Thursday, January 15, 2009

"Why Mike Vanderboegh is Wrong."

David Codrea brought my attention to this critique of the Restoration idea.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Why Mike Vanderboegh is Wrong

I'm a big fan of Mike Vanderboegh, the man and the author. He's got a solid spirit and a strong backbone. Lotta brain, too.

With that said, the Three Percent restoration can't be allowed to happen.

I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm not saying it wouldn't work - in fact, the thing I like most about Mike is how he demonstrates how possible it really is.

I'm saying it's too dangerous. Not for the individual members of the Three Percent, nor for gun owners, I mean for the United States and everything it stands for.

Think about it - what happens when a nation dissolves into civil unrest?

Generally they fracture, and many times they are then occupied by an enemy force.

I don't believe that we're still two minutes to midnight with Russia, or with China. However, civil unrest in the United States would be a perfect excuse for either of them to capitalize on our instability. God knows what "U.N. peacekeepers" might do.

It's very simple - we won't only be dealing with the U.S. government, which we may be able to handle. We'll be dealing with every major military in the world.

I will explore the other options we face in subsequent posts.

Now, I came back from Indy 1500 with a renewed sense of purpose to finish Absolved as soon as possible. The fact that I seem to have picked up a bug there has only complicated things. Thus, I cannot waste too much time on the blog or getting into skirmishes. Nevertheless, "sinreg" raises a real issue that I have heard before. So, unable to take the time to engage and unwilling to shift my own focus from Absolved, I forwarded it to two of my good friends and this is what they had to say:

First, Friend #1:

We are moving ever closer to Rawles’s Patriot scenario. The birthright of American Liberty will fail without resolute action. I absolutely expect Russia, China, Europe and/or militant Islam to take advantage of the situation.
This is all to the good.

I do not think that your critic has thought through his argument sufficiently. If he really agrees that a restoration is necessary and desirable, then why he would not support it or why he would caution against it – just because Russia, China or Europe “might” take advantage of internal unrest? He argues that we cannot engage in a restoration because of “what if” scenarios. This result of ‘taking counsel of one’s fears’ results in failure through inaction.

Certain sure the socialist tyrants of the old world would love to intervene to secure the riches of America. But were the enemies of the United States to intervene, it will drive huge numbers of fence-sitters to our side. The logistics of intervention, of sustaining credible, robust military forces across an ocean are significant. Let them come.

Then, Friend #2 had this to say:

Saw it.

Agree that cold blood is needed here.

The central fallacy is that by standing pat, the evils foreseen by the author will be avoided.

The reality is that the PRC, a resurgent neo-Tsarist Russia, expansionist Islam, and the worldwide socialist cabal stand ready, willing, and able to dismember the country of our births.

Much progress has been made by each -- individually and collectively. Perhaps even a fatal amount.

Within our own country, legions of Quislings, sworn to the cause of foreign ideology, skulk ever closer to complete control of the three branches of government at the local, state, and Federal levels.

BTW, the most important priorities in my mind are preservation/restoration of your health and completion of the novel. Everything else should come last.

The simplest refutation has been made already by Churchill:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Remember too that the evil ones would have you stab yourself with your own pen. Beware.

Should you choose to engage, suggest that you contact the author and propose an exchange of correspondence, published for the world to see.

Your case is freedom.

His case is slavery.

In the middle of waiting for their responses, I had my aforementioned email failure. When it came back up, oddly enough, I had this from "sinreg" himself:

Supplying the Three Percent

The 3% would need a large number of supplies, chemically speaking. Propellants for bullets, rockets, et cetera, as well as several other compounds which require substances difficult to acquire even today with a spotless record and good connections. I would like to pool information in this regard, but not via e-mail, because 1) it's conspiratorial and a conspiracy is not what I want, just a free exchange of hypothetical ideas; 2) private correspondence limits us to our respective knowledges, shrinking the pool of available resources. Would you be interested?

Also, I have a post on my blog at vis a vis a 3% Restoration. I hope you will consider and respond to it. Bear in mind that if it occurs, I'll proudly be by your side - but I believe I make a strong case as to why we must dedicate every possible resource and attempt every other method we can before we resort to such a final measure.

Thank you, and stay well

To which I responded:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, wrote:
I am working on a response, but it strikes me as passing strange that someone who believes I am "wrong" would seek to engage me in a discussion about chemical stockpiles.

To which he responded:

Well, that's just a title. Wrong? Not so much as "if things go that way, we're really really screwed, so we should try like hell to direct things down a different road."

Like I said... I'd rather fight a losing battle than live under a tyrant's boot. But I'd rather win than either, know what I mean?

I'm thinking that it'd be far safer to, if we absolutely abandon political action, secede than to try to challenge Washington directly, just because taking a little square of land somewhere on the North American continent would be far less disrupting than bringing the fight to them. Mostly because in that case, a whole bunch of people will take advantage of the situation, and while we might be able to turn Washington in our favor, we won't be able to turn Beijing or Moscow.

My rejoinder:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:16 PM, wrote:
Secession as a goal from the outset is a losing proposition. Besides, if your criticism of restoration is to make sure that we don't encourage our foreign enemies, I can think of no more certain way to do that than secession. Color me . . . puzzled.

Back at me:

I don't mean on a state-by-state basis a la the Confederacy. The method would have to be determined by the people participating, but I'm thinking more John Galt than Jefferson Davis.

I considered the inevitable fracturing and potential invasion of the country - if it starts to fall apart, everyone's gonna want a piece - and I'm not sure how we could handle it. My conclusion was the only way to handle it would be to leave the body politic of the United States intact, and there's no way to do that but by operating lower on the radar. The inevitable success of a freer territory would either lead to the unfortunate result we now discuss, anyway, or it would encourage others to pressure Washington. Either way, it seems that it is certainly one of the options we must exhaust before lead flies.

Well, that's where the exchange rests. If you have your own thoughts, feel free to post them here. Let's be civil. He raised a good point, if oddly put in his further explications.

As for me, Absolved beckons.

Mike, III


Crustyrusty said...

Friend #1 is spot on in that any foreign intervention would swell our ranks. Some of those who might hesitate to use force against their own people would have a field day against foreign troops.

Atlas Shrug said...

I suggest that Sine Regibus do some research into the Free State approach - specifically the Free State Wyoming effort (as IMHO the NH one is doomed to failure due to pollution of the state with MassHoles).

Two books touch on such "backing away from the USA" that are shy of secession. The first is Molon Labe, by the author of Boston's Gun Bible, and the founder of the Free State Wyoming movement. It's essentially a potential "how to" book with a medium time frame (not accelerated by events which may happen to us now). The second is Neither Predator Nor Prey, also by a Wyoming resident (Mark Spungin).

These two serve as a good compliment to the economic "black swanish" scenario of Rawles' Patriots...

Anyone seriously trying to help direct a 3% Restoration needs to be familiar with all of the above books, organizations, and ideas, IMHO. Clearly Absolved will be added to that once out.

The facts are that "shrugging" and similar approaches will never ignite the masses. Only nationwide events will do so. If it ain't big enough to know American Idol off the air, it ain't big enough to make a difference.

I used to be more optimistic, but with each new grey hair I get more steeled to the idea that there is really no other way for events to unfold.

Keep your powder dry,

Atlas Shrug

Anonymous said...

The Galt Scenario is what the Davidians did, and they have gone after several others that stored food and such. Recently busted a food co-op. The feds won't tolerate such things. I sympathize but you guys are begging for re-education in one of the specialty camps by posting thoughts of stockpiles of the supplies you mention. If you're just starting its too late anyhow.

Billy Beck said...

"Think about it - what happens when a nation dissolves into civil unrest?"

It is doing that right now.

"Think about it."

triptyx said...

Were, heaven forbid, the situation to degenerate into an open warfare 3% situation, and a foreign invader were to attempt to capitalize on it, I can't think of a better thing that could happen.

Neither the threepers, nor the US Gov would, for a moment, tolerate intervention by a foreign nation (and marching in foreign troops to deal with the threepers would likely cause an even greater rally to the threeper side anyhow - most folks don't want a French or German soldier on their land telling them what to do and would react accordingly IMO).

What would likely result from such an intervention would be both sides uniting in the common goal of repelling that invader. After all, it's kinda hard to restore the republic when you are occupied by the Chinese no?

The interesting thing to me, assuming the Threepers and the US Gov manage to repel the invader, would be the aftermath.

In that situation, *could* the public for a moment continue to believe that privately held guns are bad? After having a boot put to their neck by an occupying force, and having the resulting destruction of infrastructure and homes and the raging need to rebuild to feed/clothe/shelter themselves to deal with, could the current ignorant TV Addicted citizenry continue to think that their newly restored Liberty from those invaders should be regulated away? When you have first generation knowledge about what the original Bill of Rights actually does to ensure your place in your Nation it is a lot easier to get a LOT of people very angry and involved if an entity wants to attempt to regulate and suppress that Liberty.

With all the work it would take to get things back up and running post invasion, and the interim lawlessness and required self sufficiency required to survive the aftermath, I wonder if we might end up with a citizenry that would relish and cherish the original principles this country was founded on. A newer, harder, more Liberty educated populace (what remained at least) that would understand all too well why this country was founded the way it was, and the importance of maintaining those principles.

Would we even need to continue fighting such an action if we were forced to rise up and unite to repel an invader, or would we see a rapid renaissance in self sufficiency and liberty? In my experience, if you talk to people who legally immigrated to this country from oppressive nations, they are all pleased as punch at the freedoms here, and often are very resistant to tyrannical schemes. We might get that same effect from the entire populace after they experience what living under an occupying, non human rights focused, army is all about.

Instead of slowly turning up the heat, you'd have the fire directly applied to the populace - they could see for themselves the end game that would have resulted from the direction things were sliding in - first hand.

Either way, it's a very interesting thought exercise.

John Higgins said...

I'll write up a post exploring this further, but I'll address the particular raised points here.

Crustyrusty - Even assuming that we would find ourselves with new allies, fighting a foreign enemy is an absolute 180 from fighting a domestic enemy. Washington will reserve itself because it does not want to destroy its own holdings in land or subjects. Foreign enemies will not be so friendly.

Atlas Shrug - I'm well-versed and a big fan of the FSP strategy. I may move to New Hampshire myself, soon. The issue of that is that it's a category one tactic - political action. I'm writing about category two - attempted non-violent, non-political resolution, and Mike writes about category three. I propose that we move 1-2-3, rather than 1-3 or any other pattern, on the slight chance that we might achieve our ends without bloodshed.

Anonymous - you're right, but if that happens then it's a perfect example of a line being crossed, isn't it? I don't suggest this strategy in lieu of a potential violent redress, I suggest it prior to such a thing, because I think even Mike to some degree underestimates how horrible it might be - not at all an avoidable sin, we all do. We'll never know how bad it will be until it happens.

The main failing of the Davidians and all other "splinter" groups is their isolation and their pervasive, strange ideologies. These things can be easily turned against them by slandering who they are and what they do, making them into something distinctly alien, preventing opposition when they're violently stamped out by our rulers. A movement such as ours would not face those particular failings.

With all that said, I do stand with Mike and consider myself one of the three percent. I have since I read the first chapter of Absolved, which said in an easily-digested form what I've been saying for years. For that reason I want to discuss the tactics and logistics we would face if it came to that - because if it does happen, I want to win. I don't know if we can, but I want to. Hopefully, Mike will indulge me in such a discussion, but if not, this will do.

Take care, stay well, stand your ground.

Anonymous said...

An assumption of the detractors seems to be that mere subscription to the 3% idea is that one is already at the point of letting lead fly. That couldn't be further from the truth. If it were, the lead would already be flying in sporatic fights all over the country, and that ain't happening.

Unless I read Mike wrong, it only takes ~3% to effect real and sustainable restorative change. Having been a part of some local change, I'll agree that it only takes a very small, committed group to effect change. With our current situation, there are several legitimate alternatives to effect change before the last resort of letting lead fly. Personally, I sincerely hope liberty oriented change can be effected before the last resort. At the same time, under what consequence will the 3% be able to effect change? That's right, the possible use of force.

As for foreign entities taking advantage: They aren't that stupid. I believe they recognize, and rightly so, that if they attacked in any form, even if we were internally involved in an 1860's fight, all of us would immediately turn on the foreign enemy with a vengeance and likely vanquish it. Besides, Russia, China and Islamic Radical locations have their own serious internal problems right now and likely for the foreseable future. While that doesn't eliminate the threat, it greatly reduces the possibility.

Is there still a chance of Restoration? Yes, but it diminishes with every liberty eroding move those in control make. Many recognize and few would argue that we are in for a paschal of anti-liberty moves. Can it be turned? Yes, but it's going to take the 3% at full 'liberty' throttle and many more convinced of what they have actually lost and what they will lose in order to get those folks thinking strongly in liberty and self-reliant terms. That, I believe provides the best opportunity for sustainable Restoration...

The quote from Churchill says it all.


jon said...

"God knows what 'U.N. peacekeepers' might do."

they'll dissapear in the middle of the night, is what.

oh, hey, where'd this gear come from? free helmet, guys.

don't think for a second some pissant conqueror state would do any better, either.

no foreign invasion force will ever simply be allowed by the coast guard, navy and air force to just walk right in, under any circumstances -- even if our own government is in full-scale war at home.

they are in it to keep what they have, in both scenarios. the exact same motivation holds.

Alex said...

I don't know, Bobcat. I don't think restoration is possible, at least not anytime soon (within the next 5-10 years). And here's why (although you've probably heard all this before, so you can ignore the rest of this post if you want, if you're the same bobcat on the FSW forum).

I don't believe "Restoration" of the republic is possible, even with the efforts of conservatives and libertarians and Three Percenters, for many reasons, but chief among them is that the Constitution (which most of us really appreciate and abide by) was not designed how we think it was, to ensure liberty. We don't have anything to go back to, because we are already there, best summed up this way: "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Lysander Spooner,

Instead, The Constitution was designed to allow an ever-expanding and intrusive Federal Government. For an in depth-analysis of this, two books come to mind immediately that would explain much of what is going on, and both deal with the schemes and machinations of that often-revered Hamilton, who did more in his short life to undermine liberty and advance the "Leviathan" concept of government than anyone else in history.

First, Hamilton's Curse, by Thomas DiLorenzo. I haven't finished this book yet, but I'm about halfway through, and it's quite an accurate accusation of Hamilton as the one who truly screwed this country over from the very beginning.

Second, Hologram of Liberty, The Constitution's Shocking Alliance with Big Government by Kenneth W. Royce, a.k.a. Boston T. Party, of Boston's Gun Bible and Free State Wyoming fame. While it would be foolish to agree completely with everything one says in a book, Hologram completely changed my whole view on this country, and led me to the same conclusion as Mr. Royce comes to, that any type of restoration effort, or political victory on any large (i.e. national) scale is utterly impossible, given the mindset of most of the citizenry, and the direction this country is headed over the next 4 years.

The second part of that conclusion is that only on a State or smaller level can any kind of restoration effort succeed. So, Mike Vanderboegh's Absolved is fairly correct, and completely workable, because it focuses on a single state, and not on that "hive of scum and villainy" on the Potomac.

Now, it is possible that the general population might see the success that comes from a free market and free people of a state or smaller community and learn the lessons, but don't count on it for any sort of national political outcome.

Besides, I think anyone who seeks to achieve national political changes is grossly underestimating the desire of those in power to keep that power. Remember, they've had years of practice, and have trained many younger politicians to carry on when they leave.

BrianF said...

Personally, I would be hesitant to discuss preps of any sort with a new acquaintence.
Your new "friends" with a sudden interest in what you are doing, can and do prove to be feds.

Qi Ji Guang said...

QUOTE: "God knows what 'U.N. peacekeepers' might do."

they'll dissapear in the middle of the night, is what. QUOTE

EXACTLY. That was the first thought that came to my mind. Helmet? Somebody say? I'll take a free helmet LOL and a free gas mask too. Just get those two damn letters off the sides first. Foreign troops, on OUR soil?? I would ABSOLUTELY not take such a damned insult and I am sure many of us feel that way too. Foreign troops on our soil? Hell, we would treat them no better than we do with Brightfire scum.

As for the Chinese (PRC), I don't think we need to worry about them so much. They have shown throughout history, that they have little interest in bluewater imperialistic activities. Afterall, China has been a victim of imperialism back in the 1800s and their popular literature states that they don't want anybody else suffering from the same.

I am not so sure about Russia. They have flexed their muscles before and sucker-punched their neighboring countries. And as for the radical Islamists: I would definitely encourage us to watch out for them. They want to forcible spread their religion to the whole world, and whats even worse is that we have a sizeable population right here in our own country that have radical Islamic leanings, no doubt from extreme leftist brainwashing.

thedweeze said...

To use the pentagonese term, what other nation has the Global Force Projection assets/experience to land a sizable number of troops here? Especially under fire? What US military unit would agree to provide security for the beach/airport? Just sayin'.

About the only way that this might happen is that they are 'invited' by the Gummint, which I would suggest, be the ultimate proof that it's time to take off the gloves. I cannot imagine that even VP Biden is that stupid and shortsighted. Nor is even Barney Frank or Chuckie Schumer. And with those three names I have invoked a whole pile of stupid, as you all know. This would totally validate the whole 3% in a way we'd be hard pressed to do otherwise, and they are skilled enough in PR (if nothing else) to see what a disaster that would be.

New Subject: after suffering through a severely cricked neck, I finally hung a small shelf at eye level for my powder scale and measure. I've only been reloading for 25 years, so obviously it takes awhile to figure everything out. :)

Crustyrusty said...

I can see the Lightworker inviting UN JBTs to impose "order" at some point, especially since he wants to play nice on the world stage, and that reduces the possibility that our troops/LEOs might decide that they really don't want a war with their neighbors. Of course that course of action would streamline our decision-making tremendously.

Anonymous said...

John, when you said
"all other "splinter" groups is their isolation and their pervasive, strange ideologies. These things can be easily turned against them by slandering who they are and what they do, making them into something distinctly alien, preventing opposition when they're violently stamped out by our rulers. A movement such as ours would not face those particular failings."
you don't seem to understand that we are already included in the same category by even many of those supposedly pro 2nd like the fudds. Our movement already faces those same failings. Do you really think fudds and prags will come to defend anyone labeled extreme by the feds? There is already a long list like Fincher and others railroaded in a like fashion, 3/4 of the dealers are gone-many with doors broken and some killed, read the list of who is branded a "homegrown terrorist". Most if not all of us fit the bill. YOU are one. The ideology being discussed here is just as pervasive and strange to the feds and most fudds as that of the Davidians. If you don't think we are being slandered you aren't paying attention. Our supposed friends think we're extreme, the rest have no doubt and plan elimination. The homegrown act was not happenstance.

John Russell said...

From John Russell via email to Vanderboegh:

Just an observation in regards to Sinreg's fear about what U.N. peacekeepers might do to the hapless populace. If there is one thing on my wish list of potential blunders that could be made by the enemies of our souls right near the top is the introduction of foreign troops into the United States. It would be better called the resistence full participation program. Does anyone remember how King George's employment of Hessian mercenaries energized the colonies? Gone would be the reticance regarding sending another American to the neather regions. Frankly I couldn't wish for a better provocation.

John Higgins said...

John Russell and thedweeze raise excellent points that make me reconsider what might happen. This is good, but I still fear for what would happen.

On the other side, Alex raises further concerns, but as they are bordering on the philosophical I'm not certain they will be sufficiently addressed in this setting.

BrianF - extensive personal information of mine is available to David Codrea. I'm not a plant - just someone who thinks it's decades past time to change things, and wants to explore how.

perlhaqr said...

Unless said foreign troops really were here under invitation from POTUS, I can't imagine any country or group large enough to try and invade being stupid enough to do it.

To bowdlerize a quote from Army of Darkness, "Civil War, no Civil War, we're the guys with the nukes."

No matter how crazy things get here, no one is going to forget that fact. Indeed, the crazier things get here, the more vividly they will remember that fact.

threepers creeper said...

Hey guys. I'm rather new here at SSI, so I want to make it clear I am not here just trying to plug Governor Huckabee and his Huck-Pac campaign. So please forgive me if anyone is bothered by this post. I simply offer this up as a way for people to get involved for those who want to truly save the lead for the last resort.

If you go to you can sign up to volunteer to help support true conservative candidates in your state, so that we can maybe avoid the lead by getting people in positions of power who get it on the issues of importance to us. Just something to think about as I know there are many good conservative peoples out there who would serve this country well in the political realm, we just have to get them there.

Anonymous said...

"Restoration", (spit). Would you also want to wind Germany back to their situation of a decade before Hitler, and see if they can avoid a genocide this time? Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Weren't the Chinese, Russian, German, and other genocides that followed the communist/fascist historical pattern enough for you? Must you continue to do liberal* social engineering experiments at the likely cost of tens of millions of lives? How many dead will it take to convince you that government is poison?

* All definitions of liberal work here, both classical liberal/Libertarian and socialist. Constitutional restorationists are the most deeply prag of all.

Alex writes: the Constitution (which most of us really appreciate and abide by) was not designed how we think it was, to ensure liberty. We don't have anything to go back to, because we are already there

Right. The US founders got bored with peace and liberty, because it doesn't have that juice that power does, and decided to become a ruling class. Does it matter if they came over on the boat with that idea or if the dark side turned them? Either way, we've learned what doesn't work. Like its weaker cousins Slavery and Colonialism, Government is pure evil by nature, and cannot be made medicinal.

John Paulding said...

As far as foreign intervention goes in America, I'm not terribly concerned. I'll leave the PRC and Russia to others to debate but radical Islam is a flat out joke. They are a non-issue.

I have a great deal of respect for BTP and have enjoyed many of his books. In the event of AmRev2 I fully intend to be a part of victory and more importantly, the reconstruction. Generally speaking, FSW came across to me as a bunch of truthers and bunkertarians who plan on hiding in their bunkers shouting DToM and engaging only those who threaten their Eden. After we do the fighting (and they shoot anyone who accidently steps foot on their land) they will come out and whine about how we're not rebuilding the country properly. What that organization desperately needs is a little leadership from BTP who is avoiding it like the plague. They're still better than FSP though.

I have also read "Hologram of Liberty". After reading it I really thought I had a lot of answers. After a few more years of reading on the founders I have come to almost wholly reject his work. I think BTP does a major disservice to Hamilton. I would recommend reading Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton before buying the libertarian dogma that worships Jefferson and demonizes Hamilton.

Also, we need to stop lulling ourselves into this false belief that they are going to come door to door to get our guns. It's not going to happen. Rest assured that they want them and will try to get them, but they aren't stupid and will not go door to door; they know full well it will start a civil war.

They will likely give us AWB 2.0. If we accept that then we may as well turn our guns in since we won't have the guts to use them. With AWB 2 a permanent fixture we will have to be more covert in our training and few of our children will get training in the use of our EBRs. They need only let the gun culture wither on the vine and they will have us. We must not allow that to happen.

Anonymous said...

I'm way behind on some of the reading here, so I'll only add my 2 cents re: foreign troops getting involved here. I think the actual threat they pose is that while we're otherwise involved, they will be free to act in their own spheres of influence. China vs Taiwan and others in SE Asia, Russia vs Europe, etc. I suspect the most they might do directly against us, would be something like China closing off the Panama Canal to further complicate our situation, and keep us from interfering elsewhere.

Anonymous said...


"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Lysander Spooner,

The Constitution hasn't authorized the government we have in its present form, and the Constitution holds only the authority given to it by those willing to kill for it. To date, we have not been pushed far enough to be willing to kill for it. Instead, we have compromised....our freedoms, our liberties, and the vision of what our nation could be, and should be as described by our Constitution and the founders or our nation. It is becoming obvious, however, that the limitations of compromise are rapidly being reached, and some other means must be contemplated if our nation is to return to its roots as well as it potential. "Lines in the sand" are being drawn throughout our nation by sovereign American citizens. And while millions of citizens are blind or purposefully ignoring the deterioration of our country, the numbers of those who "aren't gonna take it anymore" are swelling. Fuses are in the powderkegs. They only require a strong enough spark.
The necessity of a three percent solution will be determined by those who have taken an oath which, if followed, will negate its necessity. I hope they are up to the task, and have the integrity to uphold their oaths. If not, let them be numbered.

Anonymous said...

From above: "The main failing of the Davidians and all other "splinter" groups is their isolation and their pervasive, strange ideologies."

In case you didn't notice...WE are one of those "splinter groups" with a "strange ideology". Face it, we who believe in the liberty bestowed upon us by the Founding Fathers have been demonized in the press for the past 30 years. Liberalism and statism are the religions of the new Amerika. ANYONE who challenges government authority absolutely WILL be demonized - along with anyone who shares their beliefs. You can count on it. The Davidians were demonized very effectively before they were murdered. I know people who actually cheered as these PEOPLE were incinerated live on TV! They had been dehumanized. This is no different than the Nazi's and the Communists did with the Jews. Do you think the same fate is not planned for those who will not comply?

Qi Ji Guang said...

QUOTE From above: "The main failing of the Davidians and all other "splinter" groups is their isolation and their pervasive, strange ideologies." QUOTE

Speaking of isolation, it does no one good. Look at what isolation did to the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom back in the 1860s. Sure the Taiping had over 2 million troops, and during the first years of the rebellion, they conquered vast swaths of southern China with ease. They also fell victim to isolation. The only reason why the Taiping cause generated so many followers in the beginning is because starving peasants had nowhere to go, deserted and oppressed by their own government. They only joined the Taiping because they thought their new saviors would provide them with food.

It wasn't so, at all. Not only did the Taiping isolate themselves from the rest of the population, their methods of "full-scale" warfare also claimed the lives of countless innocent civilians everywhere they marched. Entire populations in provinces like Hunan turned against the Taiping with anger. Another thing that led to their downfall, was the sheer debauchery that Taiping rulers engaged in. While they forced semi-socialist principles over the population they ruled, the Taiping kings and princes themselves indulged themselves with foreign luxury and goods in their grand palaces. Taiping Emperor Hong Xiuquan reportedly sent out over a hundred thousand troops all over the occupied territories to hunt down a mythical dragon so he could have a robe made from dragon skin.

Meanwhile, Confucian-educated banner armies under the leadership of scholar mandarins like Prefect Zheng Guofan and Li Hongzhang continued to tighten the noose around the Taipings. Not only did the Confucian armies won the hearts of the population, they also adapted and innovated, equipping their ranks with new weapons such as Sharps rifles and Enfield muskets. They also acquired vast amounts of Parrott rifled siege guns and Columbiads. Under this withering firepower, the Taiping had absolutely no chance at all.

The mistakes that the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom made, are exactly the mistakes that we must avoid making. In the very end, the Taiping afterall, were not vanquished by the Qing Dynasty's guns and fire. The Taiping had plunged the lethal dagger into their own hearts, years before they fell.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"I sympathize but you guys are begging for re-education in one of the specialty camps by posting thoughts of stockpiles of the supplies you mention. If you're just starting its too late anyhow."

Nonsense - defeatist nonsense. It's not too late to start storing away food and ammo. A person who goes to Costco tomorrow and buys bags of rice, beans, oatmeal and a bunch of canned food and then drops by Walmart and buys several hundred rounds of rifle ammo is certainly better off than when they started the day.

And even if you are talking very serious preparations, there is still time. So don't stick your head in the sand and say its too late. Get busy getting what you will need, come what may.

It's not too late.

Anonymous said...

Alex makes some very good points about the intentional weaknesses placed into the Constitution by the Federalists. Patrick Henry was correct when he said "I smell a rat" in regards to the 1787 convention.

Hologram of liberty, by Royce (better known as Boston T Party of Gun Bible fame) is excellent reading. It is too bad he is correct, but that does not make it less so.

The Articles of Confederation were truer to the ideals of the American Revolution, and I suspect we will see a return more to that ideal of truly sovereign and equal states within a true confederation.

Thus, the points about possible secession do have merit, since even if a few states, such as Montana, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, for example, to secede, there is no reason they could not be part of a loose confederation of states to repel foreign enemies while also declaring independence from the District of Criminals.

I say such secession from the beast in the East is perfectly healthy and would go a long way toward restoring the Republic to the original ideas of the American Revolution. the Articles were what we fought under in the Revolutionary War and were only done away with by the machinations of Hamilton and others in the Federalist camp.

Up the Republic of 1776!

John Paulding said...

Anon- It pains me that a patriot who has done far more for the cause of liberty than anyone on this board is so readily blashpemed.

Where Jefferson was rushing to get out of Virginia, Hamilton was leading bayonet charges over ramparts at Yorktown.

While Jefferson was off flirting with other men's wives in France, Hamilton was writing ceaselessly by candlelight writing out the bulk of the Federalist Papers.

Where Jefferson was talking about the evils of slavery as they toiled away on his plantation, Hamilton was the president of the Manumission Society.

Have you read the Federalist Papers? Had we stuck with the AoC this country would have balkanized or found itself in a constant state of war amongst themselves like they were in Europe. This would not have been a glorious republic; rather a failed state overcome by the first Napoleon (read about Aaron Burr's schemes) the way France was.

You don't hear in Hologram of Liberty how Jefferson was having men charged for seditious libel in Virginia as he spoke of the evils of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Constitution was subject to closed debate because of the nature of the thing. Free debate could never have happened if representatives would have been afraid of meeting the business end of an angry mob for speaking their mind.

Do not glory on the idea of unfetterred democracy. BTP speaks through the lens of a conspiracy theorist. Hamilton was a patriot. His vision of America was certainly different from Jefferson's, but it was neither sinister, nor that America we find ourselves in today.

Hamilton put his life on the line in defense of the presses and has spoken as a proponent of all men bearing arms.

At the very least, do not skewer Hamilton without reading a biography or two on the man.

Anonymous said...

Hamilton fought bravely to birth the monster he was creating. So? This doesn't make his pro-centralizing viewpoint correct.

Have you read the anti-federalist papers?

John Paulding said...


Yes. Had I been pushed into a camp I'd have considered myself an antifederalist. But it is a folly to put Jefferson in an ivory tower and to blaspheme Hamilton as if our present condition was preordained by him.

Hamilton did want a stronger central government and he had good reasons for it. I don't agree with everything the man did just as I don't agree with everything Jefferson did. That said, the America we live in today is not the same creature envisioned upon by Hamilton.

Jefferson saw an agrarian society that is far removed from what most libertarians expect. He expected us to be a nation of farmers with almost NO manufacturing whatsoever. To him, virtue could only be sustained by farmers and we would get all of our manufactured goods through peaceful trade with other countries. I needn't explain just how unsustainable and well...anti-freedom oriented this is.

Hamilton can be cursed for many failings. His love of banking systems is probably his largest failing. But his flaws were not in an effort to bring us to heel, they were just honest errors considering that he had no crystal ball. But unlike Jefferson, Hamilton expected one of the purposes of a powerful federal government to be the protection of many of those rights we find in the BoR. Jefferson desired only that the BoR protected us from federal abuses while allowing the states to legislate at will. In other words, in Jefferson's America, New York, New Jersey, California, ect had every right to legislate away your guns.

What people seem to fail to grasp is that no matter what founding documents we decide to go off of, centralized power constantly expands. No document will protect our liberty; only blood and steel will be her protector.