Timing is everything. I am taken to task by yet another long-time reader and supporter on the charge of censorship.
There are comments and then there are comments that require thought and response from me. Thought -- and the distillation of that thought into words -- takes time, at least it does for me. Consequently, if I don't have time to think and respond when I get the comment, I hold it, flag it for response and then come back to it. I usually then give it a more prominent position of its own, rather than see it buried where most won't return. Yesterday I posted this link to a Kurt Hofmann piece, "U of K journalism professor's anti-NRA hate mongering is just latest example."
Shortly thereafter I received this comment from long-time reader and supporter Sean:
Seems to me this article of David's wreaks of hypocrisy since I've repeatedly seen members here at Sipsey, on War on Guns and WRSA advocate the killing of traitorous elected officials AND their families when the SHTF. Killing innocents is killing innocents, isn't it? Sean.
Now, I flagged this comment for later response because it contains some points that are important to hit, as well as some misconceptions about this blog, at least, and the killing of innocents. It seemed to me that if Sean, a man who I respect and admire, could make these errors then others could too. The man, and the comment, deserved a thoughtful reply.
Yesterday was a rough day, and I didn't get around to the task, putting it off until today with the thought that it could wait. I was wrong. I then received this from Sean:
Censorship is so unbecoming of you Mike.....not posting my earlier comment that OUR SIDE has uttered the same crap about killing innocents doesn't make it untrue. After your blocking Warrior Class from responding to your public commentary....I guess I gave you far too much credit for actually practicing what you supposedly preach and being a man of principle. Turns out that like most of us fallible human beings, you are very much the flawed hypocrite that we all can be and hopefully strive to overcome. Get your shit together man. You are far too valuable to fall prey to things like being petty and censorship. Sean
Now, what Sean is referring to is a similar situation Sunday last when I responded to a comment by Warrior Class with its own stand-alone post as well: "Warrior Class takes me to task, upcoming plans and reflections on two decades."
In this post, I agreed with Warrior Class' criticism:
But like Warrior Class I am never satisfied with my work, so I offer no defense to his critique. His thoughts track with my own.
And after he received some unfairly rough criticism of his own from other readers, I commented:
Cut Warrior Class some slack. He's been a mainstay of support for a long time and if that doesn't give him the right to bitch I don't know what does.
Agreeing with a friend's critique, giving that opinion a more prominent venue, and then defending his right to have that opinion seems to me a strange form of censorship.
Yet, like Warrior Class, as a long-time supporter and reader, Sean has earned the right to criticize me. This is my reply to Sean's original comment:
Sean, you mistake Kurt Hofmann's post for David's but allowing for that it concerns me when you write, "Seems to me this article of David's wreaks of hypocrisy since I've repeatedly seen members here at Sipsey, on War on Guns and WRSA advocate the killing of traitorous elected officials AND their families when the SHTF." If there is one thing that I have been crystal clear on, I thought, was that the killing of innocents was strictly forbidden according to my understanding of the Three Percent rules of engagement. So when you conclude, "Killing innocents is killing innocents, isn't it?" you are certainly correct. I know that David Codrea and Kurt Hofmann both hold to this principle as well.
Of course I cannot answer for Pete at WRSA. Indeed, the issue of Kerodin and Company advocating the killing of innocents -- and Pete's endorsing of Kerodin with his own stamp of approval -- is one of the principal reasons for my criticism of Kerodin, Nye, et. al., and my split with Pete. I hate it, but I lost a good friend over this very issue. So I reject your claim that Sipsey Street, or the original codification of the principles of the Three Percent done by me, in any way countenances the killing of innocents. Hence, in my opinion at least, I cannot be guilty of "hypocrisy."
I asked Warrior Class to contact me by email or phone after the post so that we could sort things out and I could make my apologies for his apparent misconceptions or any unintentional slights I may have dealt him. He has not replied. I repeat that offer now, and make the same one to you. I value both of you, as freedom fighters and as friends. If I have unintentionally given offense to either of you, I humbly apologize. It is unfortunate, but it seems timing is everything, and my timing has been off lately.
The subsitution of the term 'non-combatant' for 'innocents' lends a keener degree of accuracy on what is, and is not, concurrent with Just War Doctrine, wouldn't you say?
Much easier to define 'non-combatant' for ROE in this scenario.
Mike, I just logged on and saw what you're talking about. I am not the Sean who sent this. Take a look at my address and you'll see that it's not. When I have criticisms of you, I usually keep it to myself. And yes, I agree whole heartedly with your "don't kill the innocents" advise. Don't know who this "Sean" is, but it's not me.
[This doesn't belong here, and you can erase this comment if you like, Mike.]
Night vision for SCAR costing $70
When one sends a comment, especially in criticism, one should expect a delay if the goal is a thoughtful response. Now, if the goal is simple hammering, often written in haste, mistakes can and do happen. The Kurt David error is an example.
You are not on anyone else's timetable Mike and you are also not on anyone's content requirement either.
It saddens me that folks want to critique you and then bail, most especially when you do take the time to form posts of their own as stand alone responses. It strikes me as a little odd though that warriors complaint is about your original content and you've now had to spend valuable time addressing others demands about your time spent taking you away from forming content one so demanded.
For what it's worth Mike, I read your blog daily because I WANT to and I'm happy with what you offer. It's not my place to make demands on you or give you orders. Why some feel it is there place is where the real hypocrisy rests!
Good folks reject the killing of innocents by target yet understand that this does not mean innocents do not die in war. Some conflate those two things as if there is a moral equivalent and their contrivance is exposed as a result. IE- targeting innocent people at a eatery with a homicide bombing is NOT the same thing as destroying enemy hideouts where military planning is being done and-or arms are stored and the enemy is using human shields to "defend" that installation. That is collateral damage that is the fault of the enemy -as the innocents were NOT targeted.
To all those who would try to synonomize the two- piss off. Your own dishonesty betrays you and exposes the real and true hypocrisy.
Warfare cannot be waged absent death. The difference between good and evil in warfare is simple - one side will do everything possible short of not fighting back at all to avoid collateral damage while evil not only targets innocents of their enemies but also willingly and intentionally makes their own innocents targets by using them as human shields. Some do not, can not, or will not recognize the crystal clear line between the two but that creates a line of its own, I submit. It establishes those willingly blind individuals as being part of the problem rather than the solution AND can even serve to place those doppelgängers on the side known as enemy combatants.
Let's see if you have the integrity to publish this comment, Mike.
In your post this AM [ http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/09/timing-is-everything-i-am-taken-to-task.html ], you stated:
Of course I cannot answer for Pete at WRSA. Indeed, the issue of Kerodin and Company advocating the killing of innocents -- and Pete's endorsing of Kerodin with his own stamp of approval -- is one of the principal reasons for my criticism of Kerodin, Nye, et. al., and my split with Pete. I hate it, but I lost a good friend over this very issue...
I am not sure whether you are dishonest, delusional, or simply weak of memory, but to claim that your "split" with me had to do with the advocacy re the killing of innocents is simply not true.
Your "split" with me actually had to do with your shameless behavior towards someone who had never personally wronged you, and against whom you repeatedly hurled poisonous invective for no good reason. I and several other formerly-close associates tried to dissuade you from that path, to no avail. As you continued to publicly spew self-aggrandizing divisiveness and rancor, I had to accept who you really are, and how the good qualities of a man are often obscured by his weakness and human frailty.
So be it.
I sure wish that you would spend the time you waste on navel-gazing posts such as this one instead on the completion of "Absolved" and its two companion volumes. Doing so would do much to repair the embarrassment you have caused yourself and others on that and other topics, while also advancing the cause of freedom in the former United States.
In the meantime, don't bullsh*t yourself or others as to why old friends have turned away.
You know better.
Your former amigo,
This so called movement will "never" amount to a damned thing. We might as well roll over and surrender to the commie mother fuckers who wish to enslave us. How in the fuck can anyone come to the conclusion that you condone the killing of innocents? Any and I do mean ANY son of a bitch that I catch killing innocents has just signed his/her own death warrant! Any other stupid questions?
You are right again, Mike. We don't advocate the killing of innocents. Quite the contrary. Their 'innocent wives' will get retrained. Their innocent children will get properly schooled in conservative patriotism. Knowledge of this should give the enemy the worst case of constipation they have ever had in their lives.
Well, anyone who mistakes my work for David's has honored me greatly, albeit unintentionally.
You do serve a purpose, to drive true American Patriots to the right place. True patriots will not follow some filthy inner circle COMMIE. The III was started in 1776, you may have revived it, but how dare you take credit for starting the III you commie piece of crap.
Kerodin is doing far more for freedom than your lazy ass will ever do. You site seems only up to satisfy your own smugness. You don't help patriots at all the way Kerodin does. Wheres your patriot swap shop, wheres your link to get cheap armor to protect fellow patriots and their families, no links to seeds, guns, pat-con or anything else useful. Your a waste of space, go to russia or north korea, maybe china, somewhere you will do more good than being a false prophet here. Don't post this, it was just for you mikey...asshole.
If they are innocent, I have no problem leaving them completely alone.
Some little kid going to school, or playing in his backyard is not the same as his father who is going door to door rounding people up.
It would also be ineffective to go after the family members. Let's say we shoot some SOB's kid while he's walking to school, what then? Will that stop the SOB from carrying out his orders? Or will the SOB be more firmly on the side of doing the state's bidding?
Now, let's play Devil's Advocate for a minute: Where do you draw the line between "innocent" and "not-innocent"?
Some kid or spouse, who may or may not know what is going on with their parent's/spouse's job, and just going about their lives, not involved in the actual act? I would put them in the "innocent" category, and leave them totally alone.
Someone going door to door, collecting guns, and rounding up people for the camps: Clearly "not-innocent".
What about the person who pushes the button to release the gas in the gas chambers, killing thousands of people each day? Obviously "not-innocent".
Now... What about the young woman in the Human Resources department of the camps?
Sooner or later, the guy who pushes the button to release the gas, or the guy who maintains the gas chambers, or the guy who makes the delivery of the to-be-used gas to kill people will miss punching out for his lunch break, and will have to correct that mistake.
Does that young women, who doesn't directly kill anyone, and just does hours upon hours of paperwork every day for the people who do the killing, making sure the paychecks arrive and are handed out, fixing the time clock mistakes, making sure all the hours that can be given out are fully scheduled, deserve to die?
That is a case of the grey area somewhere between "innocent" and "not-innocent".
And ... another thing.... how dare you horses asses accuse Mike of doing something you ought to know better. 1st of all it is his friggin blog and he can put anything up he wants to. If you don't like it get your own blogs and see how you do.
I happen to know how poor Mike's health is, and I consider it amazing he can do what he does do. Jesus, I am so pissed!!!
I didn't mean to even REMOTELY imply that you, David, Kurt (for those that don't know, the "owners" of Sipsey, War on Guns, a writer for Examiner) have EVER advocated the killing of innocents.
I have NEVER, NOT ONCE seen any of you write such things.
Pete's another story....I can't directly recall HIM particularly ever advocating it but his site can be pretty militant at times, so I'll leave it at that.
My apologies about mistaking David and Kurt's work....I saw the Examiner post and immediately mistook it for David.
What I was referencing is commentary by anonymous posters to this blog in the comments section wherein they call for the hunting down of people's children and other family members and even friends, pets, etc. Mark Matis (IIR his name Correctly) was HORRIBLE about this....But others have made those same comments here. That was the hypocrisy of which I spoke coming from "our" side...though I'd wager the vast majority of your readers do NOT agree with those sentiments.
All I was saying (and I've said it before but without the term 'hypocrisy')...was that we need to rise above that. If we fall prey to retribution killings when this all pops off, we are no better than the evil we seek to eliminate and are likely just as tyrannical as those we wish to replace with "our version" of liberty.
I know both you and David (and likely Kurt) agree with only going after those responsible...we agree 100% on that, but we must reiterate it whenever it crops up. Kurt's article is really a fringe example of the left's hatred for guns and their owners and shows their blood lust while claiming to seek peace and non-violence. The hypocrisy on our side, what made the article hypocritical, is not acknowledging that we have 3pers that have this same blood lust and hatred in their hearts, yet claim to seek liberty and equality for all.
I apologize for the censorship comment. I held my comment at first b/c I wasn't sure if maybe you just hadn't gotten to it...but then later saw other blog posts below that particular one which you had allowed comments to be posted to. I didn't realize you wanted/needed some time to respond.
I will also admit wrong doing in that I had heard the story about Warrior Class and it struck a cord with me. I was saddened to hear the allegations of censorship in his case wherein he was not allowed (by you) to reply to the comments section on the blog post you started about him and his critique. I wanted to reach you, to speak to the upright character I've come to know when talking about Mike Vanderboegh. My comment did that...but I'm the one who was in the wrong here not you, so I hope you can forgive my stinging comments meant to elicit a response where you'd think about censorship of those who admire and agree with you on most topics. It was meant to be sharp, yet constructive criticism to get you to examine your position.
Also, it was never my intent to make the Warrior Class censorship public....so to Warrior Class, my apologies.
Hopefully that clears the air and you can forgive my rush to judgement.
PS. I am just as flawed and hypocritical as anyone....but, like you, when someone calls me out for it, I can be introspective enough to recognize it and address it. I wrote what I did with the best of intentions, to show you the error of your ways (if you DID censor WC to block him from posting to the comments section of the blog post about him). I hope that was just a fluke or a misunderstanding and that no censorship was involved.
All the best.
"Your 'split' with me actually had to do with your shameless behavior towards someone who had never personally wronged you, and against whom you repeatedly hurled poisonous invective for no good reason."
Our memories differ on key points, Pete. You made your bed with a convicted, self-admitted federal extortionist whose business practices are to say the least serially shady to the point that he threatens lawsuits and demands compensation from people who use the Roman numeral III -- and, who has in the past said that the innocent family members of enemy combatants are legitimate targets. I have done my best to defend the III ideal against profanation and exploitation. I make no apologies for that.
David Codrea's comment here: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2013/09/standing-with-mike.html
"I am not the Sean who sent this."
Sean, I am darned glad to hear that. The comments don't show source emails and I just assumed it was you. My deepest apologies.
Hey, did anyone on this blog ever see Vanderboegh post anything as St. Michael? No, it's because he is human. Humans are susceptible to error. His heart and hands are clean! For shit sake, let it go. We have enough enemies trying to drive a wedge into the movement. Real bottom feeding scum, that.
Back to the topic of non-combatants:
Civil wars can be messy and some of us can take war personally.
If General Sherman burned my house in 1864, I'd surely want to torch his, and I wouldn't much care who was in it, any more than he cared who was in mine.
A more modern example: If a so-called law enforcement officer perjures an affidavit (like claiming that he made a controlled drug buy at my house) in order to participate in a death squad raid on me and mine, there better be some swift and serious explaining and apologizing (oops, we got the address wrong) or he isn't going to like what I do at his house next week.
The SSI blog has a photograph predominantly displayed in the right column, showing a goon soldier executing a person holding a child. Presumably the child was killed also.
That same photograph I have seen at other websites/blogs which are of the freedom movement. It seems the simple display of the photograph would say something about the blog owner; "I am against tyranny. Period."
I believe SSI, WRSA, Free North Carolina, NC Renegade and many, many others would adhere to that statement.
I have three sons. When they were growing up, they argued and fought with each other frequently. Despite my intervention, they continued until one day I saw an object lesson in the making. In the eave of my workshop was a nest of red wasps. The wasps fought with each other frequently and would clasp onto each other. Unable to fly, they would fall to the ground, at which time I would smash them with my boot.
That day my boys were arguing again, and as I looked up at the nest, I said, "Watch this."
The wasps did the expected: fought, clasped, fell to the ground.
I quickly smashed the wasps and then said to my sons, "If you fight among yourselves, someday someone will come and kill you just the same. Love one another, fight the enemy."
Unless we get our act together, the goons will come and shoot us as we fight each other or as we stand helplessly holding our children.
First of all, I shouldn’t have made my comment in anger or in public since it was a private matter and my public comment was inappropriate. But I’m not perfect and acted in anger, and for that I apologize.
As you know, I had sent you 1000 .308 bullets, at some effort and expense on my part, and I never received any response, email or any indication from you that you’d received them or even thanking me for that gift.
This was the second time I had sent you a package, at no small expense to me, with no response from you or even the common courtesy of a ‘thank you’ that even an uneducated heathen would extend. That’s what really pissed me off, not so much your lack of original posts. And I never asked for, nor expected, a ‘thank you’ for all the monetary support me and my wife have sent to you, since that was our ‘thank you’ to you for all you have done, so that part of your post was irrelevant to what I was pissed off about.
But then you held me out for public scorn and framed the entire situation to make yourself look so magnanimous while making sure my side of the story never emerged by blocking me from making any further comment. Seemed funny to me you suddenly had time from your busy schedule to finally write something original, though at my expense.
Now for some reason this has come up again and you say that you had asked me to contact you. Perhaps that statement was only for public consumption, because I never received that email or phone call from you. That being the case, my response is to this post, as is your request that I contact you.
If there’s anything further, you have my email address and phone numbers.
Mike, I think we are all getting a little testy and irritated with all the bad things taking place politically and socially at this time, and like a family with children, when one is out of sorts, not feeling well or something bad outside the house occurred, the child will take it out on mom or dad. In these recent incidents you clearly have the role of dad and as such you must administer the truth boldly, fully and in love. BTW, I think you've done just that! And it is a lesson to all of us that there's a whole lot more each of us can do to make right what's so wrong in America, through peaceful and productive means. Until the bell rings loud and clear, we all have work to do to turn things back on the right track, so let's all get busy!
Sean and all of the other whiners get a grip Mike has done more than all of you put together.get a life
I find it amazing at how easily we will argue and fight over such miniscule things when compared to the real problems we face together.. maybe its just nerves fraying before what might be a blow up soon or maybe everyone's skin is worn too thin after all the years of crap we've endured and it hasn't even started.
Unless you'se guys wanna put on the gloves..(we could sell tickets),
..it aint nuthin' but a thing, Dont mean nuthin'
Well, Mike, you know where I stand and always have; you know I agree wtih 99 per cent of your own philosophy, and it is true that NO Sipsey Streeters ever advocate killing innocents. Having said that, I had also thought Pete was a friend, having met him at the guns show with you, years ago. BUT I had written to him a couple of times, when my wife was in the early stages of dying, just hoping for some moral / prayer support, and never got any reply, not even an FU. So I assumed that he just didn't want any converse with anyone associated with you. But that is his loss. I have friends who are true and whom I trust with my life. And when you showed up at my wife's funeral, as sick as you were, that touched my heart more than you will ever know in this life.
To those who don't like you, as my old Uncle Walter was wont to say- F*ck 'em and feed 'em fish heads."
Mike - why even bother with these assholes?
First, let me say that I am always amazed at how people who really have nothing substantive to offer the world, so quickly and easily criticize the work of others. If those people who disagree with you have something to say, they should start their own blog and see who gives two shits about their opinion. Let them endeavor to build a presence on the web, based on a lifetime of experience and see if anybody cares? They don't dare do it for two reason; one is because it actually requires effort and it is easier to criticize what SOMEBODY ELSE has done then to build something yourself and second, they risk facing criticism from other equally lazy losers that would utterly destroy their tiny little egos. The only reason anybody hears them at all is because YOU posted their nonsense on YOUR blog. Pathetic, really.
It also amazes me how seriously people take this blog. Not that it isn't absolutely worth-while, informative, honest and educational. It certainly is - but from the response of these people, you'd think their entire universe was built around your opinion and your blog. These guys act like their lives depend on what you write on the web.
I would say to these easily offended, pansy-assed cowards; Get a gripe, man - there's an entire internet out there full of blogs - and probably a few you might actually like. If you don't like Mike or what he says, if you don't agree with him - that's fine. Go ahead and send your comments - but Mike is not obligated to acknowledge you. This is his blog and within this blog, he is GOD. If you want to be heard, go build your own blog and see if anybody listens to you whiny little bitches.
Dakota nailed it but I have one point to make.
Circular firing squads do not a movement make. We're way past fighting amongst ourselves over a trifle or a pissing contest.
Who gives a good goddamn who said what to whom and who got pissed on or who's comment never got posted.
Man the fuck up and deal with it. We're all adults and infighting ONLY HELPS THE ENEMY.
ONE TEAM. ONE FIGHT.
Okay, more than one point. So sue me.
Thrashing things out is essential. To be in lock step all the time stalls rather than speeds. All cards on the table warts and all like those Founders we seek to emulate.
WC -- I have little defense against the charge of ingratitude, although I am not guilty of the lack of feeling, only of the expression of it. However, you can hardly be expected to read my mind.
Your package from Goliad is still sitting here with a note to send you something special in return. I have not acted upon that. I did indicate in response to your email of 20 June that I did receive it saying, "God bless you. Would love to go back there with you some day."
Does that constitute thanks? Is it good manners that you had to ask if I received it? No.
Did I forget to thank you for the projectiles or to acknowledge their receipt? It seems that I did, certainly. Did I offer to send reimbursement in money or reloading components in exchange? Yes. You replied, "No, I'm not looking for any reimbursement other than your advice on reloading what I have."
That I did my best to give. Does it excuse my failure to formally thank you? No.
I reject your characterization that I "held you up to public scorn" in the post for I agreed with you and defended you later. I did not realize that your principal grievance was the charge of ingratitude. Had I known, I would have handled it differently. It was just that your criticism tracked so closely with my own opinion of my indifferent work product of late. As a friend, I could not ignore it anyway. I had to take it seriously.
Holding you up to "public scorn" nor making myself look "magnanimous" was not my intention. As far as the public venue, may I say softly that it was you who made it public by making it a comment here, rather than email or phone call.
Insofar as blocking your comment about the projectiles, I just went back and looked and it indeed did not appear. You sent it several times and I always delete repeats. Apparently I deleted them all, not all save one as I intended. Mea culpa. I am truly sorry for this whole mess, which came about because of my inattention, procrastination and thus apparent ingratitude.
I am not, and never have been, ungrateful to you or any reader for all your support. Indeed, I am often left in tears when I receive subscription donations in the mail or via PayPal. The PayPals I invariably thank via email when I receive them. I am far worse at thanking those who send theirs in via snail mail. To the extent that I let my own failure to express that gratitude cause the opposite impression to be given, I sincerely apologize.
I did not call you as my phone dumped your number, and yet in retrospect I handled the thing badly and I certainly should have emailed you before posting your comment so as to get to the bottom of my own failure that motivated it.
Again, I am truly sorry. I hope you, and any other readers whom I have unintentionally slighted, will forgive me.
So much is lost in the written vs. the spoken word that I have a feeling if we were all sitting around a campfire, there likely never would have been an issue.
You certainly don't have anything to apologize for in my instance....I'm sorry my misunderstanding of the situation with WC caused me to comment the way I did. I thought we were starting to see a trend in what you'd allow posted to the site...which is why I said what I did. Further, I didn't send it in private b/c after all, you screen these posts (at least that's my understanding) so you'd read it before it ever got posted and if censorship was your goal, you could easily just fail to post it publicly.
In any case, once again, apologies to both you and WC.
Bless you both.
Thanks, Sean. I have now been in contact with Warrior Class, and as he quotes in his email: "Drink water, drive on." Once more into the breach, dear friends.
Just a relevant comment FROM A DIFFERENT SITE....that Sipsey linked to today.
On September 26, 2013 at 7:25 am, Mark Matis said:
If I ever end up using my weapon of choice inside my home, MJM, I don’t expect to end up in court but rather will be dead. However, before I get there, I will take as many of the maggots with me as I can. And should I survive the initial onslaught, I shall not wait for them to regroup and up-arm, but will instead set out to kill as many of them as I can, wherever they are. Those with “company” cars in my area had better understand that an attack on me by their Brothers in Blue will result in an attack on them and their families should I survive. WAY past time for them to enjoy the fruits of their very own Rules of Engagement.
For years Mark Matis has been threatening noncombatants and writing violence checks with his mouth that other people will one day have to cash in person and when that happens, Mark Matis, all mouth, will be nowhere near the bloody bank counter.
If Matis, who has advocated preemptive violence before, really wishes to get the civil war started, he ought to open the ball himself or do us all a favor and STFU. He is no Three Percenter.
From the outside looking in the Vanderboegh version of events leading to the split with Pete at WRSA is the only version I can find much supporting data for.
For those of us who have been on the receiving end of Kerodin's low grade thuggery. Mr.Vanderboegh's version is proven right.
Post a Comment