posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 03:05 PM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Yes he was the mad man. Then he became the sell out and copy of his chosen enemy.
He was pandering to the less rational side of people with a message of emotional rage and for attention to his message, or to fulfill his chosen
His purpose became his own and not an act of selfless sacrifice.
I have the other side of this in mind though.
Doesnt any progress encompass imbalance towards it? If there is no push to take another step, we would never move from the perfectly good foot of
earth we stand on onto the next uncertain one. Every step taken is one of reckless abandon and hopeless faith that the ground will be there to receive
Sometimes it is a leap of faith, other times a plain choice of where is best tread.
In the end it could be argued that to fight the forces at play he had to take on a hard line approach. It could be modified to be more rational later
on and include more meat to the argument. Maybe the best thing for him to do was to go insane, since it would be insane to argue what he does if the
level of programming was as he said it was.
Look to the recent debacle in central Oregon where armed activists took over a nature reserve in a non violent manner. One of their own was murdered
by a federal agent who may have brought his own personal bias to the stand off.
The activists method of being vocal might seem insane, if you take over a nature reserve in Oregon with guns to protest the government's theft of land
and property...., but ultimately the insanity of the other side (Feds) was showcased by the insanity of their own actions. They did shoot someone
without merit as proven in court since then. They tried to lie about it. There may may be corrupt people within their ranks that are motivated by
forces outside of the law.
The "insanity" of what they did was needed to get the other side (Feds) to prove that it was equally insane and not "authorized" to do the harm it was
edit on 8 6 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)