Dakota Meyer on Jocko Podcast.

[TomMcC]

It's statist. Statism is that place where far left and far right meet up in the middle. Even if unknowingly, he's advocating returning to the antiquated notion that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force, and should have the assumed right to appoint an exclusive warrior class for their sole use, and restrict weapons accordingly. I'm pretty sure he's not thought the implications through though. I think for him it's just about the need to feel superior, and that seems to be predicated on arms as an exclusive status symbol.

Making arms exclusive to the warrior class not only deprived the people of the weapons they might need to resist the state, it was a motivating factor to gain the loyalty of their warriors. By giving them weapons as status symbols, and setting them apart from the people by elevating them to a higher status, they put enmity between the people and the warrior class, who felt themselves superior.

Even in the 20th century, totalitarian governments have successfully used weapons as status symbols to gain the loyalty of their henchmen. Look at communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, etc. They all handed out guns to their party members, even if they didn't need them, purely as status symbols. No different than noblemen carrying swords, even in places and in eras where they were useless ceremonial trinkets.

Not too sure he has really thought through these things that deeply, he just sort of sounds like a block head to me, but I get your point. Can't say as I disagree with your history, although I would never discount men's lust for money and just a plain ole' hatred and contempt for their fellow man.

[okie]

Not too sure he has really thought through these things that deeply, he just sort of sounds like a block head to me, but I get your point. Can't say as I disagree with your history, although I would never discount men's lust for money and just a plain ole' hatred and contempt for their fellow man.

He understands. Maybe not on a conscious level, but he definitely understands on an emotional level what he's doing, what he's advocating, and the reasons why he's doing it. He wants to feel special, and he wants to do that by taking away the other kids' toys.

Unfortunately, as harmlessly juvenile as that sounds, it's a common sentiment that the government can effectively weaponize.

[B Cart]

After 21 years of Active Duty, it was hard not to look at civilians and not see a bunch of low energy, undisciplined, lackadaisical, Clowns.
Sorry, just my experience...

Sounds like you need to spend time around different 'civilians'. It's true that there are way too many lazy, undisciplined, lackadaisical, Americans - and it is indeed becoming a problem in this country - but there are also millions of insanely hard working, disciplined, intelligent, Americans who have their sh*t together and accomplish great things.

He wants to feel special, and he wants to do that by taking away the other kids' toys.

Unfortunately, as harmlessly juvenile as that sounds, it's a common sentiment that the government can effectively weaponize.

This very sentiment is at the core of the global elitist ideology that is ruining the very foundation the founding fathers knew was so important to a free people. The people in power believe they are smarter, better, and more capable than everyone else, so they believe they should be the ones to rule and make decisions for the rest of Americans. They also believe the people should be disarmed "for the safety of society" and the elites should decide who gets guns and who doesn't. This ideology spans across political parties, and they are successfully building a higher and higher dependance on government by the people, which ultimately leads to an elite ruling class, and a people powerless to stop it.

[glocktogo]

On more than one occasion, a good Soldier has gotten a wild hair and
Beat his Wife.
Got a DUI.
Got in a shoot Out.
Drank way to much and did .....
That's okay, I expect that in a high testosterone environment. What I don't expect is a law suit and a Congressional Investigation, but that's what I got.
What was the first question I was asked?
"Did you administer a Safety Briefing to your Soldiers?"

And you ask why, well, Mom's feelings are hurt and she can't believe her Son was doing "X" when he, died, was shot, or got caught hot on a piss test.
I can appreciate that, but really? You ask why?
Because everything in your society is geared upon a total lack of personal responsibility and when that all goes to hell, get a Lawyer.
Sorry that's just the way it works.

Sounds to me like the "good soldier" was the one with a total lack of personal responsibility. Sounds to me like the "good soldier" didn't deserve the privileges he was allowed by his superiors. "Our" society has a system of personal responsibility that doesn't rely on safety briefings. What we have are criminal laws and when one breaks them, they don't have superiors who get to fade the heat for free. We get the privilege of paying for a lawyer and working our way through the system, which is what we voted on and collectively decided was the way to do things.

Your subordinate is the one who did the crimes, but he's a "good soldier" and you're more upset about his mother's lack of responsibility? Do you even hear what you sound like? From here it seems your superior military society has done you no favors. That's why you're a fish out of water in the real America, regardless of it's many flaws. Maybe you should've remained on base.

It's statist. Statism is that place where far left and far right meet up in the middle. Even if unknowingly, he's advocating returning to the antiquated notion that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force, and should have the assumed right to appoint an exclusive warrior class for their sole use, and restrict weapons accordingly. I'm pretty sure he's not thought the implications through though. I think for him it's just about the need to feel superior, and that seems to be predicated on arms as an exclusive status symbol.

Making arms exclusive to the warrior class not only deprived the people of the weapons they might need to resist the state, it was a motivating factor to gain the loyalty of their warriors. By giving them weapons as status symbols, and setting them apart from the people by elevating them to a higher status, they put enmity between the people and the warrior class, who felt themselves superior.

Even in the 20th century, totalitarian governments have successfully used weapons as status symbols to gain the loyalty of their henchmen. Look at communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, etc. They all handed out guns to their party members, even if they didn't need them, purely as status symbols. No different than noblemen carrying swords, even in places and in eras where they were useless ceremonial trinkets.

Or the personal bodyguards of NYC mayors, Speaker of the House, etc.

[WillBrink]

I'm still unclear after all these pages of calling Meyer a statist elitist POS who hates civilians with guns is based on that one rant from IG, or ongoing comments and such he's made on the topic? If the latter, is there a link to it? Did I miss it in the thread?

[mRad]

I'm still unclear after all these pages of calling Meyer a statist elitist POS who hates civilians with guns is based on that one rant from IG, or ongoing comments and such he's made on the topic? If the latter, is there a link to it? Did I miss it in the thread?

The only thing I’ve seen is where he stated people wearing camo on the range “are THE problem”.

If you need more than the fact that he considers people who train to be problematic….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[glocktogo]

I'm still unclear after all these pages of calling Meyer a statist elitist POS who hates civilians with guns is based on that one rant from IG, or ongoing comments and such he's made on the topic? If the latter, is there a link to it? Did I miss it in the thread?

Can you link to where he clarified or retracted his ill conceived statement?

[Averageman]

Sounds to me like the "good soldier" was the one with a total lack of personal responsibility. Sounds to me like the "good soldier" didn't deserve the privileges he was allowed by his superiors. "Our" society has a system of personal responsibility that doesn't rely on safety briefings. What we have are criminal laws and when one breaks them, they don't have superiors who get to fade the heat for free. We get the privilege of paying for a lawyer and working our way through the system, which is what we voted on and collectively decided was the way to do things.
Your subordinate is the one who did the crimes, but he's a "good soldier" and you're more upset about his mother's lack of responsibility? Do you even hear what you sound like? From here it seems your superior military society has done you no favors. That's why you're a fish out of water in the real America, regardless of it's many flaws. Maybe you should've remained on base.

You really have taken what I wrote totally wrong.
I've seen folks talk cash chit about some subordinate on Thursday and on Sunday when he's in the drunk tank, he's suddenly "A Good Soldier." and needs our support. I don't play that and "Good Soldiers" don't get in such predicaments and they don't let themselves and their unit be embarrassed by poor behaviors.

As far as Mom goes, She sent me this young man, she had many more years to influence him before I did.
She probably thought "The Army will straighten him out." Well, I aint Father Flanigan and this isn't Boys Town. We've got a mission and he's been trained, all he has to do is behave, listen, learn and do.
What pisses me off about Mom in this case is, Where the hell is Dad? Why am I the first male authority figure to ever spend time with your Son? Did you know he had a problem with Drugs before he joined the military?
In my experience very seldom do "Good" Soldiers do bad things. Usually when Mom is raising hell about her "Great Son", there is a long story of bad behavior that goes back a while.

And once in a great while you'll get some Inner City or backwoods West Virginia kid that joins and finds his place, loves it and does well.

[WillBrink]

The only thing I’ve seen is where he stated people wearing camo on the range “are THE problem”.

If you need more than the fact that he considers people who train to be problematic….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me, I took it as the bubbas running around in tacitcool stuff we all see and will LOL at all the time, who make others look bad, are "the problem" he's referring to, vs any and all civilians who own/train with firearms. I took it as a rant about those who like to run around on YT looking like some Devgru ninja giving bad advice and trying to look cool, who live in their parents basement and such, are annoying. I took it that way, didn't even consider he was a statist elitist POS who hates civilians with guns is based on that one rant from IG, and was surprised that's how others took it. I personally suspect, over beers, he'd say as much, or, he could say that he thinks only mil and LE should have access to firearms, and anyone without his training and combat experience are peeons who should not have access to guns.

I just know how it came across to me, and I'm amazed at the level of vitriol directed at him from that one IG rant if that's literally all there is.

Can you link to where he clarified or retracted his ill conceived statement?

Can't say I looked, can't say I cared all that much about it, and he does not strike me as the kinda guy who feels he owes anyone an apology who where butt hurt over the rant. Per above, I took it very differently apparently than others did.

All I get from it was he was in a mood, spouted off some BS that could be taken various ways, a bunch people are making it seem way larger than it is, and it's not that uncommon, as you know, for some in the mil and LE to think they're superior to the rest of us.

[glocktogo]

You really have taken what I wrote totally wrong.
I've seen folks talk cash chit about some subordinate on Thursday and on Sunday when he's in the drunk tank, he's suddenly "A Good Soldier." and needs our support. I don't play that and "Good Soldiers" don't get in such predicaments and they don't let themselves and their unit be embarrassed by poor behaviors.

As far as Mom goes, She sent me this young man, she had many more years to influence him before I did.
She probably thought "The Army will straighten him out." Well, I aint Father Flanigan and this isn't Boys Town. We've got a mission and he's been trained, all he has to do is behave, listen, learn and do.
What pisses me off about Mom in this case is, Where the hell is Dad? Why am I the first male authority figure to ever spend time with your Son? Did you know he had a problem with Drugs before he joined the military?
In my experience very seldom do "Good" Soldiers do bad things. Usually when Mom is raising hell about her "Great Son", there is a long story of bad behavior that goes back a while.

And once in a great while you'll get some Inner City or backwoods West Virginia kid that joins and finds his place, loves it and does well.

You're right, I did read that totally wrong. My apologies!