|
Oathkeepers Defend Ferguson
An Oathkeeper watches over Ferguson.
Executive summary: BZ (that means "great job, guys", for you non-Navy/Marine types)
It is no secret that I have not hesitated to criticize the Oathkeepers when I think they have dropped the ball. My specific criticism of them has always been their previous aversion to calling out specific oathbreakers by name.
They now specifically identify Chief Belmar as an "oathbreaking ghoul" and a "friend of arsonists", for leaving the people of Ferguson defenseless, including specifically threatening their ability to defend themselves from looters and arsonists when the government would not.
Well done, Oathkeepers. This necessary public shaming of specific guilty individuals, not just the faceless system, is an essential piece of the puzzle, a piece they have now firmly fit into place.
On top of that, the Oathkeepers, among others, kept watch on Ferguson, both from rooftops in the public eye, and from other locations not in the public eye. It is clear that they are building on experience obtained at the Bundy Ranch, and that their experience base will continue to grow over time.
Read about their defense of people and businesses in Ferguson at their site.
Update: We've now seen that the lack of Oathkeepers, or similar citizen groups, in other areas such as Berkeley, leave the populace defenseless against mass lawlessness. Yet another argument for citizen militias, courtesy of the increasingly discredited official government response, or lack thereof.
The Oathkeepers, and other citizen self-defense groups elsewhere, are becoming a force that tyrants will now have to take seriously, a force which is learning to use not just weapons, but also media, the law and public support, to their full advantage. It is one thing for the system to railroad individuals or small groups with threats of prosecution, but it is an entirely different thing for the system to face the kind of organized challenge that the Oathkeepers is now mounting.
Curiously, a few webtistsas have smeared the OK response in Ferguson, which essentially amounts to this:
"They shouldn't have left the rooftops / disarmed / whatever when ordered to by the police."
Nonsense. The OK on-site team leader made a decision in the moment, a decision which is consistent with the principles of maneuver warfare and which reflects the current political and legal reality. And, as soon as the situation was better understood, they returned to their posts. A similar criticism was leveled against the OK for some of their actions in Nevada, a critique which was similarly myopic. In both cases, the final outcome was simply "Oathkeepers won".
In the words of a famous someone (whose name would merely serve to distract the conversation), until our struggle has taken full root in the public mind, our first responsibility is force preservation.
I notice that most of those playing the role of critic have had no boots on the ground in either case. It is easy to natter from the sidelines a thousand miles away, perhaps to provoke others into wasteful foolishness. And yet, the Oathkeepers are accomplishing their objectives in full public view. They have demonstrated that a short-term win by tyranny will be overwhelmed by truth and determination, and by a multi-dimensional response, leaving the tyrants in a worse condition than they were before the attempt, including individual exposure for the decision-makers.
Some dark day, the forces of tyranny will succeed in generating chaos among the Oathkeepers ranks, and will create a short-term public relations win. This is the nature of our struggle, and just as naturally, on that day some will have prepared disparaging scripts to recite. However, I am confident that the Oathkeepers, if they stay true to their current course, will learn from this experience and adapt accordingly, eventually turning any such effort to their advantage. The decentralized nature of their local response, supported by a larger umbrella of expertise and resources, will ensure that this is so.
Another, more minor criticism has been that they screened their Ferguson response force in subjective ways. This screening would have prevented my involvement, for example, if public opinion about me and my objectives were considered, as yes, I do have an axe to grind. However, I applaud them for this decision. If this screening would have rejected you also, dear reader, please do not take this personally; their current role in the struggle demands that they handle this operation in exactly this way, and should continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We have other avenues of approach at our disposal and should work to widen these avenues while the public eye is on Oathkeepers.
To be absolutely clear, now that they have addressed and resolved my specific criticism, the ONLY reason I am not joining Oathkeepers right now is that I and some of my allies are considered untouchables in some ways, and I will not allow the enemies of Oathkeepers to use an association with me or my allies to harm them in any way.
I will, however, be using my resources to support Oathkeepers from the shadows. I encourage others with similar interests and influence to do the same along any axis which moves them forward.
And thank you, tyrants at all levels, for ensuring by your mistreatment of them that the Oathkeepers' footprint continues to grow far larger than their membership rolls, and among individuals and interest groups which would, on paper, be held at arm's length by them. Your continued mistreatment of the white hats at every turn informs us all as to your true nature. Well done to you as well.
|
|