the kool kids, in the know, and smarter than everybody, you'll buy my book, and go with my ideas, and show how independent and ruggedly individualistic you are by rejecting old ideas and following me.

Anonymous said...

Baugh and people like him who have made their feelings known should be commended for their bravery and forthrightness. Even if you disagree with some or most of their views, they have more guts than I do because they publicly speak up and confront the forces of evil head-on.
Sadly, they are also our canaries in the collectivist coal mine. The minions of the PTB will strike at them first. One-car accidents(remember Karen Silkwood?), sudden "heart attacks", IRS audits, midnight "boot and shoot" F-Troop exercises, kiddy porn or sex entrapment capers(remember Scott Ritter?), etc.
When these things come to pass, pay attention. The gloves will be off and the debate about no more Fort Sumters will be irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

It appears to me that D.D. and Mr Baugh are spouting M. Medved's big tent ideas that we should hope for a brighter future. Hope in one hand and..............

EJR914 said...

I think "Starving The Monkeys," has its good points, and some very useful tactics in it, but I'm still a threeper. That doesn't mean that I cannot read and learn some things from other perspectives. As a survivor, I will need to read as much as I can, gain as much knowledge as I can, and find out what works and what doesn't. It never hurts to take good knowledge and put it to use, even if you do not totally agree with everything someone says.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vanderboegh,

I first want to say that I find your site to be an invaluable resource and a comforting and reassuring force.

I don't think you or Mr. Baugh is completely wrong or right, but can we at least entertain the idea that the American Revolution was a complete and total aberration? Your writing and belief structure reference it quite a bit. It was a very noble and very "good" thing. As a student of history though, you have to admit that there has never been anything quite like it since, and certainly not since ancient times.

It was a fluke. It is uncomfortable to think so, but it is worth some thought. On top of that, the founding generation was appealing to an Enlightenment conscience that was still alive and well in a majority of the people. Is there such a conscience in today's America? Or anywhere?

I personally do not think so, but it is impossible to really know. I can only go by what I experience, and that experience tells me, with an almost overwhelming indifference, "no".

No matter how well-reasoned, fair, noble, honest, and liberty-minded your arguments are (and they very much are), they fall on deaf ears. There is no conscience to appeal to. Constitutional republican government requires both its elected official and its citizens to have a certain sense of honor. It is those deaf ears, and that lack of conscience that will be our undoing.

We are across the Rubicon as a people. There is no going back. The "best case" scenario would be a brutal civil war, and if we win, either independence or autonomy, but there will be no overarching political and intellectual awakening for the whole country, especially not by non-violent means.

Anonymous said...

Happy, guess you mean he gets pissy, like Mike. The are indeed not far apart in other ways too.

milton f said...

One of the tricks of the ruling class collectivists is to partition their subjects into groups.

Divide and conquer.

Having read Tom's book, and Mike's website regularly, it looks to me as if the two of you are just different branches of the same team.

We need to associate, not fragmentize.

Anonymous said...

Mike: It seems to me that "...black hats also understand that liberty, and a man's ethical claim to his rights, aren't dependent on, and shouldn't be dependent on, the whim of others, no matter to what numbers the tyrants may grow"

-- describes you.

Don't get hung up on the [poorly chosen] black hat reference.

Otherwise, excellent post.

The Wretched Dog

P.S. I'll call you later.

Dan III said...

Personally, I couldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with someone whose other shoulder was shoulder to shoulder with the NoI or Neo Nazis.
And I'd seriously have to question the judgment of anyone who thinks the SPLC has anything positive to offer.
He may have made a few astute observations about the differences between people, but supporting those groups?
They are the enemies of decent people.

sweettina2 said...

You are either a patriot or you're not, Baugh made it pretty clear which side he was on. We dont have time to waste on his monkey business. It's very clear by the actions of words of these men which one is honorable, you dont side up with the devil because you need numbers! One with courage is a majority!
Mr Vanderboegh, I have found you to be consistent,factual,and straightforward, I agree with all you said. I just pray that people would focus on the enemy, get him in your crosshairs and refuse to be distracted.

Anonymous said...

I was worried for a while there. I got the NoI, but the only SF I have been familiar with is Special Forces. And the Marines always spell out semper fi. I guess my focus has always been on enemies foreign.
My hat is grey. Didn't see that choice listed.
I picked up STM due to the mention on WRS. It has some useful info, which always helps. Just sift away what isn't useful.
Back to marking.


Happy D said...

No Anon at August 18, 2010 3:56 AM, I do not.
Mike is looking for volunteers. Baugh is looking for followers.
While I do want to read his book. Lord B does not handle disagreements, different points of view, or questions well.
His holy word of Baugh attitude puts you off fast up close. If he did not bring up so many good points people would have stopped listening to him long ago.

Dedicated_Dad said...

Anon said "It appears to me that D.D. and Mr Baugh are spouting M. Medved's big tent ideas that we should hope for a brighter future...

You couldn't be more wrong about me.

"Brighter future"? ROFLMAO!

As to "big tent"? I guess that's a matter of perspective. There's no room in *MY* tent for supremacists of any stripe, but I think it equally stupid to chase off those who agree with us on 90% or more, so long as that other 10% isn't truly unacceptable.

If you'll actually read my comment, I said "we can't afford to exclude ALL others who don't agree with us 100%" - that doesn't mean we shouldn't exclude ANY.

The question then becomes "where is the line?" I'm not sure, but I *AM* sure that SF/NoI are well beyond it.



I don't wear a hat....I still have all my hair!

I've read Mr. Baugh's book and found it interesting enough to finish. But...
I believe this country's founding was divinely inspired. Which also means that I believe the original Threepers were part of the divine wind that blew across this land and gave us this great nation that man has so corrupted. If the Lord in his wisdom sees fit to put us thru these coming trials, I for one am willing to bear that cross with my fellow Threepers.
My group and I will not under any circumstances make deals with the enemy to lighten that burden, we will depend solely on the kindness and grace of the Lord to restore that "shining light" on the hill.

Thanks for all you do Mike and God bless you and yours!
Now ruck up and back to the fray!


Boston T. Party said...

Had Baugh used a different metaphor (thus avoiding odious "black hat" imagery), how many objections to his point would remain?

Or had he not written a profit-oriented book, and only made a speech?

As with anything, pick off the meat and toss away the bone. There is little new and thought-provoking in our "genre", and I like many of Baugh's ideas. He doesn't seem to care if those disagree with him -- why can't the inverse be true?

Boston T. Party said...

Oh, and one other thing. I think it very UNcool to publicly post private emails discussing strategy about the SPLC, etc. Mike hadn't Baugh's permission to do so.

I mean, WTF?

With that kind of vindictive transparency, we needn't worry about the FBI, DHS, NSA, etc.

Terence Gillespie said...

Anger is the right reaction to getting the news that
the constitution has never been what you thought it was. Attacking
the messenger delivering that news is not.

Wright’s rant is more than obnoxious: It's divisive and accusatory for no
other reason than his desperate need to cling to a long held belief rather than
do the constant and hard work of questioning premises.

Here was Tom’s reaction to the same news (Reading Hologram of Liberty, that is):
“It is astonishing that this book, given its age, isn't the cornerstone of every libertarian or liberty event in the country. It is disturbing that so few people involved in those movements have read it, or in some cases, even heard about it. Neither had I, of course, but I was blown away when I read it. Now, many things make more sense, including the gut-level triteness of most neo-patriots, who cheer something they haven't taken the time to fully understand. Yet, this book explains why the protections of the Constitution necessarily shrink over time, while the powers expand without bound. Boston clearly explains why our current political environment is a direct consequence of the Constitution, and not in spite of it.”

That's the kind of willingness to revisit long held
beliefs, and recalibrate every action and strategy accordingly, that makes
me want to read Tom's STM, although he wrote it before reading Boston's HOL.