"Extremism" and Caller Bryan

Extreme:

1. reaching a high or the highest degree; very great. "extreme cold"

2. furthest from the center or a given point; outermost. "the extreme northwest of Scotland"

3. either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible. "unbridled talk at one extreme and total silence at the other"

Extremism: noun. a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes, especially in political matters: leftist extremism; the extremism of the Nazis. (Source: Dictionary.com) Ever wonder what possesses people to claim they are individualists on one hand but use groupthink on the other?

I wonder if those that use group think ever consider how to define the words they use or, like the usage of the words themselves, do they also go along with the random and arbitrary definitions that go along with them by those that re-define them? In my almost two decades of political activist experience I can tell you most people that use words use them because they hear them more than because they know what they mean. Even if they do use the words correctly in some instances, because they use what they hear rather than what they know, they apply the use of the word in the context of those, the Brainwashers, that not only use and define it but use the definitions to brainwash the unsuspecting.

As with most days that get my day off on the right foot, I was on the radio again this morning with Kevin Miller, www.KIDOAM.com and we were discussing "taking the jab or losing the job." To me even thinking about implementing this is extreme but actually talking about it and actually watching it happen is seriously Twilight Zone stuff-not only that it is immoral and unlawful but unconstitutional.

I began expressing my feelings on the matter, as if it wasn't clear to regular listeners anyway but I always try to leave reasons why I oppose something so they understand where the opposition comes from. The reason for the radio discussion this morning was not only because of the controversial nature of Vaccines and the COVID Hoax but that St. Luke's had decided to mandate vaccines for all employees or they will lose their jobs. It was also stated that St. Luke's could implement such policies because they are a private company and I disagreed from top to bottom.

First off, what would be the reason for mandatory vaccines and Second, why would they implement such harsh regulations? Some say: "because of the "Pandemic." I argue that there was no pandemic and the statistics prove it, so if there it wasn't a pandemic, why keep calling it what it isn't? Additionally, if the urgency doesn't exist, what is the "extreme" motivation for the mandate? There has to be a motive or they wouldn't do it. Motives between government and corporations are usually driven by two things: money, control or both. If this is true, which one is it, why and who is behind it and who stands to gain from its mandates? Is merely questioning motive "Extreme?"

Other things to consider are if St. Luke's is truly a "private corporation" and do "Private corporations" have the autonomy to violate people's rights because they are "private?"

Why would the autonomy of a collective faction have more power than the autonomy of an individual anyway? Our Founder's spoke seriously regarding oppressive factions.

First off, in my understanding, any "private corporation" that is in any way subsidized by the tax payer is no longer "private." Consequently, this is why a trespassing statute does not lawfully apply on public property. So, my point is that if St. Luke's is not private, what is it? Well, without making it too complicated, it is called a "Public/private Partnership." Something you may consider "extreme" without knowing what I know on the matter is that PPP's are a part of the United Nations Agenda 21, in other words, globalism not Federalism or easier to understand...Un-American. Further more, this classification is outside of any of the three branches of government, another reason why it is unlawful and unconstitutional. Since private corporations can't lawfully make law and the public classification can't force mandates without law, they are lawfully in a bit of a pickle, unless of course the ignorant are unaware, which of course they are or they wouldn't be called ignorant.

Not that all of these things mentioned above are not "extremely" dangerous, there is something else that should be considered...the will or tyranny of the majority or what is commonly called Democracy, (we were not founded as a Democracy, but a Constitutional republic) in that the majority although they are wholly ignorant now not only control the minority but maintain the narrative even if it is a lie.

The ignorant because they don't know better or because they have been neutered or have become soft/spineless, use tolerance and acceptance to allow for any or all rights to be abrogated because they don't want to seem extreme or "go against the grain" and will even go so far as to carry the media/corporate driven narrative to call others names in other to maintain that narrative. They will even ignore facts or dangers or laws in order to maintain the control of the majority, then in cases like Caller Bryan this morning, he perfectly exemplifies all of my above examples and while he is also unknowingly inconsistent in most of his arguments about how we should just comply, that "corporations have the "right" and even though he doesn't like it, we should just comply anyway"... he not only says he loves me on the radio but then calls me extreme?

In admittedly a bit of Righteous Indignance (that may also be considered "extreme to him) I called back and defended my position calling anyone out that uses that term to face their accuser and define it since the use of words today can get someone incarcerated under the NDAA as an Enemy combatant with indefinite detention without Trial by Jury...In America!.

I stated that Bryan was better suited to call me the enemy by calling me extreme, than saying he loved me while he called me extreme. The fact is the use or context of the word is used by tools to maintain the narrative. In my second call, I mentioned that if anyone would like to use the term to define someone as extreme, they should say it to them directly or there should be an on-air debate on the two opposing positions so that people clearly understand both sides rather than just buying the narrative.

But to be fair and in Caller Bryan's defense, let's consider being "extreme." How would one define extreme or better yet, how would they use the word? In the beginning of this post, I included definitions of the words so let's consider them while we look at a few examples.

Maybe it is I that misunderstood Caller Bryan in that he was, according to number 1: calling me or the cause of concern "Great!" or of "the highest degree" of importance. If this is true, I owe him an apology. If he is adhering to number 2 or 3: "furthest from the center or a given point; outermost, or either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible. "unbridled talk at one extreme and total silence at the other, " which I suspect he is, let us consider what this means but I will say that without understanding his frame of reference, which he really didn't make clear, it would be difficult to know for sure so we could only be suspect. In my mind he would certainly need to have some basic understanding of the issues, the dangers, history and our Principles of Freedom and a bit of knowledge about the conspiratorial elements undermining American Liberty, he would also need to have some understanding of my frame of reference as well, but since I am guessing he doesn't, he has had to instead resort to castigating his opponent because he can't argue on the details. let me explain:

If America was founded on Rebellion from a tyrant king and the exodus of his people's in a formation of a new world that offered freedom from oppressive reign and prosperity, Do you suppose it was done peacefully? Do you think that if the Founder's would have acted the way Caller Bryan is suggesting we do that America would even exist today? Hardly.

If the Founder's documented their understanding of history, human nature, alternate forms of government, reliance on God, the importance of sacrifice and eternal vigilance and listed actions to prevent a tyrant government, would it be extreme to consider their writings and would it also be "extreme" to fight against being oppressed again?

If our government has become liars and become increasingly more corrupt, that implement oppressive laws that are in contradiction to what our Founder's had envisioned that actually led to the enslaving and killing the people it was to serve, who then or which entity should be called "extreme?" I would like to ask Caller Bryan if he feels if there is ever a time to fight and if there is, when that is and if there is, whether we should fight while we can still be peaceful or if we should wait for a violent uprising that we all know won't end well?

In my view, I can only wonder what people like Caller Bryan are thinking when someone asks them to define what it means to be an American and how being American would differ from, say, being a communist? To me, Americanism is aggressive, dangerous and free and was born out of defiance and Communism or other forms of totalitarianism that are based on degrees or complete compliance. Knowing this, it really only leaves me to ask Bryan a few questions:

Are you knowingly a Communist? If you aren't a Communist, what part of compliance and to what extreme are you willing to subject yourself to before you fight back or are there ever grounds for fighting back "when government becomes corrupt to these ends?"

To clarify for those that don't know me, my frame of reference is my accumulated knowledge on the Principles of Freedom, Our Constitution, the mind of our Founders and their "Original Intent" and the lawful application of the law, human nature and a bit of history in general. My statements, I do believe can all be backed by one or more of the above and hopefully also includes consistency in my arguments if that even matters anymore. If I had to abandon facts and only rely on feelings that we seem to do today, let me make an emotional plea and perhaps you will be able to feel it too...

I believe we are at war! Our government has openly and repeatedly declared war on those it was created to serve, it has usurped every limited authority it was given, it has blurred the lines of the separation of powers, the checks and balances, accumulated a lust for power and money and a desire to not only control the people but to enslave them and extort our wealth for themselves. They have colluded with foreign governments and multi-national corporations, to violate all rights or turn them into merely privileges, they control what we think, what we eat, what we breathe, where and how we can live, where we go for healthcare, what treatments we get, where we can travel and placed us under complete surveillance and this is truly just the beginning. How can people still say we are free unless they are truly ignorant?

If anyone has little to no concept of the things I mention, it is no wonder they call others "extreme" but two important things to remember though is that calling something names or pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it so and that if the government is the entity that has control of a word like "extreme" is it any wonder why free people are considered extremists when governments by nature if not held accountable incrementally and eventually demands total compliance?!

If anything I have stated is true, and I am considered truly extreme (as someone that has never broken the law, called for armed conflict or even incited rebellion) what in your mind makes me that way? Is it possible if I am considered extreme it is only because "extreme times call for extreme measures" or, in your mind, shall we allow the sacrifices of freedom of those that have laid their lives down before us be in vain?

I believe Caller Bryan has a good heart. I believe his intentions are good and I really admire his desire to open his mouth and his mind on the radio when so few will and this post, although a bit aggressive is not to lambaste him personally or demean his character but instead to challenge him on what he thinks he knows and to know that calling me extreme will always be met with a challenge for clarification.