Is it freedom when someone demands their own rights, but would deny others the same?
Whenever a serious social impasse is breached, i.e.: Chris Broughton bringing his AR-15 to the protest outside the VFW Convention three weeks ago, there is always a backlash that reverberates through society like a whip-crack. The bigger the incident, the more powerful the resulting vacillation.
As a self-styled “student of man,” I’ve noticed that whenever these events occur, those involved tend to display an oft-hidden glimpse into what really motivates them. There are times when one’s inspiration for action is pure in the sense that there is no outward evidence of malice of forethought, with Chris (at the outset) being an ideal example. Unfortunately, this is not typically the rule but rather the exception to it. Homo sapiens, despite our relative intelligence and artistic capabilities, is largely a petty, ego-centric, and paranoid species. We imprison ourselves in our fears and prejudices while our subconscious brain displays an amazing capacity for mental onanism that Freud aptly coined ego defense mechanisms.
I wrote my last article about the mainstream media and the selectivity they display toward the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Since the AR-15 incident, I’ve started to look at some within the freedom movement in a similar light. I’ve also become a bit more guarded, at least until I can get it figured out. I’ve begun to notice some glaring dualities between what some people say and what their actions reflect. The Rorschach response that comes to mind is that it’s some level of hypocrisy. You might call me naïve, and maybe you’d be right; I don’t know.
Since I am still a rookie in the freedom movement, I wonder if I may hold a misperception that freedom fighters are universally more enlightened than the general populace. It may be because I already believed in libertarian doctrine and Austrian economics. I also believe that the panacea for most of society’s ills can be found in the Shambhala of individual liberty.
But we must not forget that the world is chock-full of obtuse and judgmental individuals who mask their shortcomings behind a convincing emotional façade. Artificially created self-esteem tends to be parasitic in nature, meaning it comes at someone else’s expense. Also, people are usually where they are in life as a direct result of the choices they make.
Another fact is that there are many people who will inherently fling their feces any and everywhere they eat and lie, irrespective of the place they call home. I can attest there have been occasions when I too have been guilty of it, yet I sincerely hope this is not one of them.
After the AR-15 publicity stunt, the sissy-fied backlash from the Obamanoid media started immediately. Since it had been staged, and the Phoenix police were invited to the party, they couldn’t hammer us on the danger issue. Naturally, they started searching down other avenues. Unfortunately, one of those levels of attack appears to be gaining some real steam.
The mainstream media’s mission has long been to divide-and-conquer. They achieve this with multi-focal, partisan hyperbole surgically designed to pit man against man so the Global elite can continue about their business of enslaving us unmolested. Why do you think they call it “programming?” In fact, whole branches of science are dedicated to perfecting mind control techniques. One trip to Las Vegas with a different set of open eyes will prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt.
My journey down this road began after I re-posted an article on Freedom’s Phoenix from Raw Story that linked to a gay activist blog. The blog claimed that Steven L. Anderson, pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ, the same pastor who was beaten and tased at an inland border checkpoint, has a death-wish for homosexuals, adulterers, and Barack Obama. Prior to reading the post, I had absolutely no idea what the pastor preached about.
My intention was to engage in social intercourse with other readers of Freedom’s Phoenix about a topic that I felt was very poignant. If proven true, it would paint a rather amphibious portrait of the pastor, and if proven false, it would turn out to be just another ridiculous smear piece from the fringes of the far left. As it turns out, the bloggers were right. Pastor Anderson, while claiming to be an outspoken advocate for liberty, including giving speeches at two different 4th of July Tea Parties, also advocated for the stoning of homosexuals and the death penalty for adulterers and President Obama on the Alan Colmes radio show. Since that time, Pastor Anderson frankly hasn’t shut up about it.
Right before it all unfolded, I coincidentally asked Chris B. if he knew the pastor, and whether or not he had read the article I posted. Chris stated that, not only did he know him he was in fact a member of the congregation. He also stated that he hadn’t read the article. I followed up with a question about the basics detailed within the blog post, to which Chris simply replied, “Pastor Anderson preaches a very literal interpretation of the King James Version Bible. That is why I go to his church.” To Chris, that was it; a simple yet direct explanation. While I don’t at all agree, I can certainly live with it. Why? Because we had a discussion about something we both consider serious in nature, yet neither one of us apparently judged the other.
Conversely, I have been accused of being “possessed by demons” and attacked in the comment section of the post and in private emails for the same apparent transgression. The funniest one of all was:
“I fail to garner any appreciation why you use your position with Freedoms Phoenix to do this within the ranks when knowing it is having a negative effect on others in the movement. We, like you just want to be 'left alone" in our process of waking people up.”
In other words, my man doesn’t want me to even make a reference to his Glorious Leader’s “freedom for me and fuck you” rhetoric. In fact, this same person asked around to have the article taken down from the site. I don’t have any more of a “position with Freedoms Phoenix” than my detractors do. To make things clear to everyone, Freedom’s Phoenix has a saying:
If it isn’t Ernest Hancock or Powell Gammill, it isn’t Freedom’s Phoenix.
On one level, it has been somewhat humorous to me, but overall it really hasn’t. In reality it’s sad because people I thought were my friends have decided to “write me off for good,” all because of an article written by someone else that I re-posted on Freedom’s Phoenix. To that I say, “auf Wiedersehen.”
But I also want to make something else explicitly clear: I don’t pretend for a minute to be some white-robed innocent. I know at times I am a caustic and confrontational asshole, and I am not known as someone who suffers fools lightly. I also have the dubious ability to “press just the right button” when I feel the situation calls for it. These are not personality traits I am particularly proud of, but I do my best to keep them in check. What-friggin-ever. I take full responsibility for my words and actions and make no apologies for either. But this is not about me. The purpose for relating this anecdote is allegoric; I am using it to exemplify the much larger issue at hand.
My contention with Pastor Anderson is that he has done far more damage to the cause of liberty than any help he gave it through his martyrdom at the inland checkpoint. Not to mention, he milked that one for all it was worth as well.
These are tough times (and going to get worse) and I won’t stand by idly while anyone openly wishes death upon another; there’s too much of that in the world already. It also blows my mind that anyone would stand by such a megalomaniac attention-whore that preaches hatred in much the same way that James Brown espoused his blackness; loud and proud. It’s been overused, but it really smacks of a Hitler-esque movement.
Personally, I have no room for hate in my one man .
But I guess it’s to each their own as long as it doesn’t affect me. I would never tell anyone how to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn’t affect me, and I pray that I live to see the day that everyone regains the right to be left alone; with no exceptions - even for knuckle-heads like the pastor and the Feathered Bastard. But because I’m ultimately fighting for my own rights, I’m not going to stick around while the house burns down, from the inside or the outside. That’s the bottom line.
To externalize for a moment, this fringe-type thing is exactly what the mainstream media and the “powers that be” are desperately looking for. Because the freedom movement supports the pastor in his fight against warrantless checkpoints, does his hate speech put us at a higher level of magnification in the government’s cross-hairs? Could it cost our loose collective the hard-fought gains many have spent years working on, serving it up in much the same way that John the Baptist’s head was served to Herod Antipas; on a silver platter?
“They shall be known by their deeds alone”
Major General John Shirley Wood, US Army 4th Armored Division.
If only it was that simple.
I ask each one of you; in the practical sense, what does freedom mean to you? Can we not find it within ourselves to put religion’s inarguable philosophies aside in order to fight for the one earthly thing worth fighting for; true individual liberty? As for me, I’m going to worry about what happens in the afterlife, in the afterlife.
I’m not willing to go down for someone else’s foibles, especially for those whose intentions have been obviously mitigated by some ulterior motive. Like Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, “I may find in you no fault at all” but yet, like Pilate did to Jesus, I will reluctantly wash my hands of you. But if your motive is freedom for freedom’s sake, I’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you all the way - no matter what may come.
My word is my bond.