http://www.willowtown.com/reality/columns.htm

We at war. Wars are fought by ignorant 19 year-olds, lackeys, prostitutes, ignorant idealists and the minority at the top who understand what the real stakes are. It doesn’t matter which one of those pulls the trigger on you. You are just as dead.

If I had all the answers maybe I’d be leading the group of 3 million or so that should advance on D.C., arrest, try for treason and execute all the members of the socialist caucus, then focus on the numerous Marxist foundations based in Virginia and New York City. Then of course, look at who is really funding them.

Americans

Part of the reason we haven’t is that the other side knows and plays the media game far better than our side does. One of my big complaints with NRA is that they don’t really have an overall strategy for media. ILA has a media group, and general operations has a media group, but I don’t think they have any grand vision for trying to change their relationship, and for getting positive stories out there. The Bradys are not afraid to put their bullshit in front of ignorant reporters, who will gladly print it, because it confirms their biases.

Still, our media coverage these days is a hell of a lot better than it was in the 90s, and I think that has something to do with our increasing success. The media is one of those fundamental things that has been killing us. If we could turn it around, that would be the end of gun control. Turning it around is tough though. Michael has done a lot of work with his show in that regard, which is why I’m surprised he doesn’t see the problem in writing a letter to the editorial board of a newspaper which just basically confirms the biases of the journalists.

“Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn’t you tell the world, EH?” (Kurt, the the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) is your friend :-).

Thank you–although I feel a bit foolish for not having thought of that myself. Anyway, that is precisely the passage I had in mind.

Thanks again.

A) While there’s long term promise in e.g. “new media” and the Decline and Fall of the MSM, to expect the following will make any difference is fatuous:

“[...] I see no reason for gun owners to provide the media with more tools they can use to create an image of gun owners are being dangerous, and far outside the main stream. In fact, we need to work very hard to foster the opposite impression in the media.”

It doesn’t matter what we say, the media will with very rare exceptions continue to present their narrative. They have after all have shown themselves to be quite eager to make up things out of whole cloth, rewrite letters to the editor, etc. etc. At least Mike’s letter had the advantage of being generally accurate and true, ***as well as morally necessary***, in terms of telling our enemies the consequences of their actions and giving them fair warning.

“Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn’t you tell the world, EH?” (Kurt, the the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) is your friend :-).

B) “Bob” is in general not going to speak up for all the reasons outlined above, often for no other reason than that he wants to preserve his job and career. We *might* get his “active support” (say in terms of voting—there are downsides to requiring the publishing of campaign donors names…), but it will be silent except to a trusted few until “it’s clearly safe and at least somewhat popular to do so”.

Peter put it best: “[...] if the gun culture gets shut down before Bob can work up his gumption, just what have we accomplished?”

The thing that most concerns me here is that while our enemies are on the run in the larger scheme of things, they are still focusing on the long term where they can win by aborting the next generations of gun owners.

And a final point about deterrence, one I haven’t figured out how to present in anything less than very ugly ways, which is probably inherent:

Dave: “[A radical letter] could have a solid chance of convincing gun control oriented folks that X law is absolutely necessary as it does stopping them from considering it. Remember they know they aren’t going to be the ones that have to enforce the law in question, so the chances of them being afraid of any trouble resulting from it seems slim to me.”

For that reason, you have to make it absolutely clear they are in this game as well. That such a “revolution” will in truth be that, as ugly as any modern one, let alone our American “Rebellion” (for the French shortly afterwards redefined the term).

I most certainly don’t want the country to get to a point where a slogan like “Have you killed a liberal today?” is popular, but I’d be a fool to entirely discount it.

How we present this ugly “Doomsday Weapon” truth is very open to debate (especially the thresholds, although ambiguity there can be useful), but trying to hide it is unwise and certainly immoral.

Not sure which gets up my nose most, the louder line-in-the-sand types or the “If we’re nice, people wil come to love us,” folks. I suspect both approaches may have a flaw or two.

Tell ya this for true: when we spat, Sarah Brady smiles.