MadPx Mondays
A Brief History of Power
Posers Rule
0:00
-1:05:29

Dr Koontz and Rev Fisk talk about the consequences of seeking direct confrontation with the federal government, the stories of Gordon Khal and Randy Weaver, what "hostage rescue team" actually means, and the importance of understanding where your words can lead you.

Dr Koontz - Agrarian, Egghead -  Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne

Rev Fisk - Author, Fanatic - St Paul Rockford

Visit our website -  A Brief History of Power

Music thanks to Verny

[Speaker 2] (0:06 - 0:09)

Hey, Dr. Koontz, are you poor in spirit?

[Speaker 1] (0:10 - 0:16)

I'm poor, so, yeah, definitely in spirit, but also just literally, yeah, confirmed.

[Speaker 2] (0:17 - 0:35)

What does poor mean? I mean, as we talk about class warfare, yeah, as we talk about, you know, how to decide what is really good for your neighbor, right? I think understanding poverty kind of comes into play. And then, you know, poor in spirit. That's a fascinating old way of talking that doesn't seem to fit to an age without souls.

[Speaker 1] (0:35 - 1:21)

No, it doesn't. And the closest we get to a sense of sort of nobility, independent of income usually just gets assigned on the basis of like race or biological sex or something, so it doesn't go very deep. So poverty can be either an absolute measure or more, I think, importantly, for most people, it's a relative measure.

So it means something different in Canada than in Nigeria and different things in different parts of the country. So, yeah, I mean, economically, you could look at all different kinds of measures. I guess what I meant was simply that relative to like I, I'm nowhere near having to worry about whether I'll get a stimulus check because I make too much.

So, right, right, right, right. So, you know, I'm good to go.

[Speaker 2] (1:22 - 1:59)

I feel as if the word poverty has come to mean. Everything below the middle class, where I think historically it means everything below the elite. And that snooker right there seems to be worth all the marbles.

If you can follow now, maybe spinning this a little bit toward the conversation from last week and we're going to talk about more today. I mean, I would imagine that the people who are going to be accused of things like domestic terrorism, as well as the people who are ultimately protesting and things like Black Lives Matter marches, that these are people who are, in fact, poor.

Maybe. Oh, interesting. So and that relates to, I think, the notion of poverty of spirit or poverty in spirit that is important because although, you know, economically, I'm not like, you know, destroying all competition.

I feel that because of my faith and the choices that I've made in life because of that, I am I live an extremely rich life. Like I, I'm not I'm not filled with envy or something or a desire for tons of stuff I don't have. And that's a great blessing to to live in that way.

I think that even if you made two or three times what I make and had two or three, you know, fewer children than I do, you could still feel very impoverished because the issue politically and the reasons that I think people are willing to resort to violence, which is some of what we'll be talking about today, is because they have a sense of emptiness or loss or sometimes straight up envy that will allow them to do things that are unthinkable for most people. And the stuff that we're talking about today concerns a time long before, you know, the entire Republican Party or every Trump voter or any of the enormous categorizations that now happen in the media every single day.

All white people, whatever. Right. Long before that, there were people who were

categorized as, you know, beyond the pale, which happens in every polity.

But what we're looking at are people who get that desperate. And in the case of like

Black Lives Matter, the organization is not at all.

[Speaker 2] (3:49 - 3:53)

No, that's why I tried to say the people actually on the street.

[Speaker 1] (3:53 - 6:23)

Yeah. For them. Well, and but I but I think like as absolute economic measures.

So if you started saying, all right, well, let's look at reparations. OK, who if you would

have to be brutally honest about things that people can't really talk about in public. So

who pays taxes?

What is the racial breakdown of actual taxpayers, individual taxpayers to the federal

government? Who benefits as a net racially from the federal government? Whites,

blacks, Asians, Hispanics, non-white Hispanics.

You know, like, OK, you'd have to do that. They they do this, but they only do this for

states. You know, so they'll say, well, Connecticut pays in more than it gets and

Oklahoma takes out more than it gets.

You know, so they do this with blue states and red states, but they don't do this with race. And so they can't they can't really tell you like if you're white, are you fairly likely

to have contributed a certain amount toward, you know, welfare, education, lots of

things that are received as services. They won't talk about that.

And I think that the reason for that is that if we were measuring things in sheer economic

terms, you could come up with one answer in the same sense that I could say I'm poorer

than most Americans in sheer economic terms. Does my life feel empty or poor? No, it's

it's overflowing with joy, to be honest with you.

And that really cannot be measured in economic terms. But the same goes for negative

things. So if we said, OK, you are a black female.

How likely are you to have received this benefit and that benefit and this other economic

benefit from the state or federal or local government? Does that actually satiate your

demand for things that belong to other people? Not necessarily.

And part of the difficulty is that we're not really able to talk about economic issues

nationally in the way that we did, like when whether we should go on a gold and silver

standard simultaneously was like the major issue of 1898. And I think that's because the

spiritual issues underneath economic, purely economic questions, budgetary questions,

those spiritual issues. Are complete.

They're a giant mess. And so we can't talk about things that seem like lower

temperature, like health care policy or tax policy.

[Speaker 2] (6:24 - 6:41)

Satiation is a matter of the soul. And I don't like the word soul than just use psychology

because it's the same word in Greek, more or less, are very connected. The words of

your mind, what's going on inside your head.

And if you're trying to be satiated, that's yeah, that's that's not a material reality.

[Speaker 1] (6:41 - 6:41)

Right.

[Speaker 2] (6:42 - 6:57)

The hungry man who eats too much simply gets sick. There's a there's a place where

contentment has to come before you're you're sick. And yeah, that's really that's

interesting.

So then Gordon Cole, what was his beef? What was he? He was mad, right?

Yeah.

Yeah. Well, he was mad. Yeah.

And I think that it's it's significant to see that there is a reality that occurs in the United

States simultaneous with the same reality going on in Western Europe. And this is what

Europe is not something I'm going to be talking about today. But it is significant to know

that certain public opinions about American history and the Constitution and stuff.

And I'll detail that with Gordon Cole today. Those were OK to publish about, to talk about,

to hold rallies in favor of in the 1950s and even the early 1960s. There are political

realities that change with especially the Johnson administration onward.

That make those things off the table, and this is a common theme in American

conservatism, is that you will find somebody defending something that 20 years

previously was totally fine to say in public. And once it becomes totally not fine to say,

then that person will often drift into immense frustration and respond sometimes

violently. I don't believe everything that the government says about the people we're

going to talk about today, but I do believe some of it, especially in the case of Gordon

Cole.

So Gordon Cole is a farmer in North Dakota, not a group notable since roughly the 1890s

for their political activism. And he is the Rough Riders.

[Speaker 2] (8:24 - 8:25)

Is that a Rough Riders reference?

[Speaker 1] (8:26 - 8:50)

No, no, no, no. In the 1890s, North Dakota and even down into the New Deal, North

Dakota is actually fairly it's called a populist party, but it has elements of what we would

think of as like left wing economics combined with social conservatism, all in the name of

something that Gordon Cole is going to get really upset about in the 1970s, which is the

destruction of the family farm.

[Speaker 2] (8:50 - 8:53)

OK, yeah, yeah. Which is kind of evident, right? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (8:53 - 10:54)

And North Dakota is one of these upper Midwestern states or kind of northern Great

Plains states that had such a large German and Scandinavian population that the politics

just sort of have different options historically. Like North Dakota still has a state bank,

which I don't think any other state has. So Gordon Cole gets upset about both a

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 993combination of the disappearance of the family farm, which is also the disappearance of

rural towns that serve those farmers and therefore of a lot of interconnection that then

just goes away.

Combined with he works periodically, not all the time, but periodically in Texas oil fields.

And it's in Texas that he gets in contact with a group of people who will eventually be

called sometimes by journalists, sometimes by themselves, the posse comitatus

movement, which is a Latin term. I mean, we have the term people know the term

posse.

It's the idea that free men in a common law polity like Britain or America should join

together and defend themselves for certain purposes that the government doesn't

acknowledge or is actively opposing. OK, so that sounds it's a little arcane. Here's one

more arcane thing.

And then we'll go into what happened in the 70s, going into the 80s. The other arcane

thing is that Gordon Cole, like a certain fairly large number of people, including even like

legal scholars that I've read who don't have any political interest in saying this, are not

entirely sure that the 16th Amendment, the amendment ratifying a federal income tax is

actually constitutional. And there are there are different grounds for that.

Some of them are extremely technical, like the text of what was proposed by Congress is

not identical to the text that was ratified.

[Speaker 2] (10:54 - 10:54)

Oh, interesting.

[Speaker 1] (10:55 - 10:58)

Precisely. I mean, it's not significantly different.

[Speaker 2] (10:58 - 10:58)

It's a loophole.

[Speaker 1] (10:58 - 11:19)

It's a loophole. But then also there are maybe more substantive or large arguments that

a direct tax on wages is not even the intention of the amendment. And therefore, you

know, OK, so that has none of that fared particularly well in courts.

But that's what Gordon Cole comes to believe.

[Speaker 2] (11:20 - 11:29)

Yeah. I mean, just just as an aside, why would it? You're expecting to be dealing with

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 994reasonableness and not, you know, priests defending their class.

[Speaker 1] (11:29 - 12:12)

Continue. Right. Right.

Exactly. So once he comes to believe this, he begins to participate in something. And it's

notable that things like this pick up in the 60s, because I really think that what we are

dealing with today is the rapidly decaying sort of frayed end of something that began to

unravel in the 60s.

I don't I don't really think that we are. We should all be surprised at both the

resemblance of ideologies, but also at the idea that something like Gordon Cole and his

movement can't really exist until the 60s, because you can't get enough people that

radically disaffected from the American policy.

[Speaker 2] (12:14 - 12:27)

What he does, the tie, just the tie of TV and then the movement of colored television and

media becoming more of the mainstream diet of man, not read, but seen just goes hand

in hand with this, which I find curious.

[Speaker 1] (12:29 - 12:57)

Well, yeah. And I think that, you know, at the point where we're debating, you know,

whether we should stand a gold standard or have a bimetallic standard in the 1890s,

you're relying on the person who has enough sort of agency to vote. You're relying on

that person to actually understand questions like this.

So, you know, in the 1830s, vote in national elections on the basis of tariff policy. A lot of

Americans wouldn't even know what the word tariff means. He's a rapper, right?

[Speaker 2] (12:58 - 12:59)

I'm just I'm just kidding.

[Speaker 1] (13:00 - 13:38)

I'm just completely kidding. It's a pretty good name, though. I might adopt it.

So you're you're relying on levels of literacy that I don't think are there. And I'm not sure

they have been there for a long time. But what this causes, this conviction, especially

about taxation, causes Gordon Cole to do is to is to willfully stop paying his taxes.

OK, so the the first kind of crucial point about today is that. If you seek confrontation

with the federal government, you will not only receive it, but it will probably it will

probably escalate.

Yeah, I fought the law and the law won something like that, right?

[Speaker 1] (13:44 - 14:36)

Yeah, well, it's it's also like someone who is advocating direct confrontation with a

governmental authority instead of sort of a workaround. OK, give you an example. Like if

you if you want to disobey a mask mandate as a group.

Right. Why don't you keep whatever required signs posted and just not enforce it? Right.

You know, like like rather than publicly demonstrating how you disagree, because the

issue with publicly demonstrating something or filing a document with the Internal

Revenue Service saying that you're not going to pay taxes. All that that does is it makes

you it one. You're assuming someone cares and will think about it.

That's not how politics super key. That's not how politics work when nobody's capable of

thinking.

[Speaker 2] (14:36 - 15:03)

OK, well, I mean, Thomas Jefferson seemed to make it work and it all went well. And so

we believe that myth. It's like I'm not kidding.

The spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Here I go. Lutherans do this so much, too,

in our fights.

We're like, I'm going to write a paper and then everyone's supposed to read it and like,

follow me. And yeah, so but but you're saying he didn't just like not pay his taxes. He

wrote a manifesto about not paying his taxes and sent it to the IRS.

And then well, they were.

[Speaker 1] (15:03 - 16:00)

And there there are other there are other markers because what's what's kind of

burgeoning in connection with the refusal to pay taxes and notice that you're not paying

taxes is also going to be what will eventually be called, I think, large, largely by

journalists, the sovereign citizen movement. So these these guys are not going to get

driver's licenses. They're not going to get license plates for their vehicles in some cases.

And the point that they're making is a constitutional point about the nature and and, you

know, dare I say it, I think technically they're right. Technically, in the whole scheme of

spirit of the idea seems to be where they're at in the whole scheme of Anglo-Saxon legal

history. Right.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 996They're right. You should be free as a free weapons bearing man, not a slave, because

slaves in Anglo-Saxon England aren't allowed to have weapons. You have weapons.

You're a free man. You should be able to determine how you conduct your daily life.

[Speaker 2] (16:00 - 16:10)

So the the law that did you bring this up recently or did I pick up somewhere else that

the foundational idea is that a man's home is his castle and we talked about that.

[Speaker 1] (16:10 - 16:10)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (16:10 - 16:27)

So that's that's just to bring that back again, right? Your home, your castle and the law of

common sense flows from that reality. So that's like that's your epistemology.

You start right there. Home is castle. What is a castle?

What's a home? Here we go. And from there, you can figure out, you know, what

breaking and entering is.

[Speaker 1] (16:27 - 16:38)

Yeah. And so so I don't I don't I don't disagree with him necessarily, like on the theory of

what he was doing or the theory of what people are doing.

[Speaker 2] (16:38 - 17:15)

Who's going to disagree with the idea that the DMV isn't really kind of what we should all

be doing? I mean, we can all kind of sympathize with that in a license plate. I mean, I get

it.

But the path to license plate so we can all debate it. So no problem. But to see that

there's a they're not just radical insane zealots that they are thinking people with a

platform of understanding their own place in the world, they're not really intending to be

violent.

And yet because of the oppression they feel, it would seem that that's what's going to

rise up. Right. And so you do see a little Marx here, right?

The oppression does create the the revolt.

[Speaker 1] (17:16 - 18:41)

Yeah. Well, and I and I don't and I and I don't think that, you know, Marx was necessarily

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 997like wrong about every historical circumstance of industrial Britain. And you can see.

And actually, Gordon calls arguments had been used 40 years earlier by blacks who

would eventually form Nation of Islam. But it has a predecessor organization called

Moorish Science Temple of America. And they did a lot of the same things that sovereign

citizens would do in the 70s and 80s.

They refused to carry federally recognized ID. They refused to answer to what they in

that case, they would call their slave name. So and that was all predicated on certain

theories about lots of things.

But the basic point that he's making about the right of an individual citizen in our polity

and in our political tradition to challenge authority. I don't I don't think is actually

theoretically wrong. I think part of the issue here is that you become a domestic

terrorist.

The moment that I think you become lacking in savvy about how to achieve the things

that you want and instead you try to behave in a politically straightforward way, in a

place and time where what is straightforwardly happening or what is openly being said

or described is precisely not what is happening. Right.

[Speaker 2] (18:41 - 19:15)

So let me let me the way you said that sentence structure probably could just be reset

again. And feel free to say it one more time after this. But if if the goal here is to be good

citizens and that means to not accidentally be considered domestic terrorists by an

insane religion looking for them right now under every which you know, which broom

and and what Sputnik craft.

I don't know that they're looking to find it somewhere. The way to not be that the way to

avoid the eye of Sauron is to not directly assault the American government.

[Speaker 1] (19:17 - 19:41)

With your stuff. Yeah, and certainly not by yourself, practically speaking. Right.

Sorry. So, yeah. And I was saying, so, yeah, yeah, I think I think part because I think part

and parcel of the idea that you are free also goes the idea that on your own you can

achieve certain things.

And historically, that's just extremely unlikely to be true.

[Speaker 2] (19:42 - 19:52)

The you are special. You can do it all change and move the world thing neglects to tell

you you need a team in most instances right there with you. And you can be team

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 998players.

Right. Part of the problem.

[Speaker 1] (19:52 - 19:52)

Right.

[Speaker 2] (19:52 - 19:54)

Yeah. Yeah. So keep going on that same thought, though.

[Speaker 1] (19:55 - 20:09)

And so so what this begins is basically like a tax problem and he's charged with tax

evasion, but then becomes a fugitive from serving his sentence. OK.

[Speaker 2] (20:09 - 20:19)

So he was going to get like this jail time for is this white collar crime, technically, is that

what that would be? Technically, it is, you know, even if you're going to if you're going to

do it. Yeah.

You know, right.

[Speaker 1] (20:19 - 20:35)

Yeah. Technically. Well, and even the distinction between white collar and blue collar

crime is really just movies thing.

Yeah. Well, it's no, I think it's the regime's understanding that like if you don't physically

hurt someone, it's not as bad.

[Speaker 2] (20:35 - 20:37)

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (20:37 - 20:46)

Which leads to the libertarian myth of victimless crime, you know, so because there's

always a human soul involved. That's that's the basic historical insight. So.

[Speaker 2] (20:47 - 20:51)

OK, so you're saying psychology has something to do with what people do both before

and after they do it.

[Speaker 1] (20:53 - 20:54)

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 999Yeah, I guess so.

[Speaker 2] (20:54 - 21:07)

Yeah, you really are. I mean, it's amazing. The secularist world just doesn't realize

they're talking about souls all the time.

Psychology is soul study. Anyway, Gordon Cole, what did he actually he's he's a fugitive.

He's running.

Where's he run? He was in Texas. How far does he get Bonnie and Clyde?

Is it is it exciting?

[Speaker 1] (21:10 - 21:28)

It's a it's a little exciting at the end. OK, so he eventually serves prison time. It's really

only eight months.

Some of it goes away basically because of good behavior. I mean, this is not a guy who's

like, you know, harming people when he's in prison, right?

[Speaker 2] (21:28 - 21:28)

He's a farmer.

[Speaker 1] (21:28 - 22:21)

He's just a farmer. Didn't pay his taxes, wrote a letter. So he's released in the late 70s.

But the problem is that once you're released, then you go on some sort of like official

surveillance, aka parole. And he violates his parole under circumstances that are

probably like sort of hard to suss out. And maybe he was right.

Maybe he was wrong. I don't really know. But the violation of parole coincides with the

beginning of the 1980s.

And what happens at the beginning of the 1980s is what gets called the farm crisis. And

sort of remarkably, if you try to research that, you won't find a large Wikipedia article, for

one, even though it was the cause of massive change throughout the American Midwest.

So lots of suicides.

[Speaker 2] (22:21 - 22:45)

So, OK, I want to keep going on this farm crisis. I'm trying to place when my grandfather

lost his farm. I'm thinking it's 70s, not 80s, but it might have been 80s.

And he started selling insurance, traveling insurance. The last 10 years of his life, died of

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1000cancer. Baumgarten.

So Reaganomics is my question, though, real quick. I mean, is this is this at all related to

Reaganomics? The farm crisis?

[Speaker 1] (22:45 - 23:00)

Not directly. No, it really has it. It has to do with, I think, longer term issues with

American agriculture, because there is enormous overproduction of things that have

become commoditized and therefore enormous drops in prices.

[Speaker 2] (23:00 - 23:11)

Right. So so pull back and do that again from where you were before, before I brought in

Reaganomics. So we have the farm crisis.

We've got suicides. There is a problem with supply and demand.

[Speaker 1] (23:12 - 23:34)

Yeah. And you already you already have basically because of efficiency gains and

efficiency, you already have rural areas in places like Medina, North Dakota, where

Gordon Call is from, hollowing out. The farm crisis exacerbates that because now you

have to do so much more to be as equally profitable as you were in, you know, 1971.

[Speaker 2] (23:35 - 23:38)

You're not growing for subsistence life. You're growing to sell.

[Speaker 1] (23:39 - 23:52)

No, no. And you haven't been for a long time. But you're massively indebted.

You've got all kinds of difficulties. You have thin margins and those margins disappear

because the market is oversupplied.

[Speaker 2] (23:52 - 25:13)

You're in debt for the land. You're in debt for the utility vehicles. Those vehicles will need

to be updated regularly just to stay competitive.

You have issues with the weather that doesn't always cooperate. So you also are

carrying pretty hefty duty insurance, which as a group then makes the entire thing

reliant upon the feds even more because of bailouts, a bailouts, a bailout. And all of this,

you're I don't want to be rude to the good farmers in my church body and whom I have

loved and served as a pastor, but it is a form of serfdom.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1001You have a much nicer home than the thatched roof cottages of the medieval world, but

you're effectively in a serf situation and the land owner can come along at some point

and take it all away. And you know it. You know it.

That's why you got to keep going. That's why these guys won't come to church certain

times of the seasons is because it just is that cutthroat. I also remember talking to guys,

too.

It's amazing. I knew guys who were hands in some of the big facilities that were

receiving grains and uh, they didn't want land. They're like, ah, this is better.

It's so much easier just to go to work, get done, go home. And and so it's turning the

whole thing into, you know, kind of a assembly line approach. And, you know, the big

guys do it, the big guys do it.

But then this is where the fragility of the system comes in. Anyway, I've taken this a bit

of field farm crisis, though. How's this connecting with Gordon Cole?

Same time.

[Speaker 1] (25:13 - 26:18)

Well, Gordon Cole, while on parole in the late 70s, early 80s, gets involved with guys that

were advocating that free men should form their own townships independent of the legal

townships that you would find like on a map. And the point of that is, again, that they

reserve to themselves on their basis of their understanding of the law, a right to reform

the polity if it's in need of reform. OK.

And and our system obviously doesn't recognize that at all anymore at any level of

government. So that's that's what they try to do. And he is on his way away from going

home, a meeting in Medina, North Dakota, that will set up one of these townships so that

disaffected and distressed farmers can get together and offer some sort of formal

resistance.

Unionize. To especially. Well, not exactly.

I mean, they're they're they're trying to offer resistance to foreclosure.

[Speaker 2] (26:19 - 26:19)

Yeah. Specifically.

[Speaker 1] (26:19 - 26:20)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (26:20 - 26:40)

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1002But I mean, in a sense, it's it's the I say unionize. The idea is that the unions began for

the same reasons. You see abuses of power.

You come together as a group to try to get what you can. But the history of power is you

don't always get it. Sometimes they just crush you, which I don't know.

You said he left a meeting. That doesn't sound so bad. He was driving home.

What happened?

[Speaker 1] (26:41 - 26:43)

Well, he he violated his parole.

[Speaker 2] (26:44 - 26:44)

Oh, right.

[Speaker 1] (26:44 - 28:29)

Right. And you can see you're going to see this as well with Ruby Ridge, is that the

government lives off technicalities. And so the idea that American law, American taxes,

lots of things that kind of run how your life works and looks are extremely complex.

And the reason for that is because complexity encourages the advancement of

bureaucratic power. If it's clear what you're not supposed to do, then it's easier not to do

what you're not supposed to do. If it's never that clear, then it's extremely hard to avoid

breaking the law.

So he's leaving a meeting. The specific circumstances of how he violated his parole are

not entirely clear to me. But he's at that point confronted by U.S. marshals. And you

might ask yourself, OK, why U.S. marshals like North Dakota is a state. It's not a territory

anymore. And this is where different levels of policing are important the whole way

along.

And it's another thing that I think you're going to see coming in that I think that defund

the police really means nationalize the police. Because these different levels of infraction

and offense mean that instead of a sheriff who may or may not actually know you, and in

this case could be like your second cousin, you get somebody from far away who was

posted there for a job and is trying to move up to, you know, another level, GS,

whatever, and will if he successfully apprehends you. So you just have a different

relationship with a federal law enforcement agency than you would if you're an alien.

[Speaker 2] (28:29 - 28:30)

You're an alien.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1003[Speaker 1] (28:30 - 28:31)

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (28:31 - 28:41)

You're an alien to him or he's an alien to you. Maybe he's got a lizard head underneath

some put on these glasses. Do you ever see a movie called They Live?

You ever hear about this?

[Speaker 1] (28:41 - 28:42)

No.

[Speaker 2] (28:42 - 29:47)

Someone told me about this just last week. I haven't seen it. It's based on a story called

a short story called Eight O'Clock in the Morning.

And then there's a comic book. I'm going to try to get a hold of rather than watch the

movie. I'm trying to get the comic book that was in 1986 done.

And anyway, the whole thing is that Rowdy Ruddy Piper, apparently as the main

character, finds these glasses that let him see that all the media is sending obey and

submit messages at all times to most people, except for these aliens who look like

people because there's a radio signal broadcasting and protecting them. And these are

the elite, of course. Right.

And what are these aliens all look like? Lizards. So it's it's it's all coming home for me.

Rowdy Ruddy Piper has sent me back to Reaganomics. And this has, well, not everything

to do with U.S. marshals and a TV show called Justified. But those are all degrees of

connection that bring us back to why you really want to have someone, you know, be the

person that you're dealing with when you're dealing with conflict.

Yeah, that is something that you don't maybe do by saying, hey, government, we're

starting a new town against you. And that's maybe the lesson to learn from this. But

keep going with Gordon Cullen and draw your own lesson, too.

[Speaker 1] (29:48 - 30:50)

And so what happens is they they basically get into a shootout with these U.S. marshals

who try to stop them. Involved in this is is going to be the death of one of Cole's sons.

And Cole will end up fleeing.

At that point, he becomes the subject of an enormous manhunt. So this is 1983 and they

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1004surround his farmhouse in North Dakota. So that's this is also one of your commonalities

between Gordon Cole and Ruby Ridge is besieging the homes of American citizens.

OK, so this they've done this before they did this. I mean, 1983 was 38 years ago. And

people sort of tend to forget these things, I think, largely because of our media

environment.

They forget that things like this happened. And therefore, they're like shocked when, you

know, Tucker Carlson gets attacked by the Department of Defense. Right.

[Speaker 2] (30:51 - 30:51)

Right.

[Speaker 1] (30:51 - 30:55)

On Twitter. Now, what they've done much worse.

[Speaker 2] (30:55 - 30:55)

Right.

[Speaker 1] (30:55 - 31:31)

They surround his farmhouse. They find all this stuff, but they don't find him. They find

him later that year in Smithville, Arkansas, where he had been actually sheltered by a

couple named the Ginters.

And in June 1983, a shootout happens there. So, again, they besiege that home. Cole

and also a county sheriff for that county die.

And they die in a shootout. I mean, Cole dies from being shot in the head.

[Speaker 2] (31:31 - 31:35)

Yeah, yeah. Directly TV kind of stuff, TV justified kind of stuff.

[Speaker 1] (31:35 - 32:01)

Well, that's an interesting connection, because in addition to things like federal charges

for people that harbored a fugitive, you also get both written accounts from federal

agents of this and the 1991 movie Line of Duty Manhunt in the Dakotas. OK, also

released in the Netherlands as the line of duty, the Twilight Murders.

[Speaker 2] (32:01 - 32:03)

And that was way better.

I haven't you know, I haven't tried to see if I could, you know, watch it, but got to find the

short story it was based on.

[Speaker 2] (32:11 - 32:14)

Then track that up down the comic book. It's it's more it's quicker.

[Speaker 1] (32:15 - 32:43)

There you go. But I think that what you're what you're looking at is you also have this

sort of pipeline that exists between opposition to government and government slash

Hollywood's capacity to rapidly turn that into a form of media that can be disseminated

to many people with the complexities sucked out. So I am sure without watching that

movie that it tells you nothing about the history of American tax.

[Speaker 2] (32:43 - 32:44)

Oh, sure. Right.

[Speaker 1] (32:44 - 33:04)

Right. Right. Why would it do that?

And so is the medium even capable of doing that? So what you're going to get is just the

idea that you have like a bad guy who could be sort of a romantic figure in some case,

but will probably show him to be awful enough that you're happy when he gets shot in

the head with a Smith and Wesson at the end of the movie.

[Speaker 2] (33:04 - 34:26)

I mean, it makes me think of the fugitive with Harrison Ford, too, which is the complete

opposite story, except it's the same story, except he's a good guy. And so it all works out

in the end for him because he was telling the truth or something, you know. And again,

so for me, the lesson so far is as I look at this guy, Mr. Call, and I can empathize with his

plight. So you said earlier, you know, he's not wrong. And we mean by that is that his

plight seems one I can feel the pain of. I get it.

But what I don't understand is why you would end up in open fire with federal agents at

any point rather than just going into custody, because from where I'm looking at it, you

know, the idea of being men of sovereignty means that as a slave, you're still sovereign.

You take it. Go ahead.

You take it from me. I'm still sovereign. I have it in my mind.

I'm willing to take the consequences of my actions. That's why I would. I'm not saying I'm

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1006going to do this.

But if I were to stand up against the U.S. government, I reject my citizenship. I will not

pay taxes. Well, then I'm going to take the consequences of that.

And I guess I guess maybe some world views would say that leads to trying to win with a

shootout with three of your guys against the federal government while your son's

involved. For me, it says just go to jail, just actually start the process by which maybe

later you can sue. You know, once you get out of this chaotic age, maybe, you know,

again, am I nuts and thinking that?

I mean, that seems to be the lesson. That's my lesson I'm drawn is that. Well, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (34:27 - 37:15)

Yeah. I mean, I I think anything that is governed by like, how does this look right now?

And can can I explain to myself and everyone else right now why I'm doing this, whether

I'm going into custody or firing back?

I still think that that and the stuff that we talked about last week is a failure in the sense

that I think the radical Republicans, for instance, could have had what they wanted in the

American South as. Radically different, as the South would have looked than it ever

actually did or ever was or ever will, if they had succeeded in their ideological goals, if

they had simply been willing to be more patient and shrewd than they were. That is that

direct confrontational violence.

Is always, I think, the result of an a time preference that is way too high. You're you're

thinking that what matters right now is the pose you're striking. And I think that that

actually gets worse and worse and worse.

And this does have to do with media, because when you are conditioned by how this will

look either immediately on the Internet or soon via the telegraph, and I'm not like joking.

No, I'm with you. Yep.

Makes sense. When when you're conditioned not only to like process your own thoughts

that way, but to think about the significance of your actions in those terms, you will you

will inevitably take actions that are far more precipitous and are generally throwing away

a bunch of things as you're doing something that seems heroic to you. Right.

And I also think that when you don't have time or patience, you begin to force yourself to

run out of options. Whereas if you did exercise more patience, you would come up with

more options because in the same sense that if you take three days to think about

something, your thought about it is going to be richer than if you gave yourself two

seconds. So just run that out over years instead of days.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1007And what I see happening here is largely, honestly, a failure, not usually in the case of

people like this, not a failure of energy, which is largely, I think, the failure of our in-

group Lutherans. There's there's there's there's just a lack of energy a lot of the time to

do things that much smaller groups are able to achieve. But often in all the cases that I

talked about last week, we're talking about this week.

I think there's very often a failure of imagination. That is, they are unable to imagine

what it would look like if they took 50 years to do something and they were like dead

before the end of those 50 years. Then if they took like two years to do something and

fixed it themselves.

[Speaker 2] (37:15 - 37:33)

And I want to go eschatological there a little bit, but I'll save it for for another time.

Failure of conviction and failure of energy, I think, are connected to each other a little

bit. But the idea of imagination and the capacity to see further ahead than now.

[Speaker 1] (37:34 - 37:34)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (37:34 - 38:53)

Without needing it to be. Because I find that the longer I try to do what you're saying,

the less I'm actually planning something long. And yet believing it can come into kind of

come to pass and thinking long enough or hard enough, I don't know if that's the right

word, but finding the right pieces to move it forward without having to make it be

something I'm trying to not let fall apart, which seems to be the more modern approach

to planning is like, I've got this thing, I'm going to do it.

I'm going to keep it from falling apart. If I take the approach instead of thinking about

things rather than hastening to get them done. Instead, there's less need to keep it from

falling apart.

It's more waiting for the right pieces to find to put it together. And that that spiritual or

again, epistemological experience is a big change in my thinking. And I don't know.

I'm going to say I've come to that conclusion from time without the blue light. I'm not

saying everyone has to get there to be there. But there's something about then a very

much you slow it down.

You take the time. It becomes a richer thought. You build on that thought.

There's less fear about losing that thought. You don't need to write it down quite the

same way and like keep track of your forget it all. There's things you lose and forget, too,

don't you know?

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1008And the gaslight is real. But yeah, I don't know. Can you make sense of that?

Who would you be? I just said.

[Speaker 1] (38:54 - 39:58)

I think that both in terms of of media and media consumption, but but also in terms of

understanding that. And this is this is something that we've talked about in the discord

channel. This is something that I know people have a lot of difficulty with because we

were educated to believe that America is different.

And movies like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington taught you that a person with the right

convictions and the right intentions can achieve the right things, even at the highest

levels. This simply is just not historically how things change. And if they need to change

that radically, then the idea that you can go at a problem straightforwardly and people

will understand and help is usually going to end in enormous frustration.

And I think that violence does issue out of frustration that Gordon Call doesn't open fire

on federal marshals without the sense that these people are just ultimate enemies and

confrontation with them is therefore worthwhile.

[Speaker 2] (39:58 - 41:12)

Which is so sad because then the myth, though, I mean, this guy who's come to do this

job, this he's just a soldier, you know, in theory, you know, he's he's working for the

government, but is everybody who works for the government just deserving to be shot

as an enemy? And so the blinding nature of this myth, again, demonstrates to me it's

religious polemic. You said something about, you know, if you don't have enough

patience and time, you force yourself to run out of something.

And I didn't catch it all. But what I wrote down, I think is just as valuable without

patience. You force yourself to run out of time.

And that leads to what the other thing was, you're running out of. So you actually make

yourself run out of time when you won't just believe you can be patient and sit there and

wait. That is patience.

Maybe the world burns, but it takes a patient man to let it happen. I don't know. There is

something that doesn't happen until you don't do anything.

You have to just sit, watch, wait, think. And then that is the time in which your mind will

come to a better conclusion as opposed to seeking more in the the modern trick or the I

call it the addiction is to get more. I want in in in eat, eat, eat information.

And you're forming your insides and you're never letting yourself kind of reform spit out

exegete deal with all of those things. All right. We still want to talk about Ruby Ridge,

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1009right?

Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (41:12 - 41:12)

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (41:12 - 41:18)

OK, so let's let's move to Randy Weaver trying to get away from it all. And why you can't.

Yes.

[Speaker 1] (41:18 - 41:56)

Yeah. Yeah. Well, because I think Randy Weaver is probably more typical in his instincts

for most of our listeners than Gordon Call is in that Gordon Call is fine with confrontation.

Randy Weaver does not end up dead, but most of his family does. Including his wife and

his 14 year old son. And that all started with moving from Iowa to Idaho, basically in

order to homeschool and to get away from what he and his wife, Vicki, understood to be

a collapsing America.

So we're talking, again, late 1970s, early 1980s.

[Speaker 2] (41:56 - 42:03)

So what would a collapsing America mean? I mean, is it the same fear we're having right

now? I mean, how how island is this thing?

[Speaker 1] (42:03 - 42:47)

I don't I don't think it exactly is, but I think something that is common if you look at

people and I often like to look at people on the far left and on the far right in any given

society, because I find that they are kind of most willing to look at something in a really

stark way, a partial way, but a really stark way. And so I find them often more helpful for

understanding what is going on. Like I like to look at like Islamic radicals in France rather

than to try to find from a news article what like an average Frenchman in Bordeaux

thinks about something, because the Islamist radical has a clearer view of certain things

by virtue of being outside of a lot of other things.

[Speaker 2] (42:47 - 43:12)

His movement or his thought process is going to last longer than the guy who's just your

average guy inheriting what he has, which is, again, listening to the tube, telling him

what to do. The other guy's got a real world view built on a text. Right.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1010And that text and that audible culture that rises up around that is going to give a clear

sight that someone who's just absorbing again, when you're when you're in the battery

for the Matrix, you just not going to say much interesting.

[Speaker 1] (43:14 - 43:46)

I think that the weavers that resemble people on the left and the back to the land

movement in the 60s and 70s is actually politically indistinct. It's definitely a rejection of

things that are unnatural. But the definition of nature is different, not as radically

different as it is today, but it's different.

And the definition of the solution is going to be different. You know, sort of you can

divide this sort of between people who went to Western Oregon versus people who went

to the Idaho panhandle.

[Speaker 2] (43:46 - 44:10)

OK, you know, I mean, I don't know. I remember hearing only that there was this

movement at that time of back to the land and it was stupid. They were dumb.

They were hippies who didn't do it right. And we should not try to do that because no

one could do that today because we don't know how to live like that. We've lost the

ability to go live on the land.

And if you go try it yourself, you'll just fail and probably be poor and die. So, you know, in

22, I'm like, yeah, college, college. Yeah.

Go to college.

[Speaker 1] (44:11 - 44:45)

Sports. So so I I think that the weavers are actually sort of like they're sort of like

canaries in the coal mine for what is wrong with America, because if you see somebody

like in the late 1970s saying America aborts babies legally, therefore Satan has

conquered it. You think, OK, that's crazy.

Or like there are there are demons inhabiting our our governmental officials, obviously,

because they permit babies to be killed in 1979. That still sounds like pretty insane. Now

it's kind of like so you have to kind of drop out to do that.

[Speaker 2] (44:45 - 44:46)

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (44:46 - 44:59)

If I told like a normal person, like, you know, in California, you know, they're there. They

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1011might be calling on an Aztec god in public school soon. You know, that's just a bigger

issue.

[Speaker 2] (45:00 - 45:47)

And in ways nobody expects. I mean, not right in that classroom, but New Mexico might

just be another thing altogether in 100 years. And and I don't want that to be bad,

honestly.

It seems anyway, that's a different topic. Dealing with the Latin influence coming north

into America in terms of family and impact on culture, wherein working fathers and child

rearing mothers are still part of the society, even after they've kind of been absorbed.

That's an interesting other topic for some other time.

I don't know if you ever looked into that, but I find it fascinating. The Hispanic influence

in most areas I've seen in my life is often better than that of, say, Anglos who just kind of

keep to themselves and then die. And and then you have the trouble with the inner city

black population that is in a poverty cycle.

You know, so.

[Speaker 1] (45:47 - 47:01)

I mean, I. Tangent, yeah, the the the the weavers try to go away, what's happening,

however, is something that you see in both sort of right wing constitutionalist or sort of

patriot movement places. But you also see in Muslim areas of Minneapolis and Brooklyn

and stuff in the 2000s.

And that is that federal agents are. They police the forms of entrapment. So Randy

Weaver's mistake is to be a little too trusting of.

Agents that turn out to be from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who one of

whom undercover asks him to saw off a shotgun for him, which it's just a clear violation

of federal firearms law. It has been for a long time, but definitely entrapment, too. It's

entrapment.

And so entrapment means that they bring you into a crime that you weren't otherwise

going to commit. But with the assistance of a federal agent, you are going to be

committing.

[Speaker 2] (47:01 - 47:13)

Yeah, you're convinced to commit it by them. I imagine if they really want you bad

enough, they'll talk you into it. And if you ever look into how they train guys to talk

people into stuff at the federal level, that's some scary stuff.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1012That's some scary stuff.

[Speaker 1] (47:15 - 47:30)

So what is going to happen is that the ATF will actually kind of hand off this case to the

U.S. Marshals Service. So, again, a group that probably you never think of, but plays a

big role in apprehending people.

[Speaker 2] (47:31 - 47:43)

I do think of them because the TV show Justified was very good. And now that's the third

reference I've been able to drop in the show. And the U.S. Marshals. Yeah. Apprehending

people. Exactly.

That's all the show is about.

[Speaker 1] (47:44 - 49:00)

So the commonality here is that they have to serve him a warrant for breaking federal

firearms law. So this actually happens in a siege that develops as he tries over the

course of 1990 and 1991 to get away from being apprehended. OK.

And there are often delays in these processes. And I'm kind of leaving out a lot of the

technicalities of how the case was handled by different agencies at different times. One

thing to notice, if you have any realm in which you are at ideological variance with our

regime, is to notice that they are not nearly as competent as they present themselves in

movies.

That it's not just all like kind of strong jawed like former Marines. You know, just getting

the bad guy in a ruthless, efficient way. There are drops.

Not every agency has precisely the same political orientation. It really matters if

someone is getting media coverage or not and what the nature of that coverage is. So,

for instance, Geraldo Rivera, whom people don't remember much of now, but who was

sort of a big deal.

[Speaker 2] (49:00 - 49:17)

He's like a half conservative like Trump guy that then really won the vaccines. I follow

him on Twitter because, yeah, he used to do the show in the 80s and he was one of the

first talk shows and got punched in the face. And then Oprah got really famous after

that.

And now he's making money somehow. Grifton, right? I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (49:17 - 50:39)

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1013Well, OK, the idea here is that he flies over. He was doing a show at the time called in

early 1992, spring 1992, called Now It Can Be Told. And he hires a helicopter to fly over

Weaver's cabin.

And allegedly Weaver shoots at him. OK, OK. So, OK, so that that's the allegedly part is

the really important part because that plays into who shows up when the siege that will

actually kill members of Weaver's family occurs later on.

Because the reason they bring the federal government brings through the Marshals

Service, the ATF and the FBI hostage rescue team. Just remember that phrase hostage

rescue team. The reason those people are all there when the final siege starts at the

Weaver's cabin later on in the summer of 92 is because allegedly Geraldo Rivera's outfit

was fired upon.

OK, now that's one side of it, obviously a two sided thing. And you're just taking it on

faith. And so.

So that's why the federal government in there, as they defend themselves in their own

inquiries afterward, are going to say that's why we brought the people that we brought.

[Speaker 2] (50:40 - 51:17)

Right, right. So but I want to you says the FBI hostage rescue rescue team, which I'm a

tangent. Come back and ask about it.

It makes me think of an excellent movie that if I were still watching movies, I'd

recommend called The Negotiator, which has both. Oh, goodness. Nick Fury.

That's not his real name. And Kaiser Sosa, it's not his real name either. But two fantastic

actors.

And if you really know what you're doing, you know who they are. That movie is stellar

and will let you deal with an FBI hostage rescue team, I think because they're just so

cool. They're amazing, in fact, what they can achieve.

So why is that important? You said remember that phrase. Why is that phrase important?

[Speaker 1] (51:17 - 51:34)

Well, because hostage rescue team is like a lot of phrases used by a regime in that it

actually does the opposite of what it says it is. And pay always pay more attention to

what someone or something actually does.

[Speaker 2] (51:34 - 51:35)

Right.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1014[Speaker 1] (51:35 - 51:36)

Or what it says it is.

[Speaker 2] (51:36 - 51:36)

Right.

[Speaker 1] (51:37 - 52:00)

And because what's going to happen with the hostage rescue team is that it adopts

really hostile rules of engagement going into this. Right. So ostensibly the problem,

ostensibly, like as a matter of law, is that he broke federal firearms sales law about what

can legally be sold to whom and what you can actually even have on the market.

[Speaker 2] (52:01 - 52:01)

Right.

[Speaker 1] (52:01 - 52:11)

OK. Does that require coming in with a sniper, with trained snipers, which is what's

involved in the hostage rescue team? I, you know, I think that's debatable.

[Speaker 2] (52:11 - 52:21)

I think would be about minimized losses, you know, only take out the terrorist. I mean,

hostage rescue team, terrorist kill squad. Same thing.

[Speaker 1] (52:22 - 52:48)

Right. And so what they come in with and what the actual outcome is, is that Weaver's

14 year old son fires at federal agents in the woods when they shoot his dog. So

someone someone shoots the boy's dog.

So he fires. So they fire upon him. So then he's dead.

Right. So you have to imagine like how many grown men firing upon a 14 year old boy.

[Speaker 2] (52:49 - 53:11)

I'm thinking that boy went out like a man. I mean, I don't want my boy to do that. But

golly, what a thing.

What a what a terrible thing. And he stood he stood strong. Can you blame the poor kid?

He's a kid. How would he? So sad.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1015That's like so sad. But he died like, you know, Trojans of old. I mean, on his shield, not on

a shield.

Yeah, on a shield. Coming home on a shield. Goodness.

[Speaker 1] (53:11 - 55:11)

Anyway, before before anyone gets to the Weaver cabin and there's there's another guy

there named Harris, along with a family who's sympathetic to the Weavers. Before that

happens, Lon Horiyuchi, who will also be at Waco with the hostage rescue team as a

trained trained FBI sniper, he's going to fire. He's going to wound Randy Weaver.

And then he's going to fire again almost immediately. And Weaver and Weaver's

teenage daughter and the friend Harris are running back towards the house. Well, that

second bullet aimed for Harris actually shoots Vicky Weaver, the wife who's standing in

the doorway.

She dies instantly while holding their 10 month old baby who actually survives. And it's

that second shot, not on the fugitive, but on Vicky Weaver. It's the second shot that

actually causes there to be any kind of inquiry later on.

Yeah, right. Because at that point, they have gone beyond anything that anyone

imagined. I think that this is probably a good place and we're getting close to time.

So it's probably a good place to pull back. There's more to be said about the Weavers.

You can look it up for yourself.

They eventually get a settlement. But I want to say this, that no one understands what

words like domestic terrorist or synagogue of Satan, which is how Gordon Call described

the U.S. government. No one understands what those words are going to lead to.

But the words matter because they get you to the point where that situation has those

rules of engagement or your reaction to being stopped by federal marshals is to open

fire. And this is where I don't agree with the idea that words are violence. But I but I do

believe that words can very easily lead to violence because people are led by their

beliefs.

[Speaker 2] (55:11 - 55:27)

Yeah. Ideas have consequences. Yeah.

Speaking of Weavers, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Right. Richard. Richard Weaver.

Can you give me the name of the sniper again? Juan. Juan Long.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1016L-O-N. Horiyuchi. Horiyuchi is Asian descent.

[Speaker 1] (55:28 - 55:34)

Yeah, he is Jap. He's Japanese American. He's from the enormous Japanese community in

Hawaii.

[Speaker 2] (55:34 - 55:51)

And as a sniper, he misses sometimes. And he's coming back on Waco like like he

missed he was in a prop. Why?

Why is he still shooting in Waco? That seems or am I just getting ahead of ourselves

here?

[Speaker 1] (55:52 - 56:08)

Well, you're you're not, because also something to notice here is that the legal processes

of obtaining justice take much longer than the government takes to deploy lethal force.

So Waco is actually the next year.

[Speaker 2] (56:08 - 56:09)

Right. Right.

[Speaker 1] (56:09 - 56:44)

Right. Nineteen ninety three. And the Clinton administration actually announced a hard

line against what it described.

And I think they meant honestly the same people and they meant to deal with them in

the same way. But they couldn't use the term white supremacy in the early 90s. I think

honestly, simply because America was too white demographically, it wouldn't have made

political sense.

So the way that these people were portrayed, the the patriot movement, Posse

Comitatus, were as dangerous militiamen. I remember that didn't sell well, though.

[Speaker 2] (56:44 - 56:45)

It was like, what are you talking?

[Speaker 1] (56:45 - 57:13)

Well, the very the very next year, the hostage rescue team is deployed to Waco

ostensibly to bring children out of a dangerous situation. So it's sort of the legal

justification for Waco is about child welfare. Now, those children are actually going to be

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1017burned to death by incendiary rounds fired by federal agents.

But again, people don't really remember things like that. Right. So the loss of complex.

[Speaker 2] (57:13 - 57:25)

Yeah, they don't until you bring it up. And this is I'm sorry to twist this here, but this is

part of our big issue. What's worth remembering and how there's too much.

[Speaker 1] (57:26 - 58:33)

I think I think the loss of complex information. I mean, I I really wouldn't do a format that

was any shorter than this or that involved video to any significant extent. And the reason

for that is that I think the loss of complex information is actually what makes any kind of

republicanism or freedom impossible.

Because I need people to have time to think and to process. And if you don't have that or

if you're focused on the fact that, like, my hair looks bad today or whatever, right, or you

like my tie or whatever, then you're already distracted from processing what's

happening, because simultaneous with Waco is some attempt at legal redress by the

weavers. Eventually, they're going to get three point one million dollars from the federal

government.

Harris, who was also there, is going to get a couple hundred thousand. But Horiyuchi is

not charged and he's not even charged with murder. He's charged with manslaughter in

1997.

So it's five years after the incident. It's four years after we go.

[Speaker 2] (58:33 - 58:34)

Cash is a pretty poor.

[Speaker 1] (58:35 - 58:39)

Yeah, right. I mean, it doesn't bring. Anybody back from the dead.

Right, exactly. Exactly.

[Speaker 2] (58:39 - 59:17)

The loss of complex thought and this connected to the loss of time, which is required for

complex thought. Now, this going back mid mid show is connected to patience and

patience being sort of the the sole muscle by which you force yourself to realize that you

can't run out of time, that even what you think is the consequence that you need to

hasten to undo might just be the opportunity you should let play. And you won't know

unless you think about it for at least five minutes before you run off and talk about it on

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1018Twitter.

It was one of the proverbs I found somewhere. It's not like, you know, a fool can argue

with anybody. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (59:18 - 59:20)

Twitter. Yeah, that's true. That's the truth.

[Speaker 2] (59:20 - 1:00:22)

I'm thinking for our title here, we got posers rule this week. You mentioned posers as

well. And this has just been on my head, my mind recently about like my entire

existence from probably age six to now and now realizing, holy moly, I've been a poser

the entire time.

And what does that mean? And now everywhere I look, I see actors, I see posers. There's

a new Musketeers thing that pops up every time I go on Amazon to check on my Stevia

order or whatever, which I did today.

Musketeers. And I look at like, OK, like two years ago, I would have thought this looks so

cool. It's like some sort of what post Western steampunk three Musketeers rework with

these guys who just look really tough.

And then I'm like, yeah, and those guys are paid pansy actors who are posing is a stupid

thing. I'm gonna order my Stevia, go talk to Dr. Kuntz. I'm gonna get back to making my

desk.

That's right. There's something to this. So I want you to say that in a way more eloquent

than I just did.

But it really hits it. Epistemology. This is not just me barking.

There's something about learning to be that we've been circling really strong this

particular episode.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:22 - 1:04:23)

Yeah. And I think that something to take away from this in a historical sense is that Ruby

Ridge and Waco, but not Gordon Call. And I included Gordon Call for that reason.

And I didn't really talk about Waco. They are included as motivations in the press's

explanation from day two, but not day one of the Oklahoma City bombing in nineteen

ninety five. And I think that the reason for that is because potentially Timothy McVeigh,

who is denoted as the chief bomber in Oklahoma City, and a lot of that is debatable.

And I'm not doing that today, but Timothy McVeigh allegedly believes that he is reacting

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1019to events from two or three years earlier. One of the things to understand is that in order

to understand what has occurred in your own country or your own life, you need a much

longer time horizon, both forward as we've been talking about with planning, but also

backward with understanding. Because if you don't, I think you're learning lessons that

they're kind of like you're you're you're slotting into some box.

So if you listen to today's episode and you just slot into everything that the militia

movement, real or not, was saying in the 1990s is right, then I think you've missed

something, because I think that one of the deficits that Gordon Call and the Weavers had

in common was a certain naivete about the nature of American government and how

quickly Americans could be organized to resist tyranny. I think also you would be falling

into if you found the idea, well, they were totally wrong and they were right to be shot to

death or whatever. Then one thing that you have to think about is, OK, well, what what

does that actually make normal?

What it makes normal is that the federal government can at any time, if you violate

certain laws in a certain way that upsets certain agents of agencies that are not really

elected and just go on existing kind of in perpetuity unless banned. And we attempted

that with the CIA that was proposed in the 70s and it didn't work. So why would it

happen to things much more obscure?

Those those folks can at any time come to you and do things to you and to your loved

ones that you don't want done. So if you have a normalcy bias, so if you listen to this and

you're like, yes, they were right, they broke the law, Romans 13, then your normalcy

bias, you have to understand what is now normal and in fact, has been normal for a long

time. Maybe longer than you've been, it's longer than I've been alive in some of the stuff

that we talked about today.

So I don't want people either on the one hand to think, yes, Gordon Cole was totally

right. I'm going to make his you know, his picture is going to be my Twitter avi from now

on. No, on the other hand, don't have such a normalcy bias that you're ending up just

supporting authority that is not only very violent against people who in the whole

scheme of things are I mean, not paying taxes on a fairly worthless farm in North

Dakota.

You know, I can think of worse things that people have done to other people in modern

America. And this is how the government reacts. A normalcy bias is is going to hurt you

just as much long term.

As being engulfed by rage is going to hurt you in the short term and all that we've talked

about really today is people who were engulfed in the short term by someone's rage,

either their own or the government's. But to be engulfed long term by a normalcy bias, I

think would just be like a slow burn. Whereas Gordon Cole or the Weavers were undone

by a short burn.

BHoP 032 Posers Rule 1020[Speaker 2] (1:04:24 - 1:04:43)

I don't I had something I wrote down that would have ended all this beautifully. I'll see if I

can make it work. It needed to go into the middle of what you're saying.

You said so much of value. I don't want to demean it even a little bit. But on the altar of

worship to the federal government, which requires normalcy that we accept human

sacrifice from time to time.

Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:44 - 1:04:44)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:44 - 1:05:03)

What we have to see is that that sacrifice comes at the hands of not so much the priests,

but the you know, the axmen that they send. I don't know. They're they're a holy

cleanser, as it were.

But the good news is that soon they'll be able to do it with flying robots. This has been a

brief history of power to white guys. You know who we are or you wouldn't be here.

Discussion about this episode