Keeping misleading stories off of the forum
It sucks becouse he was clearly very intelligent in many ways. few ppl know that the word let used to mean-"cause to be" rather than to mean allow as it does now a days.
so I'm really not sure y some one would be hostile when we are trying to create something and make it better..... unless they are the enemy. Not many enemy's I know are up on the history of the Bible.....
The fact is that there are going to be people for whom the CDF approach is not meant. We are not the "old school" militia, and eschew much of what that movement was started for. Many old-school militias were formed using a manual--literally--that completely runs counter to what we're trying to achieve here. That mentality and methodology will still appeal to some people; it just isn't us.
If I'd believed we could achieve any of what we're setting out to do using the old methods, I wouldn't have bothered to try to re-invent the wheel, so to speak.
Often smart people are their own worst enemies. He had the potential to be a real asset, but he clearly was very insecure and overcompensating. He was rigid, which is always a problem in smart young people (I know, I suffered from it when I was in my 20s). He had accepted a belief in a black and white concept that the cure for suppressive politically driven censorship was anarchy. And was too invested in debating the idea (for a number of reasons including to show how smart he was) to actually listen to any of us. He was a classic example of listening to someone in order to develop your next counter, rather than to hear what they have to say. Too bad. I tired to give him a warning about the insults and combativeness, but it didn't help.
As far as group policy goes, I think this was perfect. The group gave him every chance to modify his behavior, and to encourage his polite participation. And when it became clear he was not going to listen, he was gone. Could we have pulled the pin sooner? Sure but that gets repressive and counter productive. And waiting any longer would have subjected fair minded members to unnecessary abuse, which would not have been fair.
Quote from watchman87 on August 20, 2020, 5:03 PMIf you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. —C.S. Lewis
Are the people not the militia?
Yes.
Are you to decide the definition of words?
Are you the arbiter of truth?
Is it not to the individual to decide what they believe to be true?
A free man is one who is free in mind and spirit. A critical thinker, discerning what is truth from fiction. This kind of censorship is exactly why I won’t be staying long. You will be no better than CNN, Facebook or Twitter in deciding what’s “worthy” news. You can count me out if this is decided to be implemented. Before you could even get off the ground, you’ve shot yourself in the foot.
On your soapbox that would be you, here you are a guest and the mods get to make that decision.
Please keep in mind there is no, First Amendment right to post anything in a forum you do not own, you are a guest and you shall post within the forum guidelines and more based on what the owner of the forum and the mods consider to be appropriate.
If that is unacceptable to you, that's not a problem you can form your own forum and post whatever you wish.
Quote from cb85 on August 20, 2020, 6:36 PMQuote from watchman87 on August 20, 2020, 6:22 PMFar right inbred conspiracy nut... are you by chance a democrat? What a joke. How do I abolish my membership?
Have you been on mymilitia??
I am and are still posting there point out just what you are talking about, I think management knows they have problems but hasn't figured out how to tamp it down short of closing the site.
Quote from Muninn-1 on August 21, 2020, 2:34 AMOk, enough of this back and forth.
It's become apparent he wasn't here to contribute anything positive.
So I used my powers that I've been entrusted with and banned him.If anyone has an issue with this, I am always open to criticism.
Please feel free to private message me.
It's a shame for any forum to lose a member for any reason, but sometimes the mods have to do what they have to do.
If not for them a forum, any forum would turn into digital anarchy.
Why not refer a member like that to a public version of the private Q type sub-forum that we have? Some people might consider me a ' conspiracy' type of guy or 'religious nut.' Whatever. I am a God pleaser not a people pleaser. Here is a brief example. In 2020, so much of what was once considered 'conspiracy theories' are now proven. Quick recent example, yesterday there was an article about mandatory vaccines. in Massachusetts and Virginia.https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/they-backed-us-corner-parents-protest-massachusetts-new-mandatory-vaccination-rules
Anyone who said this as recently as a year ago was considered a 'conspiracy nut.'
My point is that if we can we don't want to lose potential great new members..don't engage..distract and redirect them to forums on CDF like the Q type forum where they can have a good ol' time.
It dosent matter if they are left or right the anarchists have to be kept on a tight leash.
If they wont stay on the leash they will destroy everything in their path!
banned!!!
Speaking of MyMilitia -- I used to post there a lot, hoping to move the whole site leadership towards something like the CDF concept embodied here, or at least cohere a body of people who understood that this was necessary, or, at the minimum get this idea started among such local militia people as looked at that site.
I made the stupid mistake of being woundingly sarcastic about conspiracy theories and theorists and therefore got myself excommunicated. Or it may have been my opinion, expressed in PMs, about the long-winded self-indulgent videos in which their new owner -- who I think intends to monetize the site -- explained his view via YouTube. Again, not smart: let your communications be yea, yea, or nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil.
I would not have banned the gentleman who wanted to dispute the use of the word militia, but that's water under the bridge. The fact is, this is NOT a discussion forum, but a medium to build the American Civilian Defense Force, and everything about it must be subordinated to accomplishing that mission.
As for the word 'militia'. Words have no intrinsic meaning. They are given meaning in use. This meaning may change over time. And even at any given time, different groups of people may use the same word and hold different meanings by it. (Case in point: the word 'liberal'. One of the neo-cons whose autobiography I read years ago said how reluctant he was to abandon 'that useful word'. But its actual meaning-in-use had changed.)
The fact is, until about 1980, 'militia' meant more or less, to most people, what it had meant since 1775: a voluntary group of people, who may or may not have had some official relationship to the state, organized for military defense.
Then, perhaps as a kind of reaction to New Left violence and insanity during the late 60s and into the 70s, we had a rather strange set of growths within the culture medium of the Right: the Posse Commitatus, the Silent Brotherhood, the Sovereign Citizens, the Christian Identity movement. Some of these groups engaged in systematic murderous violence, others had members who more or less accidentally intersected the police and ended up killing them or being killed by them.
All of them were from the fever swamps of the Right, overlapped somewhat, and spoke to real economic hardship and anxiety among midWest farmers, among others. Growing up a bit later was the first wave of the militia movement -- often led by charismatic men who had been through Vietnam, and other areas of Cold War covert warfare, and who tended towards strong anti-government feelings and conspiracy theories.
Then came Ruby Ridge and Waco, followed by the terrible bombing in Oklahoma, which pretty much killed off the growing militia movement. Note: most of the local groups of that movement were not 'far Right'. But the public perception of them was of a breeding pool for Timothy McVeighs -- aided of course by the mainstream media.
[Sidenote: it is strange to me that the 1990s, that period which seemed to see the ultimate triumph of the USA, emerging as the dominant controlling power in the 'new world order', should have seen the growth of the sort of movement you normally see in the aftermath of a nation's defeat and humiliation. Perhaps it was fueled by the feeling that national sovereignty, and economic security, was being traded for America's dominant role in the world.]
Then the militia movement began to grow again. The Left claim that the electoral victory of Barak Obama was a major driver of this growth. Perhaps the long drawn-out agony of our failure to reshape, with our bayonets, the Islamic snakepit into liberal democracies had something to do with it.
However, in the eyes of many in the public, the reborn militia movement was just a renaissance of the earlier one. And of course the mainstream media, aided by the vile Southern Poverty Law Center, did everything it could to encourage that view.
As it is, many people even in the conservative movement think the militias are dubious.
Here is the statement of the NRA about militias, made in 1995: https://firearmsandliberty.com/nra.militia.statement.html ... and that attitude is still to be found among many conservatives.
So ... if you are forming a new group which meets all the criteria for the definition of a 'militia' -- why adopt the name, which conveys a misleading image to many people. "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."
The word 'stormtrooper' originally referred to specialist troops in the Imperial Germany army, highly mobile infantry who could flow around enemy entrenchments. Only later did it refer to the Nazi Sturmabteilung. But the 'meaning' is now fixed in the popular mind as referring to the latter. So it would be insane pedantry to form a 'stormtrooper' unit and claim it was just referring to highly flexible, rapidly-moving infantry units -- just as it would be insane pedantry to fly a swastika flag at a demonstration for good luck, just because this was originally an ancient Hindu symbol for good fortune.
But if you ARE forming a new group, whatever you call it, you should really, seriously consider giving it a broader mission than a traditional militia. We MUST have the broadest support possible. We have to reach out not just into the broader community, but also into the broader conservative movement. Just as a 'real' military is often mobilized to help out in a natural disaster, why should not a 'militia' also prepare for such events?
And a Civilian Defense Force -- with, of course, an armed security component -- has another huge advantage over a narrow 'militia'. It allows to bring several times as many people into active support and involvement.
A 75 year old college professor is not going to be low-crawling under barbed wire as he did fifty years ago (ask me how I know), but he may well have valuable skills to contribute to a Civilian Defense Group. A fifty year old trauma nurse may well not be your first candidate for sniper training, but her skills could prove to be, literally, life-saving.
Just as 'real' militaries' infantry component is only part of the military, being backed up indispensable robust support units with specialized tasks and equipment, so should the 'militia' component of a proper Civilian Defense Force have several times as many supporting personnel. (Of course, these people may well have personal weapons and be trained in their efficient use, just as every American soldier -- from a battlefield surgeon down to the batallion clerk -- has undergone Basic Combat Training and can use a rifle if necessary.)
There is a final consideration: I believe -- especially if the Democrats win big in November -- that we will see a sustained legal assault on the militia movement, calling them 'private armies', which are illegal in most states. But a' Civilian Defense Force' is going to be a much more difficult proposition to try to close down. These sorts of legal battles are ultimately battles for the public's support. It doesn't hurt to think about this aspect of things -- the relationship of semantics to reality -- in advance.
Let's take a leaf from the book of our African-American predecessors who, during the 1960s, formed organized, armed, self-defense groups across the South to defend their communities from white racist violence. They did not call them 'militias' -- they called themselves 'Deacons for Defense and Justice'.