Lies of Omission

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Blood In, Blood Out

There were a couple of posts today dealing with mindset. One was an excellent post by Resistor In The Rockies and another was from Tea Party Economist. These were opposite mindsets that, along with all of the other patriot blogs out there, brought home the issue: Mindset.

It doesn't matter what some of the people in the country think of Cliven Bundy, most are trying to make him out a hero or a deadbeat. I don't think he is necessarily either one (though I do lean toward the hero end of the pool), but he is a man in the old sense; the righteous sense; the type young boys wanted to emulate and discovered their own character in the attempt.

Cliven Bundy stood up, not just a few weeks ago, but twenty years ago and has been standing on the principle he believed in all that time. There are the mealy-mouthed who say he should have paid his grazing fees. One might as well say he should have sold his soul, because that is what the other ranchers in Nevada did. They took a payoff, a dive, they threw the game, because the other players were bigger, tougher, meaner. I have no doubt that what the other ranchers did was the smart move. That's how the feds work: threaten, punish, shove and if that isn't enough they send out the snipers.

In America? The only thing that ever made America special is because it was not full of cowards shielding their face against the sight of the beast. If that's who we are; who we have become, there's nothing left to fight over. If Gary North (Tea Party Economist) is right, I have to be wrong.

Cliven Bundy understood that there are worse things than being dead, there is the loss of a dream. For him, it was the idea of passing down a ranch to his posterity. He knew that the ranch could not function on less acres than he grazed, simple as that. The first notice that told him he had to reduce his herd was the same as a death sentence to his future.

Most people don't understand cattle; how much they eat; how much ground must be dedicated to each head; how profit is derived from the offspring; how the herd must generate a specific number of steers, etc. That's why they don't understand that back in 1993 when they said he would have to reduce his herd and graze less land, it meant going way below the profit margin. It meant death to the ranch. So he told them to kiss off, they could not have his dream; they could not neuter his legacy for the sake of a desert tortoise (which was just a ruse backed by cultist environmentalists and used by the thugs to mask their brutality).

So Bundy stood on principle, he did not look for a bargain or to flout the law. It was a cruel, vicious, calculated prospect and he knew it. Today, Bundy and those at the ranch are more akin to those at the Alamo, standing on principle, knowing that they will lose an all-out battle, but also knowing that they will sow the seeds of rebellion and ultimate victory. "Remember the Alamo" is a well-understood phrase even today.

The difference, however, is crucial: Santa Ana (this time) is paid by us; acting as our agents; in our name. That is an indignity that might only be absolved through blood. The mindset required is: Blood in, blood out.

4 comments:

  1. The Tea Party Economist was an absurd take on the situation IMO...totally concrete-bound with no recognition of the underlying principles.

    The Alamo is an excellent analogy for the current situation. Outnumbered or not, the fundamental, or sine qua non, cause of the defeat was lack of preparation and organization. They were scrambling, not a great strategy against an organized force. Had both Warriors and Auxiliary known exactly what to do prior to the Candid Exchange of Views, particularly in preparing for a siege (ahem), the outcome might have been different.

    Also of relevance, perhaps to some, is that those few who surrendered were executed immediately anyway. Personally I see no reason to suspect greater mercy from today's captors, and lots of reasons to suspect less.

    On the brighter side, note that with organization, any attacking force in today's environment will find themselves quickly surrounded by a massively more powerful force. Probably that's keeping their tacticians busy, a good thing. But that's meaningful only with organization and preparation. A lot of Good Guys are still arguing over which piece of paper, and which Court decisions, they'll accept as Ruler of their souls.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Color me skeptical that this will ever be considered another Alamo.

    IIRC, Bundy can't even get a statement of support from his local Cattlemen's Association.

    Sure, he's gotten away with it for 20 years - but now his cattle are legally forfeit (he has lost all his legal cases with no more appeals possible).

    So all the feds have to do is wait for the furor to die down and then go and destroy the herd that's grazing on the disputed land (there's no legal requirement for them to round 'em up)

    By the time any supporters show back up it will be all over, except for burying the carcasses.

    In the end I doubt Bundy will have anything left on which to live beyond his monthly Social Security check.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Color me skeptical that this will ever be considered another Alamo."

      Okay, you're skeptical. Big deal. Some of us who understand the principles involved, think it may prove as big or bigger than the Alamo, as a timemarker anyway. Gotta be a start, after all. But that'll only be interesting if Tyranny loses in the end.

      Delete
  3. What if it is not the ranch, where supporters show up? You reveal your cowardice too easily.

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.