imported post
In my opinion, very often those who wish to quell any movement towards restoring our personal liberty, use the seemingly inevitable divisions of race, sexuality, religion, etc., as a wedge to keepthose movementsdisorganized and/or discredited.
Quite often it seems to me that this tool is willingly and/or unknowingly GIVEN to those who would use it to discredit those movements, byshort-sighted members of such a movement.
If, as a people, we could band together to fight for our liberties and rights, without "blaming" (or making any damn distinction at all that is contrary to EVERYBODY'S rights) the Jews, or Homosexuals, or Blacks, etc... we might have a chance.
In other words, if we could leave that which is irrelevent OUT OF THE platform, we might just keep the important points so well focused that one of the primary weapons against us is rendered moot.
If those who are politically active, or who choose to "drop off the grid", etc.for thier own preservation or freedom to just "be",can not be labelled lunatics, racists, sexists,or heretics, etc.,then they have to be dealt with more or less honorably as the thoughtful, seriouspatriots they often see themselves as.(and arguably often are, despite thier other philosophical stances) For example,I do not think that Jefferson was right in any way shape or form for owning slaves, but I do regard him asamong thegreatest patriots in our history.
How would the sheep have reacted if the Branch Davidians were not a "religious cult" (as labeled by the Government)bent on a Jonestown type ending for thier innocent, unprotected, (and imprisioned?)followers? Who's drinking the Kool-Aid at that little picnic, really?
What if Randy Weaver was not a "known white supremacist"? One less excuse for JBT's shooting up his family, perhaps?
Yes, I know, those two examples probablyalso included some violations of the law by the principles involved.. but what sensational info did the media get from Big Brother to splash all over the news to justify the carnage?
If the above broke the law, or violated someone else's rights, they should have suffered the consequences.. but are the consequences of raining death without due process appropriate for the circumstances without the big scary "Cult" or "Racist" labels?
We all know that one of thecosts of our Liberty is suffering some fool exercising his own and who also has no clue what that means. This is relative, of course, and I am certain impossible to resolve.
Until we as a people can embrace defending a bigot's right to be one, even as it makes us sick to our stomachs, or a zealot's right to espouse his beliefs, as loudly as we would argue withthem, in public, we will not be able to solidify any effective lasting resistance to tryany.
I read the whole thread about the Dotys when it was running. I followed the links and found that while I applaud thier 2A stance, and admire his/thier "Take no bullshit"actions regardingit, I think Zach and other's of his ilk are offensively ignorant, you may or may not... That is up to the individual.
Wecan not, and we MUST NOT legislate/pontificate that right out of our Liberties... and we must not let the tyrants use our habit toignore the forest,in favor of what trees we personally like,against us.
It is either one or the other, we can not have it both ways. Liberty must include theduty to defend therights of the ignorantalong with the Freedom to believe whatever idiocy you want. We can provide only to take action to arrest behavior or provide consequences when ACTIONS infringe on the Liberties of others.
Ok, got that one (mostly) pulled out of my craw, I can try to shut up now.
Erus