PostHeaderIcon Meet the Terrorist

I am getting a mite tired of the label “terrorist” being so loosely thrown about as to become almost meaningless.  It is often remarked that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.  Who gets to decide which is which; only the press?

Wm. Ayers, the infamous Weather Underground “terrorist,” is much in the news of late as an associate of Barack Obama.  Listening to talk radio, one would expect him to be a rabid fire-breathing monster that any decent human being would refuse to even shake hands with, much less break bread with him as Obama has frequently done.  I now disagree.

I would love to meet the guy and have repeated long conversations with him.  I think they would be fascinating.  I still think he is a Marxist and probably disagree with him about just about everything; but I can’t consider him a monster.  Let me tell you how I got there.

James Rosen, the intrepid Fox News reporter wrote a biography, “The Strong Man,” about John Mitchell of Watergate fame.  In the process, he interviewed Wm. Ayers long before his link to Obama ever surfaced in the media.  He recently released some clips of the recorded interview on the Hugh Hewitt show, which I frequently Podcast from here.  Ranging from one to two minutes of audio each, I found them rather thought provoking:

James Rosen – Wm. Ayers Interview Clip 1

James Rosen – Wm. Ayers Interview Clip 2

James Rosen – Wm. Ayers Interview Clip 3

James Rosen – Wm. Ayers Interview Clip 4

James Rosen – Wm. Ayers Interview Clip 5

James Rosen – Wm. Ayers Interview Clip 6

Listening to these, I was struck by a few insights.  One was how calm and reasoned his responses were.  James did a good job of getting into rapport with him, and he certainly was not on the defensive.  I would have loved to ask follow up questions to explore his mind.  Next, was how much they reminded me of recorded interviews of Timmothy McVeigh, who could also calmly explain his rationale for his anti-goverment violence.  His was another mind I would have relished exploring.  Then, it is rather sobering to contemplate that these two so-called “domestic terrorists,” who were polar opposites in ideology, each concluded that their only recourse, to get the attention of what they perceived as an out of touch and out of control government, was violence.

All the more so, to be candid, because I have said similar things myself of late, in my frustration with the pathetic lot of politicians in Washington, who are absolutely ignoring the wishes of their constituants in so many weighty matters.  Who has not heard, and even sympathized with, calls to march on Washington with torches, pitchforks, and nooses?  The smell of revolution is in the air, and I for one find myself almost looking forward to it.  What other recourse do we have left, since they doggedly ignore our repeated pleas for sanity and relief?

How many members does it take in a revolutionary cause to graduate from being considered a “terrorist,” to being a “freedom fighter,” and finally attain “revolutionary?”  If there is any hope for our country to survive Civil War II, which I deem inevitable, it is going to have to be led by militant moderates who can make common cause with “extremists” on both sides of the Left/Right duopoly.

If one fairly analyzes their primary grievances, one notices that neither side is focused so much on forcing the other to conform to their worldview, as conventional wisdom would have it.  Instead, they are mostly interested in defending their right to have their viewpoint, and trying to get the government to stop carrying out (frequently unconstitutional) activities that they find onerous to it.  The test of leadership will be in getting them to recognize their true enemies, and join forces toward the defeat of the oligarchy that is so adept at keeping their ire focused on each other.

It really isn’t all that hard to be sympathetic to frustrations on both sides of the Left/Right gulf.  Regardless of what one thought of Vietnam or thinks of Iraq, (I supported both) the radical Left is absolutely right to claim that they were unconstitutional.  The last Constitutionally required declaration of war was passed in December of 1941.  Regardless of what one thinks of the abortion issue (I’m pro-choice), or what a few activist judges proclaim, on States’ Rights grounds, Roe v. Wade was an erroneous and unconstitutional ruling.

Speaking of States’ Rights and setting aside the issue of slavery (a practice I just can’t abide), the South was right to rebel against the unconstitutional notion of the Federal Government trying to tell them how them how to structure their society and laws.  From the perspective of the Constitution, the wrong side lost the Civil War, and liberty and self-government has been on the decline in America ever since.  Now, ask yourself, were the Rebels terrorists or freedom fighters?   Just a throaty “Rebel Yell” could often strike terror in the hearts of Northern troops, but the South did not even start the war.  They simply seceded and formed a new country, which the United States invaded and conquered.

Finally, how about our Founders, the original Patriots and Minutemen?  They were a tiny minority of the Colonists in the beginning.  From the perspective of King George and his Loyalists, had they our modern lexicon, they would surely have been labeled terrorists.  Imagine the scandal of camouflaged Minutemen sniping Redcoats from behind the cover of trees, instead of marching on them in the open in well-formed ranks like real men!

Frankly, were it not for that provocative picture of Ayers trampling on an American flag, I would find Obama’s association with Reverend Wright and Acorn much more troubling than his friendship with William.  But, “terrorist” is one of those hot button words that test well with the sheeple in focus groups , and Ayers is not black, so he gets the hotseat.  I’d still like to chat with the unrepentant Marxist.  Men with unbending principles, who can defend them calmly with a modicum of reason, are getting hard to find… even if they are terribly wrong.  ◄Dave►

9 Responses to “Meet the Terrorist”

  • Daedalus says:

    Dave, you are a pragmatist to the end. Phishing for terrorists from the socialist and fascist wings. Because men have “unbending principles” doesn’t make them worthy of ones consideration and/or cooperation if those principles are evil.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    [Note: John and I have been carrying on a running debate elsewhere over whether it is ever justified to compromise one’s libertarian principles with pragmatic (doing whatever works) tactics. He thinks not. In principle, I agree with him; yet I frequently find my principles inadequate to an important task at hand.]

    Dave, you are a pragmatist to the end.

    I suppose I can live with that condemnation. The alternative is to allow the unprincipled oligarchy to keep any malcontents, at all inclined to thwart their agenda, busy hating and fighting each other over foolish ideological dogmas, and ultimately turning to the actual culprits of their malaise for salvation.

    Phishing for terrorists from the socialist and fascist wings.

    Please explain this fragment. I cannot decode “phishing for terrorists…” Perhaps we disagree over the definition of phishing; but if internet identity theft has anything to do with this, it went over my head.

    Because men have “unbending principles” doesn’t make them worthy of ones consideration and/or cooperation if those principles are evil.

    Perhaps you are right. I consider altruism evil, whether practiced by Marxists on the Left, or Christians on the Right or Left. Together, they make up at least 90% of the population, leaving me feckless among a tiny minority of other individualists who probably don’t trust me either. Organizing libertarians toward a common cause is like herding cats… it will never work. Rather than be condemned as a Pragmatist, I should resign myself to be blown about by the chill winds of change orchestrated by the oligarchy, or perhaps just go dig a lonely foxhole in Galt’s Gulch and watch the land of my Fathers self-destruct, as the sheeple follow their messiah over the cliff.

    Besides, if I were to be caught even thinking of doing what our Founders would have unquestionably done in these identical circumstances, the Politically Correct Thought Police would have me in the docket roundly condemned as a terrorist of the first order. Abandon all hope, Ye Evil Sons of Liberty; the Progressives now in control of the Oligarchy have the sole franchise on Pragmatism, and will brook no alliances among all the terrorists who oppose them. Divide and conquer still works; the old “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” paradigm is passé. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    “Phishing, also referred to as brand spoofing or carding, is a variation on “fishing,” the idea being that bait is thrown out with the hopes that while most will ignore the bait, some will be tempted into biting. ”

    In the original post the paragraph starting with “All the more so, —” and ending with ” The smell of revolution is in the air, and I for one find myself almost looking forward to it. What other recourse do we have left, since they doggedly ignore our repeated pleas for sanity and relief?” looks to me like “bait'” to proselytize other similarly oriented folks to join you in revolution no matter what their ideological underpinnings.
    Next the word terrorism covers a lot of ground. It is used to describe agents (of a cause) who will involve themselves in acts all the way from psychological intimidation to wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. The founding fathers probably were viewed as terrorists by the British crown although the word did not come into use until the excesses of the French revolution. Substantively, their is a large difference between the acts of Ayers and McVeigh. Regardless of who views who as a terrorist one has to judge actions as good or bad on a philosophical basis. I will quit now since I understand it is not appropriate to get too “wordy” on a blog.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Wow… so I am not only guilty of compromising my libertarian principles with pragmatic suggestions; but I stand accused of fomenting insurrection and using contemptible subterfuge to recruit unsuspecting terrorists to my cause. I can assure you that i have zero interest in leading American Revolution II (ARII). I am a thinker, not a leader.

    The revolution is coming, whether I get a chance to participate or not; and I will not be the leader or even one of them.  At most, I am a pamphleteer; and last I heard, the First Amendment was still in force. At my age, ARII is as likely to begin after my demise as before. There are lots of frustrated Americans on the Left and the Right, whose heads are in the same dark places as Messrs. Ayers and McVeigh were when they acted. My fear is that they will continue to buy the politicians Left/Right dogma and be steered toward fighting each other in a Civil War II (CWII), rather than joining together as Americans for ARII.

    It is not that hard to notice that both extremes are convinced that the government and the MSM are currently controlled by the other side. Even though both obviously can’t be true, each believes it. This convinces them that their enemies are in the other camp, rather than simply the government oligarchy itself. My point in penning the above was to suggest that they may have more in common than they think, not the least of which is a common foe, which is not each other.

    We are all Americans, and were it not for the politicians keeping us at each others’ throats for their own purposes, chances are we could work out our differences civilly; and focus our energies on attaining the American Dream the same way our forebears did, rather than expecting the political hacks to arrange it for us. The cost to our Liberty, which they exact for that dubious service, is much too dear to pay. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    Dave you said,”I am a thinker, not a leader.” I don’t think that their is any dichotomy between being a thinker and being a leader. You have certainly acted as a leader in your chain of forums and now a blog. The kind of followers you attracted, being of somewhat independent natures, behaved predictably like a herd of cats:>)
    If one were really intent on revolution advertising on the Internet would be looking for trouble. On the other hand if smoking out troublemakers was ones interest a little encouragement might work. As the present administration takes on a more fascist appearance one might well be cautious. There doesn’t appear to be any hope for improvement in the near future. Many of our dear revolutionary pamphleteers were anonymous.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Thanks for looking out for me, John. That is all sound advice and I probably should go dig that foxhole. I won’t though. All manner of clichés come to mind, from Patrick Henry to the NH State Motto; but I will settle for the old chestnut, “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” I am not a serf or slave, and if we all just hunker down when the jackboots start marching, they win by default.

    Not on my watch. Fascism is a Left Wing phenomenon, not Right Wing. The tendency you ascribe to the present administration will only escalate under Obama. Not only do the Progressives hanker to control the levers of our economy, they are far less tolerant of dissenting viewpoints than the right. However, the Progressives have been embarked on a very long range project programing the minds of our youth, to achieve their agenda through carefully orchestrated societal change. They are on the cusp of victory, and the Oligarchy would be very foolish to impatiently jump the gun before our generation of Vietnam veterans dies out or becomes enfeebled.

    Realistically, they have far weightier matters on their plate at the moment, than concerning themselves with the feckless laments of an old man on an obscure blog. The two greatest pleasures left in my life are thinking and writing. I reckon I’ll indulge them for as long as I can. If an occasional reader says to himself, “Hmmm… I hadn’t looked at it that way before…” so much the better. If not, that is fine too… I will have enjoyed myself just writing it.

    Again, I am not trying to start or lead ARII; it won’t need me to start it and far more talented men will be available to lead it. However, I have had the occasion to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution several times in my life, and to my mind those oaths never expired. If still able, when duty again calls I will grab my musket and turn out. Tyranny cannot be allowed a cakewalk over our rights as freemen. Not on my watch. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”
    I’d rather live on my feet than die on my knees.
    When one is outnumbered or under equipped one has to use asymetrical techniques.
    Fascism is a collectivist phenomenon. It is characterised by the government directing the course of major businesses without totally taking them over (nationalization). Bush’s intent seems to be to direct the policy of the banks without actually nationalizing them. He could also “regulate” them to force compliance to the governments wishes. A third fascist technique is to deny market freedoms to non compliant businesses. This was the way companies were manoeuvred into making sub prime loans to extremely risky individuals. To me the danger to the Republic has always been Fascism, but Obama may change that, after all he claims to be for change.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”
    I’d rather live on my feet than die on my knees.

    John, you are an idealist to the end. 🙂

    When one is outnumbered or under equipped one has to use asymetrical techniques.

    Agreed.  I didn’t say I wouldn’t.  I will say that the more Americans that stand up on their hind legs and bellow in rage, the less likely a kinetic confrontation becomes necessary.

    Fascism is a collectivist phenomenon.

    Agreed.  Which is why I place it on the Left of the traditional Left / Right political spectrum.  Most on the Left, have been taught it is on the Right.

    It is characterised by the government directing the course of major businesses without totally taking them over (nationalization).

    You mean like a convoluted progressive income tax system, with myriad loopholes, exemptions, and tax credits for conducting business the way the politicians prefer?

    Bush’s intent seems to be to direct the policy of the banks without actually nationalizing them. He could also “regulate” them to force compliance to the governments wishes. A third fascist technique is to deny market freedoms to non compliant businesses. This was the way companies were manoeuvred into making sub prime loans to extremely risky individuals.

    Yeah, like that.

    To me the danger to the Republic has always been Fascism, but Obama may change that, after all he claims to be for change.

    Oh, we’ll get change alright.  The more I learn of his background the more frightening the man becomes.  He is a radical Marxist revolutionary, who was groomed for this.  The con job that is being perpetrated on us is stunning in its depth, breath, and implications.  There are serious people with their hair on fire over it, and they are being totally ignored, treated as nut jobs, and/or viciously attacked by our supposed free adversarial press.

    Lawsuits are being filed in State courts all over the country challenging his qualifications to hold the office, and he and the DNC are expending time and resources fighting them rather than just produce his birth certificate to a judge. That alone smells fishy to me.  Meanwhile, time is running out.  It is truly mind-blowing. ◄Dave►

  • Phil says:

    Perhaps there is a movement afoot. MSM reports numerous mail being sent to a bank with some sort of powder in the mail. It came from South Texas. Seems like nothing since I assume it is nothing but it could indicate a trend. Organized, I doubt.
    MSM also showed how major events happen at the beginning of a Presidency, within the first year which the Pentagon has laid out plans for. Just a few observations.
    Phil

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►