TCS Daily


The Wisdom of Survivalist Crowds

By Josh Manchester - October 23, 2006 12:00 AM

Glenn Reynolds' last article here at TCS drew attention to the seeming growth of disaster preparedness and survivalist tendencies in the mainstream population - even though such have usually been the stuff of small subcultures outside the mainstream. Glenn noted that this is no longer the case: freeze-dried food can be bought at Costco, chic survival kits are to be had at Eddie Bauer, and state and local governments left and right are constantly telling people to be ready to survive on their own for some time.

This trend dovetails nicely with another: the mainstreaming of apocalyptic visions of the future. Consider a recent article in New York Magazine, "Why Everyone Has Apocalypse Fever." (and see an extended discussion here). The author, Kurt Andersen, argues that the number of apocalypse-seeking and expecting individuals and groups has grown dramatically, and they are going mainstream:

Five years after Islamic apocalyptists turned the World Trade Center to fire and dust, we chatter more than ever about the clash of civilizations, fight a war prompted by our panic over (nonexistent) nuclear and biological weapons, hear it coolly asserted this past summer that World War III has begun, and wonder if an avian-flu pandemic poses more of a personal risk than climate change. In other words, apocalypse is on our minds. Apocalypse is ... hot.

Millions of people—Christian millenarians, jihadists, psychedelicized Burning Men—are straight-out wishful about The End. Of course, we have the loons with us always; their sulfurous scent if not the scale of the present fanaticism is familiar from the last third of the last century—the Weathermen and Jim Jones and the Branch Davidians. But there seem to be more of them now by orders of magnitude (60-odd million "Left Behind" novels have been sold), and they're out of the closet, networked, reaffirming their fantasies, proselytizing. Some thousands of Muslims are working seriously to provoke the blessed Armageddon.

Andersen is dismissive of many of these groups. But there is an easy relation between a mainstreaming of apocalyptic thinking and a mainstreaming of formerly hard core survivalist mentalities. One might not cause the other, but they both contribute to the zeitgeist.

Whether one chooses to see all of this as paranoia or preparedness is a personal call. But allow me to make an unprovable supposition: if there is one thing that is most likely to lead to some sort of breakdown in national order, it's not avian flu, hurricanes, global warming, or Armageddon. It is the war.

Perhaps this can be dismissed given my military background. "Man who has only hammer sees every problem as nail." Didn't Confucius say that? Nevertheless of all those other maelstroms, the one that is most immediate, growing, global, and certainly getting worse is the global Islamist insurgency - and unlike the other threats, it includes an adaptable, quickly learning enemy that seeks to kill as many as possible.

There are few places in the world or spheres of life now unaffected. Pakistan has ceded Waziristan to the Taliban. A coterie of Islamist judges have taken over Somalia. Thailand's new prime minister plans to "reach out" to those in the south of his country who have killed 1500 since 2004. The French police fight an intifada every night, and recently requested armored vehicles and water cannons to bolster their efforts. The British have asked university professors to keep tabs on Muslim students - because there are so many who could be radicals that the intelligence agencies need all the help they can get. And we haven't even touched Iraq, the ambitions of Iran, or its bosom buddy Kim Jong Il, who now professes a trio of more nuclear tests shortly.

One cannot listen to the Pope; watch South Park; walk into a bookstore; enter a university campus; or of course peruse the news without being inundated by reactions to or the influence of jihad.

Americans are therefore preparing for what might come, without really knowing what it might be, only that it will probably be bad to say the least.

The French military theorist Ardant du Picq ( . . . mandatory pause for snickers about French military theorists . . .) specialized in the moral dimension of war. "It is to be noted that when a body actually awaits the attack of another up to bayonet distance (something extraordinarily rare), and the attacking troop does not falter, the first does not defend itself." That lack of defense comes from the assumed moral superiority of the attacking force, due to the fact that at some subconscious level, a force that is confident enough in itself to attack, is also confident in its reasons for attacking, and maybe even in its world view.

Du Picq once related the story of a Russian unit that waited and waited for an attack, expecting to join the fight only after being struck first:

They say that the battle of Amstetten was the only one in which a line actually waited for the shock of another line charging with the bayonets. Even then the Russians gave way before the moral and not before the physical impulse. They were already disconcerted, wavering, worried, hesitant, vacillating, when the blow fell. They waited long enough to receive bayonet thrusts, even blows with the rifle.

This done, they fled. He who calm and strong of heart awaits his enemy, has all the advantage of fire. But the moral impulse of the assailant demoralizes the assailed. He is frightened; he sets his sight no longer; he does not even aim his piece.

Back in August, when Tony Blair gave a important yet largely ignored speech in Los Angeles, he made these comments about our enemies:

Sometimes political strategy comes deliberatively, sometimes by instinct. For this movement, it was probably by instinct. It has an ideology, a worldview, it has deep convictions and the determination of the fanatic. It resembles in many ways early revolutionary Communism. It doesn't always need structures and command centres or even explicit communication. It knows what it thinks.

So it does. And while the American people may be divided on many issues, they are preparing for what is to come, practicing their own form of strategy by instinct - and rightly so, for, given our present course, the horrors visited upon us thus far may merit a mere footnote compared to those to be loosed upon us in the trials ahead.

The author s a TCS Daily contributing writer.

Categories:

145 Comments

only some will
Only a few will prepare, the rest will say something like, "how could this have happened, we thought when they said they wanted to kill us it was just empty rhetoric?" "We didn't think the fatwa against us was real, but only for salmon Rushie". So the west not only doesn't want to take any casualties, they're willing to let the enemies win so the west doesn't even have to INFLICT casualties on the enemy. There is such a weak, decadent, loser mentality about that such a society doesn't have much chance of winning against its enemies. Didn't we just see Ted Turner a few days ago say, 'what war, there's no war". Guys like him will be the first to be wiped out too, as years ago when the commies took over they would always get rid of the professional revolutionaires first.

Idle hands
The subtext to the old survivalist movement was the coming race war, the One World Government, the invasion of the Mud People, the ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) and other fevered fantasies about the dark (no pun intended) forces that control our politics.

This infantile fantasy life came to an abrupt end on April 23, 1995-- the day after the Murrah Building was bombed. Across the country, home grown militias disappeared back into the woodwork to avoid investigation. Now you're saying they should come back?

I think we do the Devil's work by making the assumption that there is already a war of civilization going on. It's a war that 99% of the people on either side want nothing to do with. Are we to look forward to pre-emptive strikes being made against women wearing head scarves in the shopping malls?

Let's step back for a little perspective. Every few years there is some terror strike somewhere that directly affects us. These are initiated by a tiny number of perps, and do not mean that all of Islam wants us dead-- although our numbers have been plummeting since we started the Iraq business.

Homeland Security has been so inept, I can't imagine anyone has ben trying to cause trouble here over these past five years-- or they would certainly have succeeded. Are you certain all this worry about surviving armageddon isn't just caused by the boring nature of ordinary life in America, and a craving for adventure?

Siding with Roy
I have to go with Roy on this one. You can't despise the fear-mongering on the left and then hold forth with this tripe. What exactly do I have to fear living in the central part of the continental U.S.? There hasn't even been a break in on my street... ever. We did have a sex offender (he groped a girl at a party), but he moved.

I'll get motivated to do something when something needs doing. Right now there is no need. We're involved in an aggressive war in Iraq. Not a war with Islam. Nor a war with Iran or North Korea.

As we head into Halloween, I have to say that I think some people like or even need to be scared.

No Subject
Interesting:

"The French military theorist Ardant du Picq ( . . . mandatory pause for snickers about French military theorists . . .) specialized in the moral dimension of war. 'It is to be noted that when a body actually awaits the attack of another up to bayonet distance (something extraordinarily rare), and the attacking troop does not falter, the first does not defend itself.'"

The problem is, du Picq lived in the 19th century (1821 - 1870) and he qrote about EUROPEAN armies. American colors don't run. Had he heard about the Battered Bastards of Bastogne, Pork Chop Hill, Hamburger Hill, Dak To, the Ia Drang Valley and many others, he might have a different opinion.

The again, how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

I don't know. It's never been done.

Want to know what will make me go survivalist? The Democrats taking over Congress.

The power of nightmares.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Or rather, politicians used to compete for people's votes with visions of utopia or making society/the world better.

Now they promise to protect us from nightmare scenarios that are, at best, exagerated.

Once again...
Roy chooses to pontificate on a topic of which he obviously has no connection with or knowledge of.

Survivalism is not about "mud-races" or "Zionist forces". It is about being able to survive the collapse of all government/municipal infrastructure and being able to defend one's territory and country in the event that unforeseen situations require it.

Roy has obviously fallen for Clinton and the MSM's demonization of such organizations. This is odd considering that Roy refuses to do the same for Muslim extremists who have caused far more damage and who have called for far more carnage than any militia group ever has. No doubt his opinion comes straight from NPR who once described militias as "angry white men in their natural habit". Disgusting.

It is also kind of funny that Roy paints them as groups motiviated by "fevered fantasies about the dark (no pun intended) forces that control our politics" considering that Roy is the number one purveyor of such stupidities. I guess he believes his conspiracy theories are better constructed?

It should come as shock to Roy and his uninformed ilk that people preparing for the worst situations does not make them racist, homophobic, angry, isolationist, anti-government, redneck, white, or conservative. It just makes them prepared for the worst.

And just one last reminder to Roy: groups of citizens getting together to form militias is protected by the Constitution.

A solution for many worries
Preparedness is simply common sense for many folks today, just as it always has been through history. Stuff happens. To put all your trust in the system to ALWAYS be able to provide and to rescue is foolish, if you have the means to lay aside a little something extra in times of plenty.

I'm in the preparedness business and I hear as many different reasons for major purchases of freeze-dried food and water filters, etc., as there are customers.

Hurricanes and earthquakes are inevitable party-crashers for many regions. Tornadoes, violent storms, and blizzards are annual threats in other regions. Crime is rampant in some neighborhoods. Personal setbacks in careers and health are possible for anyone at any time.

The list goes on. The logic is clear. Setting aside some life-sustaining goods, just in case, is a no-lose life insurance policy, if you are wise in your approach to it.

As for those worried about how the world is turning, of course that is a growing segment of the population. We can vote on election day, but apart from that, the only other control we have over the future big picture is putting together a little "lifeboat" for helll or high water. It may or may not be used in crisis, but the immediate long-term benefit is less worry and better sleep at night.

MS and New Orleans
I wonder why the people affected by Katrina in MS seemed to be better off than the people of New Orleans? Could it be that they might have been a bit more prepared?

Exactly right
!

Interesting arguments
I tend to agree (yikes) with Roy. This is just way overblown. Sure, there are natural disasters and anyone would be smart being ready for civil disorder from whatever source. I have a weekend place in the mountains and we have some MREs and crank radios. And I am certainly adequately armed to protect myself. But bomb shelters, arsenals and stacks of Kreugerrands? This is an enormous country with a strong economy, a sophisticated widely dispersed military and no jihadist group is going to bring it down. Kill people, inconvience us, trigger a recession? Possible. Even probable, but so what? Nothing we haven't had before. And BTW, all the battles that kgk mentioned were where we were on the offensive. Not terribly germane to the conversation. And don't forget Breeds/Bunker Hill.

Dead on
Having on hand some basic necessities, and having a network of friends to work with, has nothing to do with racist dirtbags.

Thanks roy for putting all those who want to be prepared for the next Katrina or 9/11 in the same box as those who want to see minorities erased.

A little preparation is a good thing. But I guess roy doesn't want that because. if everyone is prepared, there will be no reason to blame the government if a disaster does occur; roy can't have that.

Very good post Tlaloc!

Why am I not surprised
to find that roy considers yet another group, with ideas that differ from his, to be essentially evil in their beliefs?

Authentic Power and Singularity of Eye
Two supporting arguments come to mind. One comes from Gary Zukav, who wrote The Dancing Wu Li Masters and other books. He says that things like superior money and popularity can be taken away from you. Thay are not the real powers. Authentic power is making your choices to act match up with your intentions. And I have to say, we're not doing that in the US. Some intend not to have to fight. We are doing better battle against one-another right now, especially with election day so near. So, even tho I hate the blinkin' terrorists, I've got one hand fighting those who hate traditional morality.

The second supporting point comes from what Jesus said about your "eye being single." Our Muslim enemies (not all Muslims, just the enemy ones, whoever they be) have a single eye toward destruction of free systems. Like a hamster in a cage with only one thing to think about, however pin-headed they are, they'll do their damage when they can.

I don't have a 72-hour kit but I do have some cans of veggies. I plan on eating my dogs if anything happens. Joke.

An interesting point re the defense versus the offense. . . but
I seem to recall that in WWI the defenders on both sides generally waited and waited and waited, and then mowed the attackers down by the tens and hundreds of thousands.

Just as Constantinople waited and waited and waited behind it's walls on many instances, and then introduced barbarians to the merits of boiling oil.

The point about waiting versus charging with bayonets is interesting, but it assumes equally armed sides.

The most probable course of this war is that we will wait and react half heartedly, then wait some more and react stupidly, then wait some more more and react ineffectually while the Mohammedans jab at us as they have jabbed at more advanced non-muslim nations for several hundred years since the last time they were able to compete seriously. They will jab at us until they really scare us or more probably until we become bored with them, at which point we will make a demonstration that will settle them for a hundred years or a couple of hundred years.

Of course the famous line from the movie applies - I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed a bit. Hence it's not a bad idea to have some survival supplies on hand in the event of a relatively brief disruption like Katrina or the one which will accompany the eventual California earthquake.



It's interesting that Roy gets all hepped up about the Murrah building. . .
It's interesting that Roy gets all hepped up about the Murrah building and sees multiple dark conpiracies lurking behind every tree in Michigan and Idaho, but he can't get excited about the World Trade Center - and he can't imagine that more than a few looneys among the Mohammedans are the problem.

Heaven protect us from the useful idiots.

My first reaction to the difference in MS and NO
My first reaction to the difference in Mississippi and New Orleans is that Mississippi has a Republican Governor and New Orleans is ruled by Democrats.

This is because Haley Barbour told the people of Mississippi to be prepared to be on their own for 72 hours or longer, just as Jeb Bush does at the start of every hurricane season.

But then this idea was not original to Jeb Bush, he learned it from his Democratic predecessors. It is a pity that the Democrats outside of Florida never learned it.

I attended the Sen. Reid Real Estate Program
He showed how you could make money in real estate with no money down, in fact he showed how to make a million with no real estate.

Come what may I'm ready when the end comes because Sen. Reid made me rich and you can be too!

Just ask to speak with his partner in Las Vegas, Guido No Nose.

Does Roy's cesspool have a bottom?
But as we all know we have nothing to fear from jihaddies; the people who gave us Waco; and the people who gave us social security who want to take over your medicare care.

Somehow I doubt Roy's hit bottom yet.

An important distinction... maybe
It's certainly possible to be a survivalist without belonging to a militia. There are whole grain survivalists out there, offshoots of the hippie movement. But for the most part, the two movements are intertwined. You yourself segue from a defense of survivalism into a defense of militias.

It must have been a coincidence that the country was full of militias, nearly all having a basis in white, Christian supremacy, until the moment the Murrah Building blew up. Then there wasn't a sound out there. What did they all have to fear?

What you might do in order to prove your case would be to find one single militia active today that wasn't a part of a movement like Christian Identity, Aryan Nations or some such umbrella organization. They all seem to me to espouse power coming from the barrel of a gun, in the manner of Lenin's formulation.

Here's a typical account of the militias:

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Militia_M.asp?xpicked=4&item=19

But I urge you to find something painting them instead as just a bunch of happy go lucky Saturday sportsmen, out there in the woods for some target practise.

But you would be wrong
The OKC and WTC bombings were motivated by precisely the same kind of thinking. The only difference is that we don't go out of our way to go to war with white, Christian males the way we have done with Muslims.

As it turns out your favorite President did go out of his way to go to war with. . .
As it turns out your favorite President did go out of his way to go to war with white Christian males in defense of Muslims in the Balkans. I've noticed a vast amount of gratitude among the Muslims.

That's a joke by the way.

And, as it turns out, the FBI and other arms of our government have (properly) been going to war with extremist militias calling themselves Christians for decades, which is why they've been pretty much suppressed.

I wonder if you could guide me to a few recognized Christian clergymen who have defended the right of "white Christian males" to blow up buildings and kill noncombatants. I could guide you to plenty of Mohammedan "clergymen" who have defended the right of members of "the religion of peace" to do things like that; but I hate to take much time to shout down a well.



Roy gets the Imman Award for visceral fantasies
Here's two 5tickets for the Sen Reid Real Estate Guru Show where youi can learn to make money with no investment, and even better no money.


Just dial 1-800-DeadAss and you get to talk to Guido Nose Breaker.

Roy has offe3red to tell one and all why he loves the madrassa time share program in lovely Baluchanistan andhow he will barbeque some Christians for Ramadan.

Indeed Roy is a perfect fit with Al Jazeera
Had enough of mini skirts? Long to stone the infidels? Had enopugh talk of religious tolerance? Long to live in the 13th Century? Had it with Democracy? Had it with sanity?


Then you should join Roy's Madrassa! Yes boys and dhimmies, its the place to be to learn how to put women in burhkas andothers into sharia! The fun place to be, praise be to Allah! Remember, no credit, bad credit, no matter, Imman Roy, late of Brother Stalin's KGB Commissars Own, demonstrates how to exploit the masses; gain power through the barrel of the gun and establish the true religion. So join Imman Roy and spread the jihadd!

The toxicity of Roy's ideals is matched only by his mendacity
Mark there is no surprise about Roy's hatred of everything and everyone he finds different from himself. He has so much in common with the jihaddies. I have no doubt that one day we'll find out he had been sent to Club Gitmo.

Iaiah 5:20-23 was written for Roy.

Ah no; very different in fact
But I'm sure you will tell me all about the similarities. The differences are very obvious, if you bother to look into the two incidents.

War?
War? What war? Compared to the Soviet juggernaut, the muslims are pikers. Gregory Cochran has some choice comments to say about this whole islamic thing: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_23/cover.html.

The only potential manmade threat we face in the forseable future is China, nothing else.

Being prepared doesn't mean it's the end of the world . . .
...during the Blackout of August 2003, I was able to provide power to the family next door via a long extension cord so that they could run their two year old's nebulizer (he had just gotten out of ICU), his air conditioner and air filter. The nebulizer was critical for keeping the child out of the hospital.

I was annoyed that the father had not considered what he would do in the event of a power outage. The purchase of a simple inverter for the car would have run the nebulizer.

fantasies?
It reminds me of how some people thought the Taliban was only an innocent little islamic study group, of no harm to anyone, till they took over the government. Also in Algeria, people thought their own taliban guys were not wanting to wipe out whole villages, and killing about 150k people, till the government theirgovernment ignored the appeals of american liberals, and decided to fight them, and won. Now when they attack americans, whether in lebanon, on boats, in the US, people say you can just, say sue them over it.

Splendid proof of your ignorance...
>"It's certainly possible to be a survivalist without belonging to a militia. There are whole grain survivalists out there, offshoots of the hippie movement. But for the most part, the two movements are intertwined. You yourself segue from a defense of survivalism into a defense of militias."

Screw the hippies. I am defending both since you know nothing of either.

>"It must have been a coincidence that the country was full of militias, nearly all having a basis in white, Christian supremacy, until the moment the Murrah Building blew up. Then there wasn't a sound out there. What did they all have to fear?"

Militias come in many shapes, sizes, and names and all are protected under the Constitution. The reason you didn't see any good portrayals is obvious: the media didn't show any. As for why such organizations were not advertising their existence, which they weren't doing in the first place, is the Federal governments active suppression and investigation of them. Using, by the way, tactics that, if used on Muslim extremists, would have ignited a firestorm of protest from leftists such as you and the ACLU. I suppose you condone Clinton's suppression of militias based on the stupidities of a few?

Watch out Roy, your double-standards are showing.

>"What you might do in order to prove your case would be to find one single militia active today that wasn't a part of a movement like Christian Identity, Aryan Nations or some such umbrella organization. They all seem to me to espouse power coming from the barrel of a gun, in the manner of Lenin's formulation."

Man, just when I think you can't get more idiotic you have to go and prove me wrong.

First off, I don't need to prove anything to you since I actually belonged to one. One that had a great many members of the Potawatomi and Oneida tribes as well as members who were former Mexican migrant farm workers who settled in the area.

You see, the common thread that forms a militia is protection of rights. Pure and simple. The Constitution allows for citizens to band together in order to preserve those rights when the government can't and/or won't defend them for you. That is something that every legal American citizen has the right to do.

They don't "espouse power coming from the barrel of a gun, in the manner of Lenin's formulation". Because that is pure Communism and a load of crap. What they do espouse is that no one will look out for your rights better than you and your neighbors.

And yes, they do get together on Saturdays, shoot guns, and have a cook out. Many of these organizations are very family orientated but you would never know or understand this considering your extreme lack of knowledge in this area.

>"But I urge you to find something painting them instead as just a bunch of happy go lucky Saturday sportsmen, out there in the woods for some target practise."

Actually, I urge YOU to find something painting them as something other than white supremists since I am not the one in need of an education.

True, their are groups just like the ones you characterize. Every group of people have its fair share of idiots and assholes. Once again, your belief that you have an open mind has been proven false. Hezbollah is a charity organization but those American militias are the real bad guys right?

Gotta love that liberal "nuance"!

Oh by the way, start here:

http://www.fortliberty.org/militia/militia-groups.shtml

While I am sure that you will find something wrong with a few of these organizations since some are based on Christian beliefs (anti-humanist/anti-homosexual) there are a great many more that are exactly the "happy go lucky Saturday sportsmen, out there in the woods for some target practise" organizations you claim do not exist.

I am also sure that your prejudice will be unshaken by mere reality.

This crap...
is starting to get more annoying than LeMule's tripe. Can't you come up with a better response? You seem to fall back on the same stupidities over and over and over again.

Please, if you want to help counter Roy's propaganda, stand on the sidelines and leave it to those of us who can respond intelligently and factually.

To put it bluntly, even if you are on my side of this issue you clearly have nothing to offer. So shut up.

The world of militias and survivalists
I'm willing to be convinced. Your reference does show several militias that don't appear to base their worldview on the hatred of some race or religion, and that do not preach armed violence against shadowy forces they believe would defeat their own noble ideals.

See? It's be easy to shake my prejudice by "mere reality". All you had to do was to identify some militias that are based on tolerance of other races and life styles, and are organized solely for the defense of the union.

Some of the units described in your Fort Liberty web site seem to be state defense force units. These are something very different from the kind of homegrown shooting clubs I'm describing.

"State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government, although they are regulated by the National Guard Bureau of the United States Army (NGR 10-4). State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor, as State Defense Forces are distinct from the National Guard in that they are not federal entities (all National Guard units were federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 (National Guard Mobilization Act) with the creation of the National Guard of the United States). The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 USC 109 which provides that State Defense Forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" (of the United States), thus preserving their separation from the National Guard."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

The Arizona Vipers would appear to be more typical of the kind of outfit people think of. They were taken down on federal weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges.

The Militia of Washington County (Ark.) seems innocuous enough. They look at first glance to be a bunch of good old boys with guns-- Saturday soldiers having some fun. Mississippi Minuteman appears to be another such, if one takes their credo at face value:

"Mississippi Minuteman is NOT a hate organization, is NOT racist, does NOT seek the overthrow of the American government, NOR condones violence or unlawful conduct of any form."

So you have made your point. Most of the groups on your list are so minor and shadowy I can find little on the web about them. The Connecticut Survivalist Alliance is one such, with nothing to basis a judgment on. The similarly named Christian Survivalists Alliance is a beast of another stripe. It's strictly white, aryan, klan-like and rebellious:

http://kelticklankirk.com/Christian_Survivalists_Alliance_index.htm

All in all, a mixed bag. I promise not to pre-judge, but to look closely at each group preenting itself as either a militia or a survivalist group.

Hezbollah is a self-defense organization, akin to our militias in some ways. But the difference is that they have a real enemy, one that does not hesitate to bomb villages by the hundred to achieve its aims of terror. They are also an effective fighting force holding their own against vastly superior forces.

Tell me more
We don't know very much about the motivations of McVeigh and Nichols, because they haven't talked much. So we can't say precisely what similarities and differences there were. But we do know they came out of the same milieu as typical Al Qaeda members: angry loners ready to blow up the world because of their own weird beliefs.

Interesting that immediately following the incident, everyone was sure it was the work of "Muslims". As I recall we had several race-based incidents of retaliation until the investigation focused on white militarists.

Maybe you could actually tell me what your point is. How was the OKC bombing fundamentally different than any other terror incident?

Running a feverish delirium
Yes, Dietmar. You need to understand you are just expressing fantasies.

Back in 1980 the people who later became known as the Taliban were an effective fighting force opposing the Soviet invasion. That is why the United States backed and armed them. No one thought then they were just an innocent Islamic study group, except maybe you.

The Algerian elections were cancelled because their Islamist party announced that if they won, there would be no more elections ever, and that Algeria would become an Islamist state. Everyone knew what the stakes were. So the government cancelled elections and a civil war was begun.

BTW, about half of the fatalities in that extremely vicious, ugly war were effected by government-condoned death squads. Neither side was any good.

Give us a citation to the effect that American liberals made appeals in support of the Islamists in Algeria. This is not based on fact, but is just your feverish imagination at work.

One just has to love...
the cautious approach you take towards admitting you are wrong. Quite endearing.

Perhaps you should consider why it took me posting a source to make you see the other side. Why didn't your sources show the other side of the story? Why didn't your searches come up with these examples? You didn't even bother to try.

Why? Because you already knew the answer based on the lies given you by the liberal MSM.

>"All in all, a mixed bag. I promise not to pre-judge, but to look closely at each group preenting itself as either a militia or a survivalist group."

No matter what group you belong to it is always wise to investigate it before attaching yourself to it. Go back to that site and check out the FAQ. You will find it most enlightening.

>"Hezbollah is a self-defense organization, akin to our militias in some ways. But the difference is that they have a real enemy, one that does not hesitate to bomb villages by the hundred to achieve its aims of terror. They are also an effective fighting force holding their own against vastly superior forces."

Let's look at this description a little considering what factual evidence we have: Hezbollah has deliberately targeted civilians hundreds of times with their rockets, they have initiated hostilities against a neighboring state, they are declared an illegal entity according to the UN (hah!), they have called for the systematic genocide of all Jewish residents of Israel, they are funded and directed by Iran, and they push a fanatical ideology that would force all under them to convert to Islam or be enslaved/slaughtered.

I see no relationship between an American militia, of which the OKC bombing is an aberration, to Hezbollah. It is quite perverse to even suggest but I am familiar with your degenerate sense of equivalency so I cease to be shocked anymore.

One has to wonder at your admiration for Hezbollah and your animosity towards Israel. As I said before, if Hezbollah laid down its rockets and weapons you would never see Israel enter Lebanon again. On the other hand, if Israel laid down its armaments you would see millions of dead Jews.

As for being an effective force you are absolutely wrong. Hezbollah did not win the conflict. You and those who believed and repeated the massive propaganda war waged against the Israelis won that war for Hezbollah. You and the other useful idiots did an excellent job in preventing Israel from finishing off a terrorist organization with a hateful and genocidal agenda.

Good job buddy!

One big difference between OKC and WTC
One big difference between the OKC attack and the WTC attack was that it was aimed at a government building. Arguably then, it was like the attack on the Pentagon in that it killed innocents only as an adjunct to the killing of government functionaries.

Another big difference is that the OKC attack did not from its start involve the deaths of innocents (on the hijacked plane) who were used in the attack.

I've always felt that the Pentagon attack was in a different vein than the WTC attack because it was against a military command and control installation. The WTC attack was plain and simple an attack on civilians.

People who randomly attack civilians as civilians should be treated with the same way we treat with mad dogs.

the target for one
Sully got to it before I could. But the target was government, not civilian. That is the first and largest difference. There are many others.

Also, mcVeigh and Nichols were not "racist" in the core reasoning (though, perhaps, in thier core beliefs); they were anti-government. This makes them "rebels" and not "terrorists".

Funny you side with Hezbollah as a "militia" or "protection" group, but you jump right in with the U.S. Government and lable OKC a terrorist attack.

Another note: most militia groups are not racists, christian based nuts. In fact, even the most militant, are more anti-socialism and anti-government than anything else. They are like the Tennessee hills people who just want to be left alone. Yes, the most publicized groups are like the Aryan Nation types; that is because they make good fodder than everyone can dislike; but they never were typical of the militia groups in general nor of the militant militia movement.

Judging the militias
It took your posting a site to get me to see that some militias apparently do no wrong for the reason that I have no interest in them. To me the subject is one best avoided.

My experiences have shown me that the stereotype-- apparently not invariably true-- of militias and survivalist groups is much like the one we see in the popular conception. Around central NC most militias are populated by KKK types, the dog fighting crowd and ex-felons. The prisons are all excellent recruiting grounds for outlaw groups. And not just the white ones. There are some nasty black groups coming out of the prisons.

So what are these experiences of mine? Volunteer work within the prison system, where I meet a lot of people with tales to tell about the Brotherhood.

BTW I think it's quite gullible to base one's impressions of a given group solely on what they say about themselves-- or for that matter on what others say about them. You need to gain a full picture, which I frankly do not have of all these little militias scattered around the country. So in giving you the benefit of the doubt I'm not saying I now know for a fact that many of them are benign. I don't. But the possibility exists that they might be.

Your comments on Hezbollah are predictably chauvinist. The IDF killed 743 civilians in this recent mess, and destroyed over 15,000 homes. Hezbollah killed 39 civilians, by final count-- plus 118 soldiers. We know which one is the most effective terrorist organization.

Hezbollah is an effective and triumphant organization because they survived and prevailed. You don't think their numbers are greater now than they were the day before the trouble began? They were the winners in the psychological war, while the new Israeli government has been seriously shaken.

The one thing that was absolutely proven from the fighting is something universally acknowledged in the Israeli press-- Hezbollah can't be crushed militarily. The only way their influence can be diminished is for greater justice to prevail. And this is a step the Israelis are not yet ready to take.

Justifying McVeigh's deed?
I see. They just parked in front of the day care center because that space was open that morning. So McVeigh and Nichols weren't all that bad. I guess for them the many civilians killed were just unavoidable collateral damage, right?

You mistake me for a person that has some sympathy for Al Qaeda. I do not. The 9-11 attacks were against "America". And the human lives involved were to them of no importance. I despise that kind of thinking whether it is indulged in by Osama, by Tim McVeigh or by our Vice President-- one of the principal architects of the Iraq invasion, from which his personal interests have prospered mightily.

People like that should be dragged in gravel.

Lumping all groups into one basket
"Sully got to it before I could."

Then you'll want to see my response to his comment. But you are not following any commonly accepted definition if you believe terrorism must have a government as its immediate target. Both attacks were made without regard to civilian lives. And in fact the point to both was obviously exactly to kill a lot of people. Such wanton disregard for human life in the service of some political point is the hallmark of terrorism.

So why do I "side with" Hezbollah? In fact I deplore their tactics against Israeli civilians as much as I do those of the IDF. But I see the necessity of South Lebanon having some sort of defense force against Israeli aggression. The Lebanese armed forces are not all that competent to perform the job. Would that both sides had honorable straight arrows who took care to allow civilians to leave the battle zone before engaging one another.

I would question your last comment, that "most" militias are not racists or nuts. You don't have any way of knowing something like that. Some may very well be just harmless gun enthusiasts. But a great many of them are preparing for a race war they see as inevitable. Thus I see all those groups as requiring a certain amount of BATF surveillance, just to keep them from scaring the citizenry.

Like Al Qaeda, these types don't commit some atrocity but once every few years. Still, I think we should track their movements and infiltrate them if possible, for safety's sake. We'd feel pretty dumb if another OKC bombing happened.

Indeed Tally sound both rabid and on a par with Roy
I've read your comments and am so impressed with your ability to cite facts and evidence, which by the way is on a par with Roy. Now considering your agenda and prior behavior I suggest you take your medications and behave yourself. Find an adult and ask them to assist you. If you have additional probelsm follow your doctor's instructions and confine yourself in a closet with 18 other illegal aliens and tell us about your racial superiority again. Till then I'd be very happy if you confine yourself to the fringe section of those who like to ape Roy as brillantly as you do.

I did not justify McVeigh's deed - I contrasted it with the WTC attack
You asserted that there was no difference.

I pointed out a clear difference.

Then you indulged in an ad hominem attack.

Then you denied something I never alleged.

Finally you equated by association Osama Bin Laden, Tim McVeigh and the Vice President of the U.S.

Nicely played by your side's rules.

Have you no shame, Sir?

You have no ability to judge anyone
>"It took your posting a site to get me to see that some militias apparently do no wrong for the reason that I have no interest in them. To me the subject is one best avoided."

Then why, pray tell, do you bother commenting on something you have no interest in nor experience with?

>"My experiences have shown me that the stereotype-- apparently not invariably true-- of militias and survivalist groups is much like the one we see in the popular conception. Around central NC most militias are populated by KKK types, the dog fighting crowd and ex-felons. The prisons are all excellent recruiting grounds for outlaw groups. And not just the white ones. There are some nasty black groups coming out of the prisons."

Those are not militias, those are "outlaw" groups as you say. Militias operate under the protection of the Constitution and seek to protect it and support the local citizenry. What you speak of are gangs which are only out for themselves.

>"So what are these experiences of mine? Volunteer work within the prison system, where I meet a lot of people with tales to tell about the Brotherhood."

It is not surprising that a group of thugs called "the Brotherhood" would be bad news. But calling them a militia is like calling the Crips, the Bloods, or M13 a militia. The purpose of a militia, under the Constitution, is to protect the individual rights of American citizens.

>"BTW I think it's quite gullible to base one's impressions of a given group solely on what they say about themselves-- or for that matter on what others say about them."

If you take the names of any of these militias and run a search on them you will find that a great many have very little bad press about them. Consider the stigma that you and the liberal media attach to them I find that reassuring.

Not to mention the fact that I belonged to one myself and understand their purpose. I know it is hard for you to believe Roy, considering your level of ignorance on the subject, but all of us country folk are not the evil rednecks you despise so much. They exist to be sure but they are a minority.

>"You need to gain a full picture, which I frankly do not have of all these little militias scattered around the country."

Interesting that you believe I need to gain the full picture when you are the one speaking from a position of utter ignorance. Do not project that my way. I know what I am talking about.

>"So in giving you the benefit of the doubt I'm not saying I now know for a fact that many of them are benign. I don't. But the possibility exists that they might be."

Ah, a tiny mote of light in a vast sea of darkness. Yet, for some reason I doubt you have changed your mind at all.

As this next part shows, you are still gullible to the propaganda you wish to believe:

>"Your comments on Hezbollah are predictably chauvinist."

So sorry. It is perfectly fine to misrepresent militias as hotbeds of anti-semitism and hatred but I dare not bad mouth the good works of Hezbollah, the paragons of tolerance and the protectors of human rights. That is just out of bounds huh?

>"The IDF killed 743 civilians in this recent mess, and destroyed over 15,000 homes. Hezbollah killed 39 civilians, by final count-- plus 118 soldiers. We know which one is the most effective terrorist organization."

And your comments are predictably delusional.

Let us consider the facts that can't seem to penetrate that delusion:

- Hezbollah initiated hostilities. Israel was busy with Gaza when they violated Israeli territory.
- Israel warn citizens to remove themselves from Hezbollah strongholds long before bombing. Did Hezbollah send out warnings before targeting citizens?
- Hezbollah prevented the escape of Lebanese citizens in order to make them casualties. Quite heroic.
- Body counts are inflated and there is quite a bit of documentation out there showing a clear misrepresentation of the actual damage done by Israel. Propaganda that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

Not to mention that this is not merely about numbers. When cowards, Hezbollah, uses their own women and children as shields the moral upper hand is held by those who do their utmost to prevent those deaths, the IDF.

>"Hezbollah is an effective and triumphant organization because they survived and prevailed. You don't think their numbers are greater now than they were the day before the trouble began? They were the winners in the psychological war, while the new Israeli government has been seriously shaken."

You can almost feel your admiration for these brutal killers and genocidal maniacs. Without Iranian support these bozos wouldn't last a day against the Israelis.

You are right that they won the psychological war. Useful idiots such as yourself allowed this happen by spreading the lies of bombed hospitals and ambulances, dead children, and staged photo ops. I am sure that you are quite happy that you could help people who would surely behead you and your children if ever they were able to lays hands on you.

As I said, good work!

>"The one thing that was absolutely proven from the fighting is something universally acknowledged in the Israeli press-- Hezbollah can't be crushed militarily. The only way their influence can be diminished is for greater justice to prevail. And this is a step the Israelis are not yet ready to take."

Actually, what is acknowledged is that Hezbollah can not be wiped out through air firepower alone. The Israelis were too worried about world opinion to finish the job and now Olmert has to suffer the consequences of protecting his image over his own citizens. But don't worry Roy, there will be a next time. The UN now has the power to shoot down Israeli planes and Hezbollah is rearming at a rapid pace. I will lay any amount of money as to who will be the one to touch off the next war.

And it won't be the IDF.

A stunning display...
of your lack of reading comprehension. Let's see... illegal aliens? Never defended them. Hmmmm... racial superiority? Never said anything of the kind outside of jest. I must admit, however, that I am clearly a superior intellect when compared to your Neanderthal-like musings. Indeed, if TCS was a zoo you would be the ape flinging his pooh at the visitors in a sad and pathetic attempt to get attention of any sort.

I must say that I am amazed that you didn't whip out your whole "madrassas, mullahs, and bears" screed. That must have been hard for you to resist such gems of wit and wisdom. It is also interesting to note the disdain you have for facts and evidence. That must be why you never like to use them.

As much as I dislike Roy's opinions, moral relativism and delusions, I dislike your infantile rantings far more. If ever you find yourself on the same side of a debate, stay off my threads. M'kay?

The Tally and Leeming Master Show=Act II
The standard metrosexual approach of asserting a superior intellect while displaying psychosis relating to his squalid assertions all who do not kowtow to his delusions of grandeur is de rigueur. Unfortunately such is the fatuous standard employed by Roy and the Leeming Master.

One stands in awe of your constant braying about evidence though it is about as common in your comments as a truthful statement by the Leeming and about as valid. While having to endure your putrid rationizations and bombastic indulgences one is reminded of the discussions you posted regarded illegal immigration where your rancid opinions stood for all to see. If you are offended by the madrassas screed I can understand since you are probably one of those who watch the videos the jiihaddies sell for postgame recreation. Do write an angry letter to the NY Times. Sob. I can understand why'd you stand with Roy and Leeming in their method and tactics, its so Amherst. When you've achieved half of what I've done, been to one quarter of the places I've been to, and understand one tenth of what I do you can come back and lecture. Till then you sound as coherent as Leeming, present evidence as does Booby and are as intelligent as Roy.

Strange to say I prefer Roy a million ways to a poseur like you. Roy defends the truth as he sees it and his own twisted vision. At least he doesn't pretend to be what he isn't, even Leeming is better. Now you started this with your infantile BS and I am tired of idle mendacity parading as some sort of authority, except of BS which you most certainly are. Now if you ever address me in any way again you'll get what you deserve you slimely little neurotic. So do us all a favor and stay away from me. Confine your putrid assertions to others. You have proven your racist views before so don't you ever dare to lecture anyone on this thread.

You remain one of those trolls whose head is so swollen that it has altered the gravitational field around him. Too bad its neither due to intellect or education but rather due to beiung filled with a substance one sometimes steps on in the summer. Very sticky, smelly, and disagreeable. This sums you up quite well I think.

Begone and bray about your intellect to the three year old trolls.

Say what you will, it is you who doesn't have a clue
I live in Montana; home of the unabomber, the Militia of Montana and Next door to the Aryan Brotherhoods favorite haunt, Idaho. I know quite a bit about both groups and several others and there is a big difference. There is also a larger number of benign little groups that aren't as militant as either.

The Ayrans preach hate and murder. They should be taken down in any way possible. The Militia of Montana was best known for a little standoff with the feds and local police in the 90s. That groups biggest offense was putting BS lawsuits oand property leins on local politicians and not paying their own property taxes.

Quite a difference between the two, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, you have to get those terrible Militia types. Ever heard of the standoff on Ruby Ridge? In the end the perpetrator, Randy Weaver, was exonerated; but his wife is still just as dead. So is his son. they even killed his dog. Who committed this act? Why the noble FBI.

Now I wouldn't call the FBI a terror organization or even call this an act of terror. But the federal government needs to be very careful about who they are investigating and how they go about the job.

As fro Hezbollah, Israel has never committed an act of aggression so your reason for Hezbollah is bogus right from the start.

my delerium
I know, first they supported the guys fighting the russians. Then that's done, later we hear about these little shcool boys taliban making a spot of mischieve. People didn't want to fight them, then they took over the govnt, ties with foreign terrorists too like Obl; some people thought it would have been better to sort them out before they became too strong, not liberals though. Then in algeria they had to good sense to realize what the true nature of those guys was, so they decided to sort them out with, what's that cute phrase you guys use, 'extreme predjudice'. I then meant that westerners recommended that the algerian govnt fight them like they want our governments to to fight terrorists; sue them, give them therapy, supply speacial gitmo diets, etc. But it seems the algerians thought they would lose if they fought like modern wimpy westerners, so they decided to fight in the manner it takes to win, without the marquis of queenburys rule book apparently. Ha they not, it would have become another taliban style place too.

Okay
There are obviously many differences between the two incidents. But both shared an intent to take innocent life to make a political statement.

I don't recall any ad hominem attack-- nor that I denied something you never alleged. But if you say so.

And then I offered that Cheney, McVeigh and Osama all shared a trait in common-- the wanton disregard of human life in pursuit of their ends. Again, there is a distinction. McVeigh and Osama were trying to prove some kind of point. With Cheney it's more about the opportunities for money to be made, and about the exercise of personal power. But he likes to kill too. That seems to be his only off the job pastime-- shooting vreatures.

And no, I have nothing to be ashamed of.

I see...
that TrollJackson has access to a thesaurus. I believe this is what is commonly known as "over-compensation" in psychology circles. I am sure you drive a Corvette as well.

But first let us address the one question that I have pondered for a while now. Take this sentence:

>"Unfortunately such is the fatuous standard employed by Roy and the Leeming Master."

You constantly refer to "Leeming" in your various posts. Are you referring to LEMMINGS by any chance? Lemmings are those little artic rodents who are mythically believed to commit suicide by following their leaders off a cliff. I can actually see a derogatory and logical connection there. LEEMING does not seem to represent anything except a popular British name.

Just thought that you might want to clear that up in case you have any notion of making yourself appear somewhat intelligent.

As you can see, a thesaurus can only help you so much.

With that out of the way, let's move on to the rest of your flaming diatribe. Hmmmm... typical weak attempts to connect me to Islamofascists... grand statements of what you have done with your sorry life... lies about my support of illegal immigration... strange and delusional accusations that I am hiding my real opinions and/or identity (really don't get that one)...

Nothing new and nothing to support a single thing you rant about. Typical trolling behavior.

But wait! Something new! Threats! Very cool.

>"Now you started this with your infantile BS and I am tired of idle mendacity parading as some sort of authority, except of BS which you most certainly are."

Actually, dummy, you started this by injecting your tired, imbecilic, and well-worn spam into a conversation Roy and I were having. I don't mind if someone injects a pointed comment or supporting information on either side. You know, adding actual CONTENT to a debate? I do mind if someone injects pointless tripe that pretty much lowers the IQ of the whole discussion. Can't you go over to DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground where they appreciate such tactics?

>"Now if you ever address me in any way again you'll get what you deserve you slimely little neurotic."

I will address you any time and in any way I wish. You seem to have no rules regarding your shameful and erratic behaviors so please do not apply any to me.

I suspect that you are one who feels the rush of power by saying things on the internet that you would never say in public. Quite pathetic but your type of road-kill abounds on the information super-highway.

>"So do us all a favor and stay away from me. Confine your putrid assertions to others. You have proven your racist views before so don't you ever dare to lecture anyone on this thread."

Please provide the evidence of my racist nature. I would love to see someone who supports the internment of US citizens based on religion prove me a racist.

You see Troll, that is the true power of facts and evidence. It gives you the ability to speak with authority and not just be another monkey-boy, such as yourself, flinging virtual pooh at the more mature visitors to the web.

See you later Troll. I can't wait to read your next post. What will it be? More threats? Will I get what I deserve? Oh baby, you got me all excited now!

TCS Daily Archives