a. a member of an irregular usually politically motivated armed force that combats stronger regular forces, such as the army or police
I write about topics that are considered too hot or risky for many writers. I try to write in plain terms, with little in the way of "code words". An attorney for a publishing house would never approve the content of this blog, for fear of a .Gov lawsuit for, at worst, perhaps, a case of sedition. Of course, anyone who reads my words with any intellectual honesty knows I do not advocate sedition - I advocate .Gov that operates within the restrictions and permissions of the DoI, USC and BoR. Remaining intellectually honest, readers will have to admit I have never called for gratuitous or immoral violence in pursuit of political goals. I do advocate for self defense against unconstitutional behaviors. Of course, intellectual honesty hasn't been a genuine part of our judicial system for hundreds of years, has never been a universal trait of our Countrymen, and it won't start on my behalf.
I am still on the porch. I remain on the porch by choice. I think I can do more good from here, for now, by following my current path. I've said this time and again. I know that right now, leaving the porch and following a path of violence would be counter-productive, and lonely as hell, within the existing paradigm in America. It would also follow the Dorner model pretty quickly, and I'd end up a crispy critter without achieving anything that advances Liberty. I agree with the majority of this audience who answered the poll at right, that the forces of Liberty have already earned the moral right to begin defending themselves on a wide scale. But from a practical standpoint, FreeFor hunting parties simply aren't a viable option at the moment.
Hearts & Minds is a topic that always stirs emotion among Patriots. Everyone draws their lines at different places, for differing reasons, from morality to practicality. I'm not really looking to start yet another discussion on the topic, angels on the head of a pin and all that, but I do think it is important that I articulate my thinking on the topic for the 93% + of my readers who are on the same page as me.
Back to intellectual honesty, anyone who has read my Doctrine on Self Defense and remains intellectually honest won't need this articulation on Hearts & Minds. But for the folks who have taken the decision to reject intellectual honesty, you know, those folks who point to my Self Defense Doctrine and cry "K wants a genocide of all D and Establishment R voters!!!" and "K says kill the babies!!!" need a bit of pushback for the record. So, for the record: I do not advocate genocide against voters. I could support spaying and neutering most of them, but not genocide or even violence on an individual basis based on political philosophy.
I do believe that wide-scale political violence in America is inevitable and imminent, because Bad People want wide-scale physical political violence in America. But that doesn't mean it is prudent for the guerrilla who seeks DoI/BoR Liberty to have a "Kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out" strategy. If a guerrilla starts hunting the 95% + civilians who are ideological enemies, then all civilians begin to feel they could be next, and the guerrilla gets pushback that can't be overcome. Not only will the civilians you oppose begin to fear and then mobilize against you, but even the small number of civilians who support you will begin to fear tit-for-tat strikes against them, so it is in the interest of all civvies to work together to shut you down.
If a guerrilla hunts the enforcers of unconstitutional laws, like a domestic standing army, that group will respond just as the civilian group would respond - they will first feel righteously indignant, they will circle the wagons and try to go hard in reprisal mode, and if guerrilla forces apply enough pressure, they will eventually do as they have done time and again historically - they will take off their uniforms and go home when it gets too expensive to show up for work. They will leave their political Masters without tooth or fang. Might the civilian populace turn on the Liberty guerrilla for hunting enforcers of the State? Of course they will - those same people who stand in opposition to your ideology now will be against it when you attack. But those people are never going to approve of your Liberty, no matter how you go about Restoration. The key is to do nothing that brings the civilians off the bench.
Personally, I am with the vast majority of this audience who voted on the polls at right. I don't give a whit about what the average FSA parasite or Leftist/Marxist/Communist politician or voter thinks about me - they will never agree with me anyway, so fugg'em. But it simply isn't practical to do anything that would make a group of people that is otherwise out of the fight to get motivated and into the fight against you. Take measures that keep them out of the fight - which means you don't turn off their electricity in summertime and make them hot and cranky. In fact, you may want to ensure no one turns off the electricity. When your ideological enemies outnumber you by 93% or more, you do not make them afraid to send their children out of the house.
In any guerrilla action, as the definition at the top of the page explains, the primary fight is with the force-projection assets of the enemy and support elements. I suggest it also extends to the symbols of the enemy for morale and psychological wins. If a guerrilla force takes the ability to wage war away from enemies, the guerrilla wins. If the guerrilla makes the enemy choose to stop fighting, the guerrilla wins. Once the guerrilla force takes the fight out of the enemy, then they can work on the parasite and predator issues of society.
So, the next time you read that Kerodin wants to kill 'em all, you will know you are reading a person who has taken the decision to deliberately distort my position.
Use that information as you will.