The Phaserl


Real Strategies For Removing Federal Presence From Western Lands

by Brandon Smith, Alt-Market:

When activist movements enter into confrontation with a corrupt government or establishment structure, often the temptation is to stick rather closely to what they know. The problem with this is that even though circumstances change and the fighting escalates, people will still turn to their old standby methods for defending themselves. This makes these movements repetitive, predictable and ineffective.

In the case of the liberty movement, the more passive tactic of marches and sign waving is immediately suggested. But inevitably some hothead is going to demand one of two things: a mass armed surge on the steps of Washington, D.C., or some kind of Alamo-inspired cinematic standoff. You would think that these strategies were the only two aggressive methods in existence; they are brought up so often it becomes mind-numbing.

I can understand (to a point) why the standoff concept keeps popping up. The movement has seen it work at least once at Bundy ranch. However, Bundy ranch came with a very specific set of circumstances that made the standoff strategy useful. The ranch was private property owned by freedom-minded people; it was a home being invaded by federal agents exhibiting intent to do physical harm and confiscate the livelihood of those in their crosshairs. Whether or not people agreed with the grazing rights issues that originally triggered the standoff, no one with any moral fortitude could deny that the Fed response was unacceptable.

The standoff had DIRECT strategic value to the situation; it had a concrete purpose, which was to stop the federal incursion, prevent harm to the people involved and prevent further theft of property. The liberty movement also had the most important advantage of all: We were INVITED to make a stand there, and many of the locals supported our initiatives.

If all of these elements are not present in any given situation, then the standoff method is a pointless and foolish endeavor. It ultimately does more harm than good.

To argue the nature of the cause does little to change the strategic reality. We can wax philosophical all day on the nature of federal overreach and the train of abuses suffered by common people. We can preach passionately about the villainy of the Bureau of Land Management and the need for its erasure. We can discuss endlessly the nature of patriotism and duty and the will to do what is right or necessary. It is a fine thing to clarify your standing on the issues in the face of ideological opposition from statists whose only interest is to blindly support the power of federal government because they believe they benefit from the existing system. That said, in the end, strategy is not subject to emotional arguments.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

9 comments to Real Strategies For Removing Federal Presence From Western Lands

  • NIX

    Breaking news:

    Fire chief of Burns Oregon RESIGN : was as i understand treatened by the judge who didn’t want Hammon to speak at the commity of safety where he was invited on friday at 7 pm.

  • John Australia

    I find it very awakening that DECENT US Presidents were assassinted yet the SCUM Presidents have not got the Bullet…I think these facts explain who killed the decent US Presidents…think about it.

    • Ed_B

      Already thought about it LONG ago, John. But it is still a point worth raising so that the unconscious among us might be josseled into some sort of wakefulness.

  • Damn Nix, Did you just wake up from a coma??? Jeez that’s some awful English….

    • SGT

      Please don’t use Mike Maloney as your name in the comments section if you’re not Mike Maloney. Which you aren’t. thanks.

    • Christine

      Whoever you are, Nix’ English is perfectly OK for a SECOND language. How many do you speak? I bet you only speak English! Like most “exceptional” Americans who didn’t see the value in learning a second one, let alone assure that your kids will. That’s one of the reason this country is in such a shape: insularism and hubris.

  • mpower69

    Just my two cents…

    Getting rid of the Feds/BLM/FS/etc. is a process… a process that will have to start at the state level. Furthermore, the states will have to cooperate with each other to make this happen. Each state legislature will have to pass the requisite legislation, staking claim to the management of the federal land w/in their state. The state legislatures will then have to pressure their US senators & congressmen, forcing a legislative divestiture via the US congress. I would imagine that each state would then follow their own unique ‘plan’ to manage/privatize/develop the land. States will have to serve as the ‘middleman’ b/t the Feds and private use – it’s the only way to ensure that the land itself is managed/developed locally by local resources. I believe this is the sort of roadmap that citizens need to share & persist with if anything constructive is to happen in the future.

    I believe confrontations like the one now occurring in OR (and last year in NV) are necessary in the short-term (to educate easterners), but confrontation is only a tactic… we mustn’t forget this, because the federal land issue is much bigger & too important to allow it to garner a negative/violent reputation, IMO. Westerners need the support of easterners if federal land is ever going to be peacefully ceded to the states

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>