Greetings: And The Loss of Perspective
Greetings to all. I am glad to be back on the net again
after an absence that ended up lasting much longer than I had anticipated.
While I have been down there has been much that has occurred both for good
and for ill. However, the thing that worries me the most, after having
had several message exchanges with people from all over, is that there
are some in the patriot and militia movements who seem to have lost their
sense of perspective.
Now, it may be that I am more sensitive to that than other
people may be. My initial training was as an anthropologist. Anthropologists
pride themselves on trying to study all there is to study about people.
Anthropologists look at peoples' culture; their technology; their social
organizations; their languages; their biological growth, adaptation and
development; how they lived in past times; in short, the holistic study
of man. Then I enlisted in the Navy. I was trained to operate naval propulsion
plants. Again, the emphasis was on the big picture. One had to know how
each individual piece of a system fit together with every other piece of
that system, and how all the systems and their various pieces all fit together
to make the entire plant function. To lose track of that essential information
would almost certainly entail that if one had to respond to an unforeseen
circumstance, one's actions would likely be wrong. For the interactions
of various different systems and system components could be quite complex,
and over attention to one facet would almost surely entail that one was
missing something vitally important somewhere else. Eventually, I obtained
a commission. I stood watch as Officer of the Deck, Underway (OOD) on a
warship in a combat zone (Desert Shield, Desert Storm, etc.). Yet again,
the emphasis was on the big picture. The OOD had to be on top of everything
that was being done onboard the ship that could potentially impact the
ability of the ship to maneuver, had to be keeping track of all other ships
and their courses in the surrounding area, had to know where the ship was,
where the ship was going, and what the other ships in formation would be
doing when changes in the formation were ordered as well as a host of other
things. Again, forgetting to keep track of only one of those things could
potentially bite one, one's ship and fellow crew members in the tail.
The consequences of losing one's perspective could vary.
As an anthropologist, one would likely end up being ridiculed by one's
colleagues. As an engineering watchstander on a naval propulsion plant,
loss of perspective could end up leading to damaged equipment and potential
loss of life. As an OOD, loss of perspective could potentially entail the
loss of the entire ship and her crew. However, in the situation we face
today as members of the unorganized militia, loss of perspective may result
in an even higher cost. We stand to lose not only our entire country, but
even our posterity as well. Based on the penchant we have seen demonstrated
for tyrannical regimes to rewrite history and control education it is almost
certain that if we lose, our great grandchildren will not even know to
curse our names, because they will never know that our way of life was
different from what they will then be experiencing.
It should be obvious to all that we dare not lose. And
the only way not to lose is to win. And it is impossible to win if one
has lost one's sense of perspective. The vital question then becomes how
to obtain this sense of perspective and keep it amidst all the trials,
toils and tribulations that are sure to come.
There is a sense in which perspective is nothing more
than common sense writ large. One has to deal with the proper things in
their proper order. So, the first thing that one has to do is to decide
what it is that they are all about, what they hope to achieve, what they
are willing to fight for and how they will conduct that fight. At this
point an important thing to realize is that the answers one person comes
up with may not agree on all counts with the answers that other people
come up with. Our country has a population in excess of 260,000,000 people,
and literally covers a continent. There are a large number of different
things that are going to have to be done simultaneously in different areas
to preserve both our nation and our people. Also, all of us have different
talents, skills and abilities; and will likely be facing different problems
at different times.
Thus, the first major points are that one should use common
sense, and also realize that the answers they believe to be best for themselves
in some instances are not necessarily the best answers for other people.
Thus, for one person to argue that their way alone is correct, and all
others are cowardly/ignorant/insert pejorative term of choice/ is to miss
a part of the perspective that one needs. There has only been one perfect
person in this world. He was nailed to a cross almost 2,000 years ago.
Thus one must bear in mind that the possibility always exists that someone
you disagree with may be telling you something you vitally need to know.
And they will probably not want to cooperate with you to do something that
really needs to be done if each time you come into contact with them you
insult them.
So, the question of what we want to achieve needs to be
looked at. As I see it, the Constitutional Militias in this country are
attempting to preserve a limited constitutional republic which both protects
and respects the unalienable rights of its citizens. In the process of
doing this, loss of life, property, and territory is to be held to the
minimum necessary to achieve that goal. It should also be pointed out for
the benefit of those who seem to have somehow misunderstood the concept
that the Constitutional Militias call themselves such because they see
themselves as attempting to enforce the terms of the Constitution on the
government, not because they were created by the Constitution.
Now, I have heard that some have argued that the Constitution
is "dead". As a result, attempts to save it are of no value. It is my opinion
that such a position is woefully mistaken. In fact, I believe that this
represents the ultimate loss of perspective. Now, I will grant that the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the
Magna Carta, and any other document written by men are only words on paper.
They will just sit there, and will not do anything in and of themselves
to aid or hinder anybody in doing anything. However, to then say that these
documents are therefore "dead" and of no value misses the point.
Human beings communicate to each other by the use of symbols.
And the documents in question have become, both in terms of their idea
content and what they themselves represent, some of the most powerful symbols
that mankind has yet developed to communicate the ideas of liberty and
freedom from tyranny. Not only that, but the Constitution is in a very
real sense the symbol that both represents and defines what it is that
America is all about. If you trash the Constitution, you then have to redefine
what it is you are all about, and what it is you have to offer people.
The major disadvantage you will face, especially in times of severe stress
and turmoil, is that the vast majority of the 260,000,000+ people in this
country know the Constitution represents and stands for over 200
years worth of unparalleled liberty, freedom and growth for the country
that it defined. You and the ideas you would substitute for the Constitution,
however meritorious they may be, will be viewed with suspicion and skepticism.
Neither you nor your ideas have stood the test of time. The documents which
define this country have. Furthermore, and by no means is this a small
or negligible consideration, all previously and currently serving members
of the armed forces and law enforcement personnel are currently sworn to
protect and defend the Constitution. If you come to these people and talk
to them about trying to preserve that which they are sworn to protect,
then they are much more likely to listen to you than if you come with some
sort of ideological rant about your pet theories of government.
Therefore, when I say that I stand for unalienable rights,
and somebody asks me what I mean by that, I can refer them to the Declaration
of Independence as one of the important documents for defining not only
the concept of unalienable rights, but what it is that America is all about.
I can show how these ideas were then incorporated into the Constitution,
explain to them the advantages of that form of government, and provide
approximately 200 years worth of historical background proving that this
type of government can work. Most importantly I know that other people
in other parts of the country who have never read anything I have ever
written or heard of me in any way are also doing the exact same thing.
Because this way of doing things was so widely agreed to and so successful
for so long, it is almost inevitable that groups will spring up all across
this country doing exactly this when the real feces hit the fan. If, however,
I am trying to sell people Mike Johnson's version of the only true way
to run government, then I am likely to be the only person in the entire
country who is actively selling that approach. My ideas would be likely
to die off when I did, or worse yet become a source of contention between
various groups down the road as they struggle to reunite this country against
opposition.
It should be obvious given the size of our country, that
we are going to have numerous groups doing a wide variety of things in
different parts of the country when the feces hit the fan. One of the things
one is going to have to look at is how one is going to unite all, or at
least a significant majority of them under the same banner. We simply are
not going to be able to preserve a limited constitutional republic without
the support of a majority of the population. If for no other reason than
that a legitimate government derives its support from a majority of the
population. Thus, to try to establish a legitimate government that respects
unalienable rights based on only having the support of a minority of the
population is a contradiction in terms. As I have been trying to explain
all along, I believe the best chance of doing this is in adhering to the
the ideals expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence
as closely as possible. An important question then becomes, how does one
relate to the various groups and organizations that one will encounter
that do not share this view? This becomes an especially important consideration
when one is dealing with individuals and groups that could be described
as racist.
The question of how to deal with racists can be especially
thorny. While racism is total and complete bunk, the sad fact is that there
have always been racists in this world, and in all likelihood there will
always be racists in this world. Furthermore, under the doctrine of unalienable
rights and the resultant freedom of conscience it entails, I find that
one has the perfect right to hold disagreeable opinions and express them
pretty much as they see fit. Thus, to go about beating up on racists and
groups suspected of being racist simply because they are racist is to become
that which we are fighting. For if we decide that the unalienable rights
of racists do not have to be respected, then which "disagreeable" group
will be next after we feel we have done a suitable job of racist bashing?
The slippery slope looms large.
There is, however, a potential way out of the problem.
It is not a utopian solution, because utopia is not an option that we have
to choose from. However, it does have the benefits that it tries to incorporate
not only common sense, but elements of the common law as well. Proposed
quite simply, how one goes about relating to racists should vary based
on what it is that the individual(s) in question are actually doing.
For purposes of discussion, we will split racists up into three categories.
I should note that these are proposed largely for the sake of discussion,
and that trying to assign a specific person or group that you may encounter
to a given category should only be done after a prolonged period of observation.
In any event, each person has to be judged on their own merits as an individual,
as there are always cases that don't fit proposed classification schemes.
The first category discussed will be that of the "casual"
racist. This is an individual who, though racist, has principles and ideals
that they hold higher than their racist beliefs. Thus, they may be willing
to set such aside temporarily to work for the common good. It is quite
possible that a significant percentage of the men who fought for the Union
army during the Civil War could have been placed in this category. If you
find you are dealing with a casual racist who is willing to support the
Constitution, then it may very well be possible to cooperate with him on
an operational level. There are, however, some obvious limitations that
should be noted. These are that one should try to keep the person from
coming into contact with other members of your group who are of the race
that he disagrees with. While he is not likely to be overtly hostile to
these people, I can almost guarantee that his foot will implant itself
firmly in his mouth at the most inopportune time. Not because he's deliberately
trying to sabotage things, but merely because he is what he is. Think Fuzzy
Zoeller. Then think of all the time necessary to try to smooth all the
ruffled feathers and return some sense of organization to the chaos. Also,
this person should not be given any duties that require meeting with other
groups, spokesman type positions, or where tact and diplomacy are needed.
However, within those limitations, this person could prove to be a valuable
addition to a group.
The second type of racist that we will look at is the
separatist. This individual has ensconced himself on his own turf, and
as far as he is concerned the rest of the world can go to hell. To the
extent that all he or his group does is just hang out in their own area
and not bother anybody, then there should be no need to worry about them
too much. One should keep an eye on them however, because if they turn
aggressive and expansionist they may have to be dealt with as a threat.
On the other hand if they are behaving themselves and if you happen to
have members of your group who are of the race that they prefer to cooperate
with, limited trading of goods and information may be possible. It would
be advisable to keep members of your group who belong to races that they
have heartburn with out of their territory. Granted, this is not what we
are all about and it is obnoxious, but the owner of a piece of property
does have the right to define just who is and is not welcome on their property.
That is one of the major components of the common law right to property
that we are supposed to be defending.
The final type of racist that we will look at will be
the "rabid" racist. This person wants to get about the serious business
of implementing the "final solution" to deal with those he considers to
be "untermenschen" , as well as those he feels are too friendly to "untermenschen".
He is likely to be having fond dreams of the totalitarian dictatorship
he would like to bring into existence so that the country can benefit from
"strong leadership". They may try to pass as one of the other types of
racist, the better to penetrate other people's organizations and create
hate and discontent. This type of person and the groups they form are at
the very least a potential threat to the re-establishment of a limited
constitutional republic. At worst, depending on what depredations they
are inflicting on surrounding people and groups, they may have to be hunted
down like animals. One should devote what intelligence resources one can
to keep an eye on them, with the resultant dilemma in mind. Namely that
one can only legitimately go after them for what they do, not merely
what they believe or what they might do. As was discussed
above, to pound on them merely because you don't like what they think
is to essentially put yourself in the same camp they are. However, these
groups pose a serious potential threat to what Constitutional Militias
are trying to achieve and could try to inflict grave harm on people and
groups they don't like if they think they can get away with it.
Now, I have heard that the topic of potentially cooperating
with "racists" has been mentioned before. As should be obvious from the
discussion above, there are lots of potential problems and pitfalls in
doing so. What worried me the most, however, was that the groups that I
heard mentioned as groups that Constitutional Militias should try to cooperate
with were groups that were very likely to be of the "rabid" racist variety.
Again, we come back to the observation that there are some people who appear
to be suffering from a loss of perspective. I fail to see how those who
are trying to preserve a limited constitutional republic that protects
and respects the unalienable rights of its citizens have anything to gain
by trying to make common cause with people who want to create a racist
totalitarian dictatorship and yearn to implement the "final solution" on
"untermenschen" and those who they feel are too friendly towards "untermenschen".
That's basically all I've got to say for now. I think
it should be obvious by now how loss of perspective can potentially lead
to all kinds of problems. The major ways of avoiding this involve using
common sense and focusing on what one wants to achieve. In order to obtain
the support of large numbers of people, it is important to carefully pick
and use symbols that they can rally behind. It is also important to educate
those people as to just what you are all about, what you are fighting for,
and how the government you would like to institute should operate. Fortunately,
we have the best tools for those purposes that have ever been devised in
all of recorded history. These are, among others, the Magna Carta, the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now,
I am not saying that these are perfect, because nothing designed by mere
mortals can ever be perfect. But to turn one's back on that which has the
benefits of hundreds of years of history, tradition, a demonstrated
successful track record, and the support quite literally of billions
of people throughout the entire world (why do you think so many people
want to come here?) because it doesn't come as close to perfection as one's
personal ideas do smacks not only of a loss of perspective but a rather
considerable dose of arrogance as well.
These are the personal views of Mike Johnson. He is the elected spokesman of the North Central Florida Regional Militia. They are neither endorsed nor supported by Citizens For Better Government. They are presented for informational purposes only. |
Last Revision: August 23, 1997