Denouncing the Denigrators – The Seeping Wound in the Patriot Community

Denouncing the Denigrators
The Seeping Wound in the Patriot Community

join-or-die-1754

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2016

Recent events up near Burns, Oregon, have brought, once again, the Denigrators to the forefront. These are people who will begin digging, misrepresenting, and outright lying, about some of the key players in any event. Occasionally, a bit of truth is brought out, though often, it is intended to associate those who may have bad records with those who are otherwise; good, honest, men, doing what they believe to be a necessary course of action.

About that necessary course of action. Many people have been critical, not of the players, but of the activity of taking over federal buildings. They tend to judge those actions by their own standards, and expect others to abide by their moral compass.

However, if they are not players in a particular incident, what is their motive to object to the actions of others? Are they conditioned as “arm chair quarterbacks”, drinking beer and deciding why the coach’s call was a bad one? Well, there is nothing wrong with that, even if it is taken to the Internet. Surely, those who support the same team are most likely to agree, or, then, they might have a different opinion. The bottom line, however, is whether their team won, or lost.

The professed patriot, however, has different opposition, and it never changes, though the playing field might. The opposition is the government, and the playing field, in the current instance, is the Malheur Refuge, about thirty miles south of Burns, Oregon.

The handful of people that initiated this action have been accused of being government agents, provocateurs, scumbags, guilty of falsely representing the military service, and possibly even more evil deeds than Batman’s enemies. These assertions are submitted to the public with airs of absolute authority, though for what purpose? Well, we will get in to that, later.

At the end of the Bundy Affair, I wrote an article, “The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues“, discussing what was becoming quite apparent; the Internet was being used to subvert the efforts being exerted by hundreds to push the federal government back, and leave the Bundys to continue with their business, without government removing their longstanding use of federal property.

At the same time, I was adding an addendum to an article, “Vortex“, that I had written back in 2012. It dealt, primarily, with my experience and personal knowledge of events where the nefarious tactics of the police state we have been living in for decades were exposed. It explains the levels and types of agents, as well as the role and types of informants. In April 2014, I added an addendum to the article, supplementing it with more recent tactics of that police state, especially as applied to the Internet.

Now, with that in mind, we will discuss a recent Facebook article, which appears to be authored by Christian Yingling, late in the evening of January 4, two days after the Malheur Refuge buildings were seized. The first three paragraphs of the article set the stage:

Ok …Everybody… please gather around and listen to what I am about to say. Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not.. I want nothing to do with you. simple as that.

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I’m about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

The first paragraph says, agree with me, or shut up. I am your leader. Rather suggestive, and well within the realm of Physiological Operations (PysOps).

In the second, he suggests that the operation in taking the Wildlife Refuge building was based upon “raw emotions“. This, of course, is to denigrate those who carried out the mission. However, that mission was well planned, even to the point of having all attention focused, to the last minute, on the Fair Grounds, where everybody, even the government agents, expected Ammon Bundy to speak. This left no opportunity for the government to establish a roadblock to keep the team from getting to the Refuge. Those who were assigned to “tail” the key players, and they were well known to the FBI by this time, could only tail from the rear, so there was no obstruction in accessing the buildings. That did require “a calm, level headed, common sense approach“, though our “author”, tried to reverse these thoughts in the minds of the reader.

Next, he uses the battle cry of keyboard patriots, “false flag“, to garner attention, and then asserts that he is “logical” and “100% correct“. Finally, he says that what he is going to tell you is “documented verifiable fact“. Now, I must agree, in part, with that final assertion. It is documented. It is verifiable”, however, whether it is fact, or not, is the whole focus of this article. Documentation only requires the existence of a document, and in this case, there are hundreds. Perhaps thousands, of internet “documents”, that will support his claims. So, it is also verifiable, that we cannot dispute. The whole question hinges on whether it is factual. And, here lies the problem.

Let me digress. In a recent discussion in a patriotic forum, it was suggested, regarding Ryan Payne, that he should have defended himself against the allegations that he claimed to be a Ranger. However, when those claims came out, Ryan pretty much had his hands full at the Bundy Ranch. So, should he drop everything, ignore his obligations and responsibilities to address such allegations, just because they were brought up?

To answer that question, I can refer to my own experiences. Back in 1995, I was accused of being John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City Bombing. This all came from a single article by Bill Cooper. Now, should I drop my travelling, investigating, and writing, and redirect my efforts to addressing this, or should I continue on with my original purpose? Had I curtailed my efforts to get to the bottom of stories of interest to patriots to “defend” myself against this allegation, that very act imply, that defense was needed, and perhaps it was true? It was seventeen years later, when there were over 40,000 iterations (verifiable documentation) of that single story, that I finally said, “that’s enough”, and did a two-hour radio show to dispel the accusation. If you are interested in the background, and the proof of the falsehood of the accusation, the audio of that show can be found here.

As George Carlin advised us, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Among the many efforts to denigrate Payne, Yingling says, “Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial “leader” of the militias present at the Bundy ranch“. So, is that verifiable, and is it fact? Well, I have seen similar assertions, many times. So it is verifiable, at least that it was said. However, the “fact” (pesky little devils) is that his role at the Bundy ranch was far from what is suggested. Ryan was “Militia Liaison” to Cliven Bundy. And there is a very valid reason for such a designation. If Cliven Bundy had developed a direct relationship with the militia then the “law of agencies” would make the “principal”, Cliven Bundy, responsible and liable for the acts of any of his “agents”. That would provide legal fodder, should any accident result in injury or damage to property, and make accidents and injuries the responsibility of Cliven Bundy, which would be grounds for lawsuits, resulting in the loss of his ranch, everything he owned, and perhaps prison time. More so if the charges were brought by the federal government. The role of Militia Liaison breaks that legal responsibility and directs it to the individual that committed, whether an agent or an accident, injury to another or damage to property. So, he was not the “leader” of the militia, instead he was the liaison. So, he communicated between the two elements. As such, he had to endeavor to create an atmosphere that would provide for a cohesive effort. That effort was sustained from his arrival until the Unrustling, on April 12, and even beyond, where disputes were resolved, and attempts to subvert the efforts of the militia were a constant hindrance. Those who wish to “verify” this “fact” are welcome to contact Cliven Bundy.

 

So, let’s get back to another allegation made against Ryan Payne, that being that he “also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records. They said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school“. When this allegation was made, I contacted Ryan (I had been in regular communication with him during the entire Bundy Affair) and discussed it with him, agreeing to take the burden off of him. He arranged to have copies of two awards that he had received while in the Army, and I pursued seeking audio recordings of him saying that he was a “Ranger”. I spoke to many who said that they had heard him say it, and one of them is well known for recording conversations, yet none of them recording Ryan saying that he was a Ranger. However, I did run across two recordings where Ryan said that he had been in “a Ranger unit”. This information was published in an article, “Stealing Valor“, in May 2014. As the title suggests, it was not stolen valor, instead, it was an effort to steal Ryan’s valor away from him.

Next, let’s look at what was said about Jon Ritzheimer. Yingling, apparently, believes that he is a psychiatrist, or at least a psychologist, since he feels he is qualified to state that Jon “is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD”. Bravo, Christian, though I’m not sure what “classic” means, and almost all returning vets are diagnosed as having PTSD and given a prescription medications. Even the VA admits that they don’t try to treat it, but many thousands of veterans so diagnosed are productive members of their community. Jon, for example, after working for others, began his own business. His background is explained in “Jon Ritzheimer – When did Freedom of Speech Become Hate Speech?

Yingling, in his paragraph on Jon Ritzheimer, says, “How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to ‘change the govt’?” I’m not quite sure why it was included there, but it is worthy of note. What will change the government? I know it is rhetorical, but it is also realistic. Has voting worked? How about demonstrations, petitions, letters, calls to congresscritters? I think it might be appropriate, here, to quote a portion of Patrick Henry’s famous speech of March 23, 1775:

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! (emphasis mine)

So, how does Yingling suggest that we “change the govt“? To point out problems is easy enough, and it is easy enough, too, to find support on the Internet to prove the existence of the problem. The problem is that it is solutions that are necessary. After all, we have multitudes, perhaps nearly enumerable, amounts of problems. It is those who seek a solution that we should revere, not condemn.

Now, Yingling has tried to trash others, and I’m sure that he has found “verifiable sources”, though, perhaps, only partially, or even void of facts. However, I have chosen both Ryan and Jon to demonstrate Yingling’s fallacy, as I already have the facts on those subjects. Those facts were developed from diligent research, not of what others have, verifiably, written, but to the source, for the purpose of writing articles. Though there may be 40,000 statements to some subject, there is only one fact. It is the quality of the information, not the quantity that matters.

Such unsubstantiated rantings, as we have discussed, can only serve to harm the patriot community. At this time when we need unity, we find division. Perhaps it is time to consider whether we really want to “change the govt“, or just play like we do.

For the record, in my twenty-three years of writing for the patriot community, I have only publically accused two people of being contrary to the interest of the community. The first was Linda Thompson, back in the 90s and the era of fax networking, not the Internet. The second was Christopher Blystone. Both have substantiated facts, both verifiable and documented by other than the perpetuation of destructive rumors.

Finally, we must look at what motivates one to do such as Yingling has done. First, let me state that I am not accusing Yingling of having any specific motivation behind what he wrote, rather it is what he wrote that I am addressing. I fully understand that often sincere purpose can lead to erroneous conclusions. It is the purpose of this article to explain the nature of the consequence of the propagation of erroneous, or invalid, information, based upon both substantiated and unsubstantiated “facts”, and more importantly, the tendency to create “facts” based upon theory rather than base theory upon facts.

The two most likely motivations are, first, the desire to appear to have inside knowledge, what I refer to in the Vortex article, as the “guess what I know” mentality, or as a friend describes it, “useful idiots”.

The second, and far more sinister, is the one that often feeds “facts” to the above described individuals. Once fed, the “information” is composed into the subsequent misinformation (that is so destructive to our community), and is perpetuated, ad infinitum, and quite often sensationalized in the process. As explained in “Vortex”, the person that first plants these destructive seeds into the community is the “Vortex”, and he plants them with a specific intention, that of disruption, conflict, division, and, hopefully, in their efforts, to created a dysfunctional community out of one that must rely upon cohesiveness. It is a community wherein, if one disagrees with the actions of another, though those actions are directed at achieving the common goal, as the events on Burns surely are, then he should not go public with malicious attacks, as they only serve the government. For, to do so does far more harm than simply keeping your mouth shut.

I believe this has been amply demonstrated by the events in Oregon, as we see organizations that were critical of, but not outspoken against, the operation, now coming together in order to protect those at the Refuge from harm by the federal government. As the old saying goes, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!” Do not be an obstruction to the efforts of others, as they are pursuing the same goal, as are all of those who really are patriotic, and believe in their country, not the government.

Maryland Resolves, December 12, 1774
As our opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and liberties.

 

8 Comments

  1. Christopher Cilley says:

    I appreciate this! Well thought out and concise.

  2. Steve Ramsey says:

    What it comes down to is this:

    If I’m going to get myself in some deep shit over a cause, those on my side of the cause had better not have anything in the way of serious moral or ethical stink on them, or possess the serious character flaw of lying about having served, or mischaracterizing their service.

    Cooper? Fake Marine. Never served. Proven.
    I’ve seen and heard enough from credible persons who encountered him on on one to know that this 17 time felon acts like one, rending the odd physical beating to those who get in his way. He looks, and acts like a fed informant. Just Ask KC Massey when he gets out of federal prison.

    Payne? The Fake Ranger? He represented himself as such to several credible individuals at Bundy ranch, and I’m telling you, he introduced himself as such to members of the media at the time. It was a REAL Ranger that vetted him: Danny Harrington, a former Ranger, (Class of 8-85; 1st BN 83-88) https://youtu.be/WO8aICKhyDY

    So, Is Ritzhiemer unstable? I’m sure you saw his farewell to his family on YouTube right?

    There are other assorted nuts surrounding Bundy, who is entitled, of course to associate with whoever he wants.

    So why is any of this important?

    Because if the feds get close, I expect one of them, either working as a fed plant, or is simply out of control, amateurish, unstable, or scared, or suffering from PTSD, is going to crank off a round and start civil war II at the wrong place, the wrong time, and over the wrong grievance.

    So as much as I disagree with Bundy’s tactics, and his choice of friends, they are still Americans deserving due process and not summary execution. Such an outcome would call for a response. One occurring at the wrong point in time, when waiting for the pending collapse to occur would give many more advantages.

    • ghunt ghunt says:

      I’m sure you know what ad hominem means. And, that is what you and your cohorts rely on, since you can’t really find fault with what they are doing — unless you go against the fast rising support, even outside of the patriot community, for them.
      Your struggling effort to demean them, couched in a rather mild “support because “they are still Americans deserving due process and not summary execution”, is simply an attempt to look like you are on the right side.
      Do you think that the colonists agreed with what Captain Parker did, when he faced off against a force of British Soldiers? However, once the game was on, true patriots go behind the effort and come from miles around to support those who had “broken the law”.
      I’m sure that there were, like you, critics of those who stood defiant, a you do now. Back then, they were called “Tories”, so I suppose it would be appropriate to describe you in the same manner.

      • Steve Ramsey says:

        Yes ghunt, I know what it means.

        Do I find fault with their issue? In some minor ways perhaps, but in a larger sense, no.

        Do I have an issue with their tactics and strategy? Yes I do. It’s careless, ill conceived and ill defined

        As to the individuals involved, they are not above criticism. Nobody is.

        As to “looking like I am on the right side”, then you will have to say that about the Idaho 3% who have disavowed the action Bundy started, yet are there to interpose themselves if need be. Do you wish them to simply go back to Idaho?

        Ammon Bundy is no Parker, that comparison is juvenile. Don’t denigrate Parker whose issue at Lexington green was a little bit more serious and urgent than where cows find dinner.

        • ghunt ghunt says:

          So, just what was Parker’s “serious and urgent” mission?
          And, what, to you, is the issue that warrants our attention?
          Does it have to be your idea, or it is no good?
          As far as Idaho III% interposing, you need to catch up on things.
          Try these:

  3. Christien says:

    I also appreciate this. It is well thought out, and it reflects my thinking as well. I am a Patriot, I love America, but I have only awareness of the militia aspect of the Patriot movement from the outside. It was the Bundy ranch episode that brought to me a deeper understanding of the militias.

    I have wondered at the critical statements that have been directed at Ammon Bundy and the actions that he felt compelled to take after having exhausted his options for seeking to address the rampant injustices that he had uncovered in his discovery process in researching the history of the BLM abuses against the residents and ranchers of Harney County.

    The critical statements being issued by individuals who I understand to be well-respected leaders in the Patriot and Liberty movements are, in my opinion, irresponsible. It seems that they are more determined to distance themselves from Ammon, to the point of making comments that apparently seek to isolate him, rather than come to stand beside him in a cause that is just. They have expressed concern that Ammon Bundy’s actions will bring a stain to the movement, and seem content to throw him to the wolves.

    This I cannot understand. If the concern is the possibility of using a violent confrontation between Americans and agents of the federal corporation, what better way to defuse that possibility by taking a stand of support, and service to the good of the cause. An isolated Ammon Bundy is far more likely to lead to an armed conflict, than would a show of support that is firm but not demonstrating overt aggression. I understand that this is a “battle” that many would not have chosen, but it is already in action, so it seems that the better part of valor would be to develop a strategy to contribute whatever was needed to bring it to a positive conclusion.

    In my opinion, much good has already come of this. The abuse of Harney County residents by the BLM has been exposed. The injustice wrought against the Hammonds has been exposed. A county that had been beaten down through years of harassment and intimidation at the hands of the BLM has found new hope and is taking action to reclaim the authority of their County resources. Thus far there has been no violence, bloodshed or injury.

    To an American Unity..

    • Steve Ramsey says:

      Why should we support Ammon Bundy, a guy who concealed his true motives and tried to suck people who were in Burns for a peaceful protest into and armed occupation of a federal facility?

      Why should we trust a guy with such poor judgement as to the company he keeps?

      Because he’s the only game in town?

      • ghunt ghunt says:

        Ammon Bundy did not “suck” anybody into town to go to the Refuge. He asked people to come to Burns to show support for the Hammonds.
        If you even followed the story, you would know how grateful Suzie Hammond and Dwight were for the show of support. Thy even delayed their flight to Los Angeles, to tune Steve and Dwight in, to thanks those who had come to Burns.
        Nine people went to the Refuge, there was no effort to coerce anyone else into going. Once they got to the Refuge, they invited those who wanted to participate in that activity to come join them.
        I suppose that some are just to shallow to understand hat there were two objectives, one was a over for the other.Those same people cry “opsec”,without any comprehension of what operational security really is.

Leave a Reply