Posted by
Catmman on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:57:19 PM
On the Right, not the Left.
We all have fun making fun of the extremists on the Left: Code Pink, MoveOn.org; La Raza, etc.
Take a look at the secessionist Texas Nationalist Movement (linked above). If you browse their site, it's kinda scary. Part of me wants to believe this is just a group of people who are simply fed up, especially with abuses in Wasington DC. If you look closer at the rhetoric though, it's like reading a screed from La Raza or MEChA. Calling for the celebration of the (inferred) superiority of a specific culture, geographic area, history, way of life, etc. They even have a
logo. It's right out of the leftist extremist playbook.
I'm as proud of being a Texan as much as the next Texan, but this is a little ridiculous.
Bloggers and leaders of these organizations seem to distort things, like the Oath of Enlistment for the military. The rallying cry (directed at military personnel specifically) is "You took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Uphold your oath!" The sin of ommision in my book is the misrepresentation of the Oath. As if the above quoted section is all there is. It isn't. We do indeed say those words,
as well as the following: "
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." None of the people whos web sites or organizations thus far have displayed the Oath in it's entirety. Why? In some cases I'm sure it's an unintentional. ommission. In some cases though, I'm not so sure.
If you read the rhetoric at these sites, you'll be struck as I was, at the similarity to racial supremacist organizations on both sides of the isle. You'll also see very little advice or guidance on how the things advocated will actually get done. You'll also see little about what would happen if (especially in the case of secessionists) they got their wish. Oh, you'll see a great deal about how good it would be and how it would be possible, all couched in vagueries but very few real specifics. Don't just take my work for it though, go read for yourself.
Let me be clear, I have no problem with anyone doing this kind of stuff as a fundamental exercise in free speech. My problem is the lack of specifics and either unintentional or intentional misrepresentations and ommissions, especially in the case of the Armed Forces Oath.
I get suspicious when people don't give specifics. Rousing rhetoric and videos draped in patriotic imagery do a lot to ellicit our emotions. This is the problem. Emotions (especially anger) are counterproductive, particularly when it comes to advocating a political point of view. Ultimately this kind of extremism turns your message into a caricature (hello Paulbots, I'm talking to you).
Have you ever seen a Lefty anti-war protest? Look at some of the imagery. If the message is purely anti-war, we can talk and have a dialogue. But when your rally participants are flying flags from communist China, the former Soviet Union, wearing Che shirts, advocating so-called Palestininan issues, when the sponsors of a lot of these rallies are avowed Communists and get material and money from communist organizations, then the anit-war message gets lost in the static. (For some of the best images, posts and essays on this, see
Zombietime.).
Groups on the Right are doing the same thing. When you are trying to get people to listen to you about the government spending too much money, that is not the time to vomit out a 9/11 was an inside job and fire doesn't melt steel screed.
Another thing which just gets my goat is how righty weirdos constantly attempt to make their points by
arguing from authority. I like the 9/11 Truthers on this one. Because some former military officer said X this is supposed to give credence to his supposed logic on Y. The MSM does the same thing when they roll out the military guys which haven't worn a uniform for forty years yet think their opinions on current military doctrine are relevant (I understand there are quite a few military advisors who stay current on doctrine and tactics, but very few are actually credible as portrayed IMO). The bios for these guys are also followed by some drawn out recertaion of the title, rank, and job positions held. Here, let me do this about myself:
Catmman is an acitive duty Senior Non-Commissioned Officer with twenty-two years of military and law enforcement experience. Catmman is the former superintendent of the United States Air Force Heavy Weapons Course. Catmman is the Distinguished Graduate from the United States Air Force Non-Commissioned Officers Academy, the United States Air Force Combat Arms Instructor Course and the United States Air Force Basic Instructor Course. In the past six years, Catmman has supervised or personally trained over 500,000 United States Air Force personnel in the use of small arms and miltary tactics. Catmman is highly trained and experienced in SWAT and small unit tactics and never met a firearm he didn't like. I could go on. Get the point?
I have attained a position and a breadth of experience hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans will never have. But it doesn't mean crap if you were to ask me to give a presentation on particle physics. I could give you an opinion, I could baffle you with Bs, but trying to use my experience in an area I know nothing about would be dishonest. The same goes for the extremists.
There is nothing wrong with being ticked off about the government doing stupid crap. Advocating extremism to deal with it though makes us barely better than Obama's mentors in the Weather Underground. Healthy skepticism is good and advocating for action is one of the first duties of a citizen. But if you let it degenerate into paranoia you're not only hurting yourself, you're surely hurting the message you're advocating for.