Monday, August 16, 2010

What Tom Baugh would have said.



Bad Cyborg said...

Careful, Dutchman. I think Baugh was taking a swipe at YOU!

In the text of Baugh's speech, 2nd paragraph, he says "If so many people are dependent on checks, either directly or indirectly, from the government, can you count those people?"

I do not care that you are receiving a check from the Feds. That does not make me respect you one iota less. Hell, MY OWN (and only) SON is receiving a couple of checks from Uncle for being 100% disabled from the Army.

But I don't know this Baugh fellow. I don't know if he has an "agenda". He sure is working his way toward my bad side with comments like that. You are no man's slave. Nobody on earth calls your tune.

Mike, if I read Baugh right, he would classify you and all threepers as "black hats". Baugh would appear to consider anyone who anticipates a revolution and considers a "2nd amendment solution" to the problem of the Federal Government to ba a black hat.

That man "bears watching". Indeed, he bears watching. I woldn't mind him on the same line with me in a fire fight but I sure as HELL wouldn't want him behind me! I got no desire to experience "friendly fire".

Bad Cyborg X
"Burying your head in the sand only makes your ass a better target."

daniel said...

Bad Cyborg,

I've known Baugh and have been familiar with his ideas since lat 2009 when I first started putting together the original Restore the Constitution rally.

Baugh's ideas are outside of the box, uncomfortable, and controversial, but they are worth considering and addressing. I've read his book, "Starving the Monkeys" and would recommend it highly to anyone seriously concerned about the struggle between individual liberty and liberty.

This struggle goes beyond personalities and this group or that. It's not abut who takes a swipe at who. I don't care if Baugh "takes as swipe" at me or says something that appears to----his ideas are still worth taking a look at! Look at the text of his planned speech, he appears to "take a swipe" at the rally itself. But he still showed up and delivered a great speech. I will have a rebuttal of his text in due time. It is good to have intelligent, contrarian voices to help flesh things out. If all we do is associate with those who already agree with us 100%, we don't get anywhere.

One last question I have to ask, Bad Cyborg:

Were you at either of the two RTC rallies this past weekend??

-Dan Almond

Slobyskya Rotchakokov said...

Hey, Daniel, great idea, let's have a pissing contest.
You ask if Cy was at an RTC rally, as if that would be a boost to his street cred. What do you know about him? Do you know if he has ( like I do ) a sick, bedridden loved one who needs constant care? Do you know if he is physically able to travel? And I could throw in the capper - Daniel, with all due respect, were YOU in Vietnam? Don't use age as an excuse... it would be as unfair for ME to ask YOU if you were in Nam, or Gulf I, as it is for you to disrespect Cyborg with the implication that maybe he just isn't QUITE as 'elite' as those who were able to make it.
And sure, the Rise of Elitism in the three per cent ranks is exactly what we need, ain't it?

So, kudos to all involved in making the rally happoen, but it does sound hollow when one and the same person claims that honest disagreement should be welcome, THEN turns around and impugns someone ( Bad Cy) who dares to do exactly that.
Good times, good times.

Slobyskya Rotchakokov said...

PS - just for the record - I did read, and strongly agree with, just about everything Baugh said; I would cover his six any time, and trust him to do likewise for me.
My point, which I may have not expressed clearly, is that we may have honest differences of opinion among ourselves, but we don't need to use what WE do as the standard to judge whether others should have a right to say their piece, too.
And FWIW, my Black Hat still fits just fine and hangs on the end of my rifle stand.

Bill (Bad Cyborg) Mullins said...

Mr. Almond asked me "Were you at either of the two RTC rallies this past weekend?? "

No, I was not. New Mexico was the closest one but I did not have the money to buy gas and pay for lodging to make the 1,200 ile round trip (as opposed to 1,400 miles one way to SC).

Does that make me less of a patriot? Are we to be judged now by attendance at rallys? I gave a decade of my life in service to this country. Is that to my credit or debit? I am preparing to defend my family when the troubles come. I plan to support the Threepers in every way I can. Does the fact that plan to be a 10%er instead of a 3%er make me less as a patriot? My body is too messed up these days to be any use in offensive infantry operations. But I can read and I can lear and I can plan defenses to protect hearth & home, kith & kin in the coming storm. Does that make me a 2nd class patriot?

BTW, I read Baugh's speech as posted - watched the Dutchman's as well - and I think the man is not only out of the box but out of line and way, Way, WAY off the reservation. The idea that people who consider the system to broken to be used to fix it are "black hats" (bad guys in common parlance) is utterly out of line. He makes himself the measure of all things patriotic and then condemns any who do not agree with him. In what way is that different from the so-called "progressives"?

I consider Tom Baugh to be divisive and utterly out of line. I support his right to publish his ideas but I do not support his ideas.

But who am I? I'm nobody. I have no special qualities. I don't have any fancy website nor does my personal blog receive hundreds (thousands?) of hits per day. I'm just one broken down old man who sees what is coming and is trying to get ready as best as he can.

Are we to have elites on THIS side now? Because your words are starting to sound like that to me, Mr. Almond. I bow the knee to no man, Sir. I would follow the Dutchman till my heart gave out. But I would not bow the knee to him - not that believe he would ever ask it. You, I do not know about.

Bad Cyborg X(?)
"People who jump to conclusions seldom stick the landing."

aughtsix said...

I would remind you that Baugh prefaced his "white/black hat" analogy by directing it to two groups: leo's and the press.

He asked them to consider his remarks in that light and act accordingly.

He was not deriding three percenters or rally attendees (white hats), except to the extent that he believes optimism to be unwarranted, nor was he deriding "black hats" as evil. He was trying to get the attention of establishment running dogs and lackey: cops and propagandists.

To no avail, I fear.

If he also caused many of us to face unpleasant reality and with unblinkered analysis, so much the better.

The world of the Founders, which we so rightly revere, was a much smaller, more coherent, moral and simpler one than that in which we struggle to navigate. I hold little hope that we may be able to "Restore the Constitution" (or any other semblance of order) in the face of the disintegration of society and the devolution of morality with which we are faced.

"All politics is local," someone said, to which I would add, "So is survival... ultimately so."

Keep prepping.



Defender said...

I think Patrick Henry would have donned the black tricorn hat. Something about being spurned from the foot of the throne with grievances unredressed, and with increased pressure of tyranny from the king as a reward for daring to even ask.
I think that's what Mr. Baugh was gettting at. There's a difference between people who ARE of necessity dependent on government checks and people who CHOOSE TO BE. It's the federally-subsidized mortgages, student loans and research grants that keep people from speaking up. Even tax refunds could be ... um, delayed ...if massa hears too much complaining in the fields. Rationing our confiscated money back to us was one of the smartest and most evil things big government ever came up with.
I know people who gave up writing and calling their representatives long ago. They are simply prepared and watching.
Only the insane would WANT a black-hat scenario, but it's not up to us, is it? The insane are not exactly under-represented in political office.

Anonymous said...

"Mike, if I read Baugh right, he would classify you and all threepers as "black hats". Baugh would appear to consider anyone who anticipates a revolution and considers a "2nd amendment solution" to the problem of the Federal Government to ba a black hat."

Nope. Baugh thinks all those who were there, that means everyone, was a "white hat." Only he, and THOSE WHO WERE NOT THERE, are the black hats. He thinks you all are still hugging the false phantom of hope. How does he know? Well, he just knows. It is the world according to Baugh.

Baugh thinks that the only way for liberty to survive is for tens of millions of people (billions even?) must die. When he talks of starving the monkeys, he means he literally wants millions of Americans, those he considers "monkeys" to starve. Go read his stuff. And it is not just the hats that are black and white in his world. You are either a monkey who must be starved, or you are a "good guy." There is no in between. There is no hope of winning hearts and minds. There is no saving them - just hope they all starve to death and do your best to make that happen. That is his message. No doubt if he had the ability to set off an EMP, he would do it.

He thinks you are all, including Mike, rubes for even talking about the Constitution and oaths. He thinks you are dolts UNLESS you read his book and then adopt his mass-murder, genocidal world view.

Just exactly who invited this man?

Anonymous said...

Bill said (of Baugh):

"He makes himself the measure of all things patriotic and then condemns any who do not agree with him. In what way is that different from the so-called "progressives"?"

Exactly. If you don't see it his way, you are not a REAL patriot. You are a self deluding fool. His speech should have started with:

"I want to thank the organizers, because they have done something phenomenal here. They've invited ME! Yes, I am PHENOMENAL! Bow before my penetrating brilliance! (you ladies can wait till after my speech and experience, personally, more of my brilliant penetration)."

That would at least have been more honest. Some of what he says is true (as is always the case would demagogues who think they know the one true way), but much of it is fatally flawed thinking.

He reminds me of a Marxist "leader" who thinks he (and only he) knows who is living in false consciousness and is therefore part of the problem and must be purged out of the Revolution and starved (or shot) along with the rest of the bourgeoisie "monkeys."

For him, it is either or. All who are not pure must be purged! The only way to institute the Revolution and true human happiness is to rid the world of all those who have been irretrievably brainwashed by the elites! For the human race to survive, they must die by the millions! That is his message. Go read his book (and yes, I have read it).

In his world view there is no chance of changing minds or winning people over to the cause of liberty that benefits all. All those who are not pure must die.

And he will tell you who is pure, to the point of even condemning fellow speakers at the event as being impure and tainted.

What an ass.

Nanders said...

I have not read Tom's book, but have checked out a few of his youtube videos as well as his website.

Here is an exact quote from his website "Oh, and for all you veterans (of which I am one, as readers of Starving the Monkeys know all too well), remember that oath you took to the Constitution? Your oath was obtained by fraud, and as such, you are ethically released from any obligation to it. So proceed accordingly. Don't believe me? Then read this book and decide for yourself."

He was talking about how he endorses some book that completely turned his view of the constitution upside down. The way he flippantly talks about changing his mind regarding a major MAJOR fundamental like that leaves me a bit cautious (to put it nicely) about Tom Baugh.
the url to the page I copied the quote from

So you heard it from tom everyone, f*&% your constitutional oath... I don't think so tommy...

Anonymous said...

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.


Anonymous said...

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.


Nanders said...

If this kind of request is inappropriate for the comments section, please delete without posting. I will not make a habit of this.

I would be interested in having you help me through a few questions. If you are not comfortable doing that or don't have the time, I understand.

My email is

Anonymous said...

I read Tom Baugh's book. I cannot usually afford such a luxury. I believe his book could be summarized in a few pages. It is a shame that pride affects so many of us. I was turned off with his lack of modesty in the book. He did make a valid point in his speech (thankfully short) in that we have to keep a critical eye on conditions. Mike on the other hand for his brilliant writing always demonstrates modesty.
It is my belief that pride is the mother of all sins and unfortunately for us our .gov is brimming full of hubris.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen (now don’t be insulted because I called you that),

Please help me out here. Some time in the last several months, someone of note said of the RTC rallies, something along the lines of "These are not the people you need to be worrying about! These people still believe that the system can work and that the situation can be salvaged though the normal, peaceful, political means. But for every one of them here, there are at least 10 who are not here, because the no longer believe that. Those are the ones you need to worry about, because they are the ones who are sure that this will come to blood shed. And they are making ready for it."

Now am I hallucinating, or did someone really say that? I cannot find my original reference.

I do think that the above statement has some bearing on what Tom may have been saying.

And it should have some impact on what we are thinking, regardless of what we are saying.

Dennis308 said...

What Tom says about the Media and Law enforcement is All to True in this speech.

I don´t see any change of course by either coming soon. So I guess I´ll have to wear my Black Hat and hope that there is enough of us to make A Resoration after TSHTF.


daniel said...


I merely asked a question. No need to read into it and imply there's a pissing contest where there isn't one. It's completely unfair to imply "disrespect" or "having a pissing contest" merely by asking questions.

To answer your question, I was not in Vietnam. I hadn't been born yet by about a decade. I was however in Iraq, having volunteered for several tours after seeing combat the first time.

Nothing wrong with asking questions and answering them. See how I answered your question without assuming there's a pissing contest going on?

I ask the RTC question because there are, believe it or not, some folks who do talk the talk online but pass on the opportunity to walk the walk. There are some who are able to easily attend but choose not to.

Anonymous said...

I must need to examine my thought and information collecting processes. They've never failed me before but it may be that I'm losing it!

I could have sworn that Baugh's speech, was describing his take, on the reality of our situation. The fact that some of us, would like to see a peaceful restoration. The fact that there are those of us, who do not now believe that will be possible. The fact that there are some of us, who are somewhere in the midst of forming, that latter opinion..... He wasn't lying.

The truth is, we are in a tough situation and absolutely no one is going to extricate us. They only want to extricate our liberties and properties, our minds and those of our children. They have thrown down the gauntlet before us, and now dare us, to pick it up. Evidently, no one ever slapped them with one before, and then inserted it into their rectum.

His point regarding ignoring the Constitution, bringing us to this calamity, was well taken. We have no shortage of those who have and will continue to do, just that. The question is how long we will take it. Just as Jefferson said it was with a tyranny, and the people's tolerance of it.

Dedicated_Dad said...

AughtSix beat me to it, but...

Read again, people.

Baugh's white-hat/black-hat comments were specifically addressed to the media/cops present.

While I agree his "black-hat" characterization was inaccurate, it certainly fits the view of the people to whom the comments were addressed.

Let's not pick a fight with potential allies...