13 votes

How to fly through Flak

In Billy Corgan's recent interview he suggested taking notes on how adversity was overcome in the past. I found this video after watching 2 recent Rand Paul interviews, namely the Hannity and Chris Wallace interviews, where Rand deftly out maneuvered the loaded questions fired at him. It reminded me of the old world war 2 footage of bombers flying through flak filled air as they approached their target. I wondered how they were able to do it and I eventually came across this video. I found the strategic wisdom and solutions presented in this old instruction video quite fascinating, valuable and directly translatable to our present day struggle.

According to the video the way flak works is that the anti aircraft guns (or if you like, the media,ptb,detractors etc.) will use the past history and trajectory of their target(past statements, controversial positions,etc.) in order to anticipate where the plane will be in the future. When they acquire this information they will then focus fire into the area where the plane is anticipated to fly through. Since it takes time for the shell to reach that altitude a slight change in the planes direction will throw off the calculation and the guns will miss. If the pilot of the plane is inexperienced and continues a direct course towards his target his plane will almost certainly be shot down and quite easily so. German gunners were known to able to shoot down planes 5 miles up going 300 miles an hour. Whereas a more savvy and experienced pilot would periodically adjust his course and altitude to throw off his enemy and avoid these flak traps as if swerving around an upcoming pothole in the road.

The questions Rand received were most assuredly flak designed to shoot him and the message of liberty down. They see Rand and his message rising in popularity and both interviewers seemed hopeful to take him down a few pegs. Both attempts backfired and were ultimately unsuccessful. Rand flew through unscathed and won over an even larger audience much to Hannity and Wallace's chagrin. He even forced his interviewers to reluctantly agree with him on many positions. They will no doubt become reluctant cheerleaders for the time being up and until they can adjust their aim and find another way to shoot him down. The way he's flying I'm sure Rand will be more than ready for them when the time comes.

The video does however mention that flying straight and direct isn't always the wrong way to go. In fact sometimes it is the safest most effective way through. In the event of a barrage (focused firing within a certain airspace not necessarily at any particular target) the use of evasive maneuvers may not actually help you. It may even hurt you and keep you in the flak zone longer than necessary. In such instances the safest way through the flak is to go straight and as fast as possible. I feel this was Ron Paul's approach. He didn't juke and jive he was straight and direct in all his dealings. He got pretty dang far too before he was ultimately winged and forced back to base. He unfortunately didn't reach the ultimate target, though he did have much success along the way and inspired a generation. The question is, should we continue on with his strategy,develop new ones in its likeness or something completely different?

Rand, seeing what they did to his father, is obviously employing a different strategy. He sees the attacks are targeted, not indiscriminate barrages. Being direct and predictable will get him shot down. He has to nuance everything he says, calculate everything he does or face being blown out of the sky. As much as he would like to say, do and stand up for certain things as direct and as clear as possible, he knows he must be wise and careful about how he goes about it. He must choose his battles wisely. It will sometimes take indirect routes, seemingly inconsistent approaches and confusing stances to get him into position to make any move that counts. Patience and trust on our part may be required, which is understandably a tall order for many of us, having been burned so many times in the past.

I know some criticize Rand because he does not fly as straight as his father. I myself have joined such criticism from time to time. Yes he adjusts his course. He nuances his message. He dips and dives. Rolls and pitches. Turns and burns. He plays the politician's game, and for better or for worse he plays it well. They can't hit him. He's always 2 steps ahead and he gets out of jams. It is tough to support his strategy and approach but one must admit it is proving successful. I wish him all the best and as long as our goals line up I have no qualms working with and supporting him in spreading the message of liberty. At times we may pursue different paths but I believe in the end we'll arrive at the same destination. Is Rand's approach genius? Is it folly? Might it actually work? Should it work? Should the game be played at all? Is flying straight the best way to go? The only way to go? Who can really say?

I personally believe both strategies are effective, and both have their pros and cons, but I believe many and multiple strategies end up complimenting each other and become unstoppable when combined. Billy Corgan in his interview talked about people rushing the stage. If one person just directly tried to get up security could probably take care of him pretty easy. If someone tried a more elaborate way to get on stage through a back door or by some other means it may be a bit more difficult to stop him, but if 5000 people decided to rush the stage there's not a thing security can do to stop it. I prefer Ron Paul's approach but I don't denigrate Rand's. I believe if anything is going to happen it's going to take a proverbial rush of 5000 different approaches to over run and overturn the tyranny of our day.

I hope you enjoy this video and that it inspires you reevaluate your own approach to this struggle.Thanks for reading. Peace.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

tis a good


Rand is not Ron

Ron is much better in print than in person. His floor speeches and weekly updates were flawless. In a live setting, he is very, very good but some of the inane questions cause him to lose his balance. He always recovers nicely but Rand is better in these situations. I think Rand is playing a very long game - more of a tortoise than a hare. He isn't trying to win in the first quarter. He is nurturing the seed that his father planted long ago and I think we can expect a good harvest in the years to come.

"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."
Ron Paul

JustLiberty4US's picture

This is the most logical

This is the most logical argument, I've read on the DP regarding Rand's style. You made your points and backed them up with examples (i.e., describing the latest interviews and explaining his nuances).

I know more of us want Rand to be like his dad. But, as you point out, there's room for many methods. Yes, I agree, Rand is always two steps ahead of the interviewers. I love watching him work. It's beauty.

Well done, poq.