Kerodin.com: Moral ROE = Fail

If you think SHTF or TEOTWAWKI are imminent, please engage your higher brain and unleash your lower.

Column at Kerodin.com here.

Kerodin
III

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Kerodin.com: Moral ROE = Fail

  1. “But if a man insists on trying to punch you, do your best to hit him first, from his blind side…with a Chevrolet.”

    I like it.

    And, as I've recently learned, watch out, 'cuz while you're watching for the punch, your enemy might be throwing a Chevy at you.

    😉

    AP

    Like

  2. “But if a man insists on trying to punch you, do your best to hit him first, from his blind side…with a Chevrolet.”

    The example you provided in your column IS aspiring to a moral code. Your scenario plainly indicates a response to an insistent (will not stop in the attempt) attack. The fact that the defender's response is faster and more devestating is not immoral in and of itself. It only says the defender is faster and better equipped to handle an attack.

    I think you confuse moral fighting with moral conduct and targeting of war. There ARE such people as 'non-combatants'. There ARE such things as immoral targets. Honorable men (and now women) don't war on them. Children. Hospitals. Orphanages. Convents. Invalids. Neutrals. etc. (Let me clear that a non-combatant has not taken an active role in fighting against you as well.)

    To state that moral ROE equals failure is to endorse the employment tacics like those used at the Belsan School Massacre which were, in fact, immoral, and only fortified the Chechens OPFOR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

    Tactically, it makes no sense to do something which strengthens your enemy's resolve.

    Lastly, please do not presume that others who may see things differently than you do automatically don't know what they're talking about and should therefore be marginalized and denigrated.

    It weakens the resolve of those who might be thinking about actually training instead of ending up like the Libyans.

    Like

  3. Trainer: Sorry, I was writing without much nuance for the lowest common denominator, specifically folks who recently choose to preach from the Mount after the ski lift has dropped them off, rather than walking up. When an Awakening Patriot finds our little corner of the web, sadly, what he reads on the average Comment section of our blogs would be enough to make many serious men run back to the safety of NRA Republicans.

    There is a particular segment of the Community that holds my positions to be “blood-thirsty” with a deliberate intent to incite violence. This is partly because some folks see what they choose to see, and others fail to identify the nuance when offered.

    So: Yes, I have a Moral Code regarding violence that is uncompromising. Yes, the column to which you speak demonstrates that Code. In each example I have identified a Target that has elected to do violence. No, I do not confuse moral conduct from moral fighting or targeting.

    Nuance: Yes, there are non-combatants and No Go Targets. They are obvious to most people who have ever lived in the world of Professional violence and even many Academics who give the concepts even a small bit of brain energy.

    Of course Beslan was a No Go for any genuine FreeFor. (Though, it was a Masterpiece if you subscribe to the theory that it was an Op run from the Kremlin against Chechen FreeFor…but that is another issue entirely. Russians play chess, we play checkers…)

    Here’s where Keyboard Commandos lose their cookies: The politicians and LEO who most people identify as their oppressors are only able to do their work because of Useful Idiots and ideological sympathizers, and those among the population who carry water on their behalf. The bureaucrats who move the paper between Politician and LEO for enforcement are as responsible for the current denial of Liberty in America as are the neighbors who vote for such politicians and the teachers who impose Statist Dogma rather than facts. Libyans are kept in line for Qaddafi by other Libyans, and it has always been so. Mischa Wolfe reputedly had more than half of all East Germans reporting on and facilitating the oppression of themselves and their neighbors.

    That is what is happening right here, right now.

    I rarely set out to denigrate anyone who considers himself a Patriot. I willfully denigrate stupidity, especially on topics of SHTF and Restoration.

    I have found that my particular experiences can help serious Thinkers & Patriots examine the Status Quo and challenge offered versions of reality with a different eye.

    When I write, I write to Patriots and Warriors. The panty-waste who suffer identity issues and hurt feelings on a blog – not exactly my audience.

    Like

  4. If you meant something other than what you plainly wrote, then you are confusing the hell out of people. You wrote:

    “If you take the position that we are beyond political solutions and that SHTF or TEOTWAWKI are inevitable, then you'd better understand that in either environment there are no rules.

    You will live, or not.

    Rules and morals will only become important again after the Ruckus.

    If you can't see that pattern in human history, I can't help you.”

    That sounds like no rules, no morals at all, until “after the ruckus.”

    If that is not what you mean, then why did you write it? Sounds more like you are shifting your intent after being called on it by Trainer, who has it dialed in tight.

    True to his handle, he seems a better trainer, in all respects, and sounds like he has been there, done that.

    What is your combat experience? Not trying to be confrontational. Just curious.

    Like

  5. Anon:

    My quote: “If you take the position that we are beyond political solutions and that SHTF or TEOTWAWKI are inevitable, then you'd better understand that in either environment there are no rules.”

    Please note the words: “…understand that IN EITHER ENVIRONMENT there are no rules.”

    In. Either. Environment.

    I'd handsign it for you if I had the patience to go find the images.

    Please read the words on the page, not the words you want to see in your head.

    Thank you for perfectly articulating several principles, not the least of which is why I sometimes write for the lowest common denominator. Not only is nuance not comprehensible to many, nuance can never penetrate an agenda.

    Next time you want to snipe, please do it elsewhere. Next time you want to measure junk, please do it elsewhere. Next time you think about contributing unreasoned, foolish, gibberish under an Anon handle, please restrain yourself and leave discussions for the adults, or at least have your contributions proofed by a 2nd grader for the obvious.

    Next time you want to discuss principle, you are welcome.

    Kerodin
    III

    Like

  6. Nice insulting comeback. Still doesn't change the fact that your original post was confusing. For example, it confused Trainer, who then said:

    “I think you confuse moral fighting with moral conduct and targeting of war. There ARE such people as 'non-combatants'. There ARE such things as immoral targets. Honorable men (and now women) don't war on them. Children. Hospitals. Orphanages. Convents. Invalids. Neutrals. etc. (Let me clear that a non-combatant has not taken an active role in fighting against you as well.)

    To state that moral ROE equals failure is to endorse the employment tacics like those used at the Belsan School Massacre which were, in fact, immoral, and only fortified the Chechens OPFOR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

    Tactically, it makes no sense to do something which strengthens your enemy's resolve.”

    He was confused too, till you clarified. Did he have some agenda that clouded his perception, or is just that you came across as meaning something other than what you now say you meant? The answer is obvious.

    If you don't want to be mistook, including by Trainer, then be more clear. That is a good base-line principle of commo. There, I talked about principles.

    Like

  7. Anon: Any confusion that was or was not encountered by Trainer, as I admitted, was likely due to my deliberate lack of nuance in the broader column. While I have written on those nuances, ad nauseum, in other columns, I have no idea how much of my body of work the man has read. This was his first contribution to my site.

    If he was confused, it is as a result of what I did not write. I expanded my thoughts as a result.

    He may not have been confused at all – he may simply agree with others that I am a blood-thirsty idiot.

    Your point of confusion, as related to your sloppy reading of my actual words, is the original issue you raised as the premise for your ad hominem attack.

    Apples & Oranges.

    The most important element of tactical communications would be to pay attention in the first place.

    Thank you for the compliment. It's a gift.

    For those who do not want insults, pay attention to the basics: This blog is about issues.

    This blog is NOT about Kerodin.

    If you post Anon: Stay on topic and the world will spin properly. You will not be permitted to flame from cover.

    Be on topic or be away.

    You have also now achieved Sparklie Status on this topic.

    That's not good.

    Kerodin
    III

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s