Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Restoration and a Coalition of the Willing versus the People's Front of Judea and the silly sods of the Judean People's Front Crack Suicide Squad.

Folks,

Reading some of the comments at Pete's site on the subject of "Restoring the Constitution" and others insulting Bob Wright here reminded me of nothing so much as this scene from the Monty Python movie Life of Brian:



The core of Pete's post:

To me, there are three important reasons to use the phrase "restore the constitution":

1) Lawfare Ambush KZ: I dare that SOB Holder to use the DOJ mechanism against anybody working or talking to restore the Constitution. I double-dog-dare that MF to do so.

2) PsyOps: When the .mil is sent by the NCA against their fellow citizens, I want each troopie to have to put their reticle on a fellow American standing for the same Constitution that the troopie is oathbound to protect and defend.

3) Paradigm Inflexibility: Many good and honorable people who will stand simply cannot bend their heads around a "return to the Articles" endstate
at this time. They will evolve in their thinking, just as I have (hell, I was a freaking drug war prosecutor fifteen years ago -- talk about evolution!), and I can't ask them to both die and give up their core preconceptions right now.
If you have to put labels on belief, I am a Christian anti-federalist libertarian. In terms of crafting a coalition of the willing to defeat the armed onslaught of tyrannical federal collectivism, that is a small philosophical boat in a very large sea. It is a larger craft than some of these anarchist and New Confederate dinghies bobbing around, but small enough.

Thus, if I want to secure my liberty, I'm going to have to find a whole lot of people who agree with me on the big things and set aside for now the small things (and some not-so-small-things) that we disagree on. (Mind you, collectivism, especially racial collectivism, is definitely not one of those.)

Two comments to Pete's RTC post reflect my thoughts:

Atlas Shrug said...

Restore The Constitution = Horse

Refine The Constitution = Cart


Right now we are still trying to get the Horse calm and bridled, let alone hitched. Let's get him pulling the Cart before getting too side tracked on what's in the Cart, OK?

The Horse is the vehicle that we ride into Liberty on, the Cart is the vehicle that follows it.

Let's not get the Cart before the Horse.

Keep your powder dry,

Atlas Shrug

August 31, 2010 11:04 AM

Blogger
daniel said...

I'm partial to the RTC message because, boiled down, it's simply a call for a group of people to adhere to what they already agreed to. It's easier to do that than the other alternatives (explain libertarianism, economics, philosophy, history through a megaphone or on a flyer or banner).

The RTC rallies obvious inclusion of 2A needing restoration is a good starting point, something that's easily understood and difficult to BS around.

We're here. We're armed. The document you swore to uphold says we can do this. If you try to disarm us, you are going against what you agreed to.

That being said, a list of usurpations, like Eric Stinnet's speed read at Gravelly, would work best to quickly articulate what exactly it is that we want.


And this one from Anonymous directed to Pat H. in response to his comments on Bob Wright:

There is no perfect governmental plan. There is no Heaven on earth. Humans will always be far from perfect therefore so shall be their best of plans. That includes yours.

The best we can do is try to get back to where things were most tolerable, most acceptable, least offensive to human liberty and freedom. That is where Mr. Wright is going with his words. I personally find everything right with that.

We know the Constitution wasn't perfect. It was written by imperfect men. Now let's get on with restoring all that was good about it and flush what isn't down the drain. I don't think we need a new imperfect plan to accomplish that.

More importantly, if some folks insist that they must fight for the Articles of Confederation (or some other view consistent with their own variety of anarchism, New Confederacy, whatever) or not at all -- that we all must agree with them on an end state before they take up arms -- then they will either not fight or if they do they will resemble nothing so much as this other scene from Life of Brian:



Of course such folks will complain that I am reducing their principled insistence down to farcical comedy. But given the grim reality, is that so unfair?

Folks, look at the bloody collectivist beast that is upon us -- the Leviathan that we will likely be called upon to fight in the near future. Is it "principled" to insist that everyone agree with you before you will resist? Is it "principled" to sneer at other folks such as Bob Wright who have been fighting this fight for 20 years at considerable personal cost? Or are such "principled" people merely seeking another reason NOT to resist?

The concept of restoring the Constitution and the Founders' Republic is the ONE idea -- and the ONLY idea -- that a successful fighting coalition to resist collectivism can be assembled around. Forget that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (put in there at the insistence of the anti-federalist) was at the time both a compromise and the greatest light-years leap forward in liberty ever codified. Did the Founders screw up in adopting it as it was, in part or in whole? I'll tell you there's things I wish had been in there.

So what?

We will have a chance to fix things AFTER WE WIN AND ONLY AFTER WE WIN. And at this point, it is by no means certain that we will win.

This is not glossing over anything, it is reality. If folks cannot exercise enough common sense to see that, then they will die alone or be enslaved because the rest of us anti-collectivists did not measure up to their high standards. They are, of course, free to do so -- leaving the rest of us to fight and to win against the same folks who would gladly see us all on boxcars, in camps or in a mass grave covered with lime.

For those of us who intend to win, we must redouble our efforts to get ready. And don't get side-tracked into these "How many Lysander Spooners can dance on the head of an Articles of Confederation pin?" discussions. It is time wasting and self defeating, perhaps intentionally so.

Of course there are apparently some who prefer to be ultra-principled even if they are defeated.

I'm not one of them.

How about you?

Mike
III

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Of course there are apparently some who prefer to be ultra-principled even if they are defeated.

I'm not one of them."

You were last week.

Witchwood said...

We'll see what your principles are really made of when the bullets start flying, and not until then.

My prediction is that a movement dedicated in part to rooting out and destroying what it considers "racism" will die quickly and be replaced by one more realistic about survival.

For one who stands so staunchly against the government, you sure have quite a bit in common with the Enemy.

Owen Kellogg said...

you make a cogent point, Mr. VdB. Don't spray the termites and ignore the elephant stampede.

But.

This mindset is how Hamilton and the Federalists got the strong central authority established in the first place. How much energy will we have left after we win to resolve these issues?

Termites, if left alone, will ruin your house eventually.....After we all deal with the stampede, the termites MUST be dealt with, and it is worthwhile to remember them. Reminders to that effect are to the point, too.

Temnota said...

I am fighting for one thing, and one thing only: to be left alone. That's all. No lofty ideals, no stirring language. The substance of liberty is and always has been the right to be free of coercion and intrusion.

If you want me to stand with you, then renounce the initiation of force as a means of achieving your social and political goals. Fighting back against Leviathan is not, in this context, initiating force. Making everybody play by your rules afterward, or forcing them out of your area of influence IS initiating force.

I really don't care how you live your life so long as everyone who dances to your tune is doing so voluntarily. Want a society based on strict interpretation of whatever faith you favor? Suits me fine. Want to create a socialist utopian Worker's Paradise? More power to you. Want everyone you see when you look out your door to be the same color? No problem, as long as nobody is forced to participate, nobody is harmed for declining to participate, and nobody is forced off their property to accommodate you. Remember that scene in "Gandhi" with the long line of Muslims trudging one way and the long line of Hindus trudging the other? Not happening here.

If you have the stones and moral fibre to commit to the idea that everyone has the right to be who they are, even if you don't happen to like them, that they have the right to live, and be free, and to own property, then you are ally material in my book, even if I don't happen to like you.

If not, well, you're target.

EJR914 said...

Nope, not me!

Anonymous said...

If #1 from Pete's post happens, many would say all hell will break loose.

Seems to me, #1 has already happened several times. Ruby Ridge, WACO, Ed & Elaine Brown, for starters.

So, what happened then? Nuttin, plain nuttin. Folks breathed hard and spit out a bunch of words, but nuttin happened. The tyrannist bastards got away with it. Got away with cold blooded murder in two of the above cases and ruined many lives in all three. Sure, there were lawsuits that were won with Ruby Ridge, but what fundamentally changed about how .gov operates? Nuttin. Not a damn thing. In fact, I submit it is potentially worse with all the new laws passed by the current congresscritters.

What is it going to take to get to critical mass on this? More tyranny? Highly likely, as most/enough folks just aren't jacked up enough-yet. Heck, they aren't even educated yet on how far the collectivists have veered from the Framer's Constitution.

Bob Katt

Anonymous said...

Before you crush my balls it appeared as though CA was asking the question of how do we all get our minds around the RTC concept. All of us. Nobody was disparaging Bob Wright. He is an upstanding individual.

CA asked the question which led us to the question that we need to ask of ourselves: How do I wrap my mind around the RTC message and make it mine when after a 'loooong chain of abuses' it would appear fundamentally that the voting citizenry has no god damned control over the political process AT ALL.

So here we are. Yes I could see working within the framework to do things that would restore freedom like bringing back nullification and repeal of the 17th Amendment but it is hard to shake the knowledge that we may be right back here again in 50 to 100 years if collectivism/statism/Leviathan was pushed back by several degrees. And yes we understand that other heavy lifting may come upon us if things go seriously downhill.

And all the while the shit bags in the media and gov who pull the levers of power will be arguing that they too are working within the framework of the Constitution. But we know that is bullshit when exposed to scrutiny which is why Time magazine has only 3 subscribers left.

Cory

Anonymous said...

Being ultra-principled BEFORE the victory is foolish. Being ultra-principled AFTER victory is absolutely vital. Unless you want to do it all over again in a few centuries.

Anonymous said...

I am a Christian anti-federalist libertarian AND I'LL STAND WITH YOU Mike. Wheather the others do or not, there are some real basics. What are we seeing, liberals who have stumbeled on to WRSA and can't handle the truth? Realistically how many are they? A lot may not post as they maintain a grey. People who want to sit behind a screen and bitch, pontificate something have the 1st amendment yea sure, but when the SHTF will they be ready to get out from behind the screen and do SOMETHING? Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

VETTOM III

Anonymous said...

A return to the Articles of Confederation? Someone needs to read more.

Defender said...

Even the illiterate bushmen in the cargo hold of the slave ship "Amistad" understood. They said "Give us free."
Getting out of the chains is only the beginning, but it IS THE beginning. Out of the chains and off the slave ship, then choose your own direction on the great wide horizon.


Comedian Emo Phillips has it right:

http://www.emophilips.com/video/video/244

GunRights4US said...

Shit! Here we go again!

Defender said...

Bob Katt, I hear ya. I'd like to see HALF the outrage over those atrocities and the current ongoing ones as there is over YouTube video of a sadistic Serbian girl throwing half a dozen whining puppies into a river to drown, one at a time, like skipping rocks. Half the world wants her dead.
The other half hates puppies. I remember people feeling triumphant when Mt. Carmel burned to the ground, toddlers and unborn babies and all, glad the "wackos from Waco" had been put in their place.

Chuck Martel said...

Temnota, it's really difficult to build a force around those who simply want to be left alone. Sure, the Carthusians have managed it for nine hundred years but they have the support of the Roman Catholic Church.

suek said...

Here's the problem:

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Anonymous said...

“Is it "principled" to sneer at other folks such as Bob Wright who have been fighting this fight for 20 years at considerable personal cost?”

Is it principled for someone who has been fighting this fight for 20 years, and loosing, to sneer at and label other folks as racist and Nazi, for suggesting new tactics?

You walked right into that one Mike.

What are your principals and exactly what is the foundation upon which they are built?
Do you believe that ALL people have the same inalienable rights and should be left alone to live as they see fit without threat of force or fraud as long as they are not harming other persons or property?

Should we not be concerned about the principals of would be leaders and their supporters before we decide to back them?
For instance you statist follower and supporter MALTHUS, who believes we all should be, must be ruled.

“Hierarchy and contract law are irreducible elements of every society. They cannot be dissolved in an anarchistic milieu.” – MALTHUS

Sorry, but I can’t back that horse……….sure as hell don’t care to look in it’s cart.

Should we collectively fight one tyrant only to put another in its place?

Or should we individually fight the collectivists whom desire tyrants to rule, the collective that desires the use of State force to make others feed and care for them, comply with their every wish, or be destroyed by the States enforcers?

As long as we have a population of which the majority is statist collectivists, we will not know freedom.

And good luck with trying to shoot them all.

I would prefer to see them starve, or learn to provide for themselves.

No rule of law can make parasites become self sufficient or productive citizens, only nature.

WWalker

Allen said...

Bob Katt,

it is a poor idea to hoist ed & elaine brown up as heroes.

I knew both of them. and it had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the taxes, it was all about THEM. and how much they could get away with. the anti-tax cause was just the flag they flew to camoflage it.

he COULD have had more widespread support. but the "I started my militia because the aliens told me to" from 10 years back and his view that it was a targeted "masonic-zionist conspiracy" blew that one for him.

we tried to work with the guy long before this. back in 1998 there was a report of a "secret prison" being built in his group's AOA. so, we contacted him, and asked if his group could please do some recon of the area in question at his convenience. nothing complicated. some pics, maybe the name of the construction company if he could get it.

he said NO. "Alex Jones says it's there...IT'S THERE."

it would have taken him half an hour. but he couldn't do it because it wasn't ALL ABOUT HIM and he couldn't publicize his triumphant recon mission to the top of the hill.

all of our people were busy at the Sweeney Seige in Hamilton,MA (Brown's group was under orders NOT to help us). months went by. we did our own recon as soon as we could break people away. no prison. no train tracks. a partly washed out logging road with a radio repeater station at the top of the hill. that's it.

maybe he already knew it wasn't there and didn't want his hero Alex to be proven wrong.

we all knew once the "standoff" started ed would lose. seiges do one thing...it gives the bad guys plenty of time to get everything they need in place to get you. the sweeney seige taught us that. we told him to RUN. be a moving target. we told him not to bring in people he didn't already know. he did neither. half of the guys in his house were feds. I understand the barrett .50's they were very public about were all fed-owned....and used as an excuse to go in and get him.

as soon as he started in on radio interviews with the conspiracy theories he went from "tax protester in the woods" to "nutjob in the woods with a BIG GUNS and lots of armed friends"

and you won't survive long after that becomes public opinion.

Dakota said...

Well said!

Anonymous said...

For me this conjures up images of our founders sitting in their local pubs having these same types of conversations. The old vets from the F&I wars chiding the young pups for wishing to bring about conflict, everyone debating about how far the crown had to go to cross their own line in the sand. Then they diverge into a discussion about if they revolt against the crown what are they going to replace it with?
There is nothing new here fellas its all been done before.
Maybe we should all get back to the reality of the situation. Its all good to have ideological discussions and debates but they do not put up a single road block to our enemies.
Lets stop talking about shit we disagree with and talk about the things we can control and have influence over. Lets discuss the fact the we all agree the current "system" must go. Its long broken and no longer resembles what we had. So how do we fix it?
Voting is not going to do it for us. Voting is within the "system" and is simply going to give us GIGO (garbage in garbage out). Begging our congressional betters to fix it is not going to fix it (see voting). The courts are not going to fix it (see voting). Now I think most of us here see things as above. We know the prags have not given up on voting as General Snowflake and his Fudd rangers have stated they are shitting in one hand and voting with the other to see which one fills up first.
We can all see the logic in not starting this thing off ourselves but we are not going to get things done by doing nothing so where does that leave us?

Lets look at what we have on our side.
Limited on hand resources
No long term supply chain
No in place intel network
No organization above the small group
No geographic location solidly on our side
No national event that solves some of the above problems
No clear strategic goals
No clear tactical goals
No mesh network but many isolated nodes that can be shutdown (nodes can be people or groups or data)
No trust in others outside your group
No real political wing (the "tea party" is not our Sinn Fein)
No clear methods and proceedures
No means to fund any of the above beyond personal finance

Thats a start.
For those of us who are humble enough to admit that these are indeed our needs then how do we address them?
Pete and Mike and others have been pointing these out and giving ideas and suggestions but I dare say that most of us have not been seeing the big picture and have just been buying yet another AR clone or more ammo thinking this will solve all of our problems.

Its not
Some of these things are actually not a real big issue and can even be utilized as a strenght. Bottom line however is that we need to be identifing ways to solve these issues in a clearinghouse kind of way.

Grenadier1

Oldfart said...

heriansCory:
Those shit bags in the media and in .gov are the targets. It will do no lasting good to simply demote and/or deport them -- they MUST be disposed of. Otherwise they'll be back, stronger and smarter than ever.

Remember: Clinton ROE.

Walter said...

So, we're all blind men standing around an elephant. Some "see" a wall, some a hose, some a tree...

Many, if not most of the followers of this blog are arm-chair generals; stiff-backed old men who live to fight great battles at some unspecified time in the future against the evil collectivist/statist/anti-libertarian federal cylons.

I repeat, as I have previously in my comments: THERE WILL BE CASUALTIES! There will be skirmishes in which the cylons come out on top, like at Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.

If you all are serious about restoring the constitution, it behooves you to start thinking about how you will organize within your own neighborhood; not on some grand national scale. We won't win if we fight their war, we have to make them fight ours.

Guns are not the answer, they are part of the answer. Most of what must be done is by means other than violent confrontation. It is by preparing the "battlefield" prior to confrontation, not going to a battlefield prepared by someone else.

So, let's start by agreeing about those things we can agree upon and putting in abeyance those on which we cannot agree.

Master said...

First of all there will be no WIN unless there is a contest beyond the key board.

Second IT is about freedom. Simple not allowed to read more into it yet until one above is completed.

Third unless you start thinking/acting logistically you can not think you will WIN in step one above.

Ughh
III

RLJ said...

May I add a small piece to the argument. I Sam. 8 tells us that secular government is sin. Period. Therefore those who put their trust in it get all that they deserve; sometimes more. Y'all ain't gonna change the damned thing. Secular government is like the terminator. No matter what you do, soon it will be Ba-a-ack.

The objective here is live, and while you live minimize the evil in a system intrinsically evil. Doing that, some may die. At least you may die with the peace that passes understanding. And you will die free.

Which brings us to Luke 22: 36. Sell your cloak. Buy a sword--But only for self-defense. Put on the breastplate, helmet and shield, and STAND (with cover). For those who have ears. Let them hear. And thank you Mike for being there. No more Ft. Sumters.

Anonymous said...

Temnota,
Well, all that sounds fine, and I'm not being sarcastic. The topic here is, is restoring the Constitution acceptable as the theme for resistance at the present time, or isn't it?
In my view, RTC is the appropriate theme now. Later, I'll debate how to change it, and it does need to be changed to allow more liberty, if I'm still around to debate it.
Daniel K Day

Anonymous said...

Just one thing.
Do you have more freedom or less freedom than you did 10 or 20 or 30 years ago? If you say less, why is that so? It is so because your government, supported by you tax dollars, took those freedoms from you and from your children.
Do you think that they actually did this to benefit you or your children? They say that they did. Are they lying to you? Do you believe them? Will they someday give all those freedoms back? Voluntarily?

Don't delude yourselves, they will take until you have nothing left for them to take and then they will find a way to take more. At some point you will either submit or resist, become their slave or refuse to become their slave.

Because the potential for resistance is high, surveillance and intelligence gathering upon the people is at an all time high. They intend to identify and neutralize us individually, under color of lawful authority, telling any believable stories as cover for what they are actually doing.

The laws that they make will back them up, as will their judges.

In such a situation, what are your options if you would be a free man or woman? Remembering that only you desire that freedom for you and yours, and that everyone else wants to remove it from you and yours, all the while claiming that they don't, or that they need to, for some lofty and very necessary reason, which makes no sense to you.

When you question this you are called ignorant, stupid or racist but are you? Or is this just a technique used to get you to shut up and go along? And if it is, wouldn't that in and of itself indicate manipulation and planning on the part of those who attack everything you love and hold dear?

Anonymous said...

Was talking with the wife the other night, she asked me how “Things were going” after thinking about all that I have read and observed, told her it won’t be much longer till things come to a head! She asked what I meant. I told her that means some folks are going to kill and be killed [murder she asked] no sweetheart kill is the correct statement.

I then explained to her why this has to happen [I’m paraphrasing here] that some folks have to be killed/executed as an example to the others that would follow in their footsteps, for if those guilty of treason, dereliction and deceit are not dealt with harshly, then how will we ever hope to prevent others from following the same path.

She had a grim look on her face {as she realized this is coming from her husband that has 20+ years of Army under his belt} she then asked me if I would be a part of this? I just gave her a grim smile and she knew that yes I would be, but having no illusions as to the out come, as she has sent me to war twice already. She just hugged me and said to do your best I trust you please make this right again for our kids!

With tears in my eyes I went back to the barn to inspect my equipment “again” and pray that I will never have to use this in anger, but standing firmly resolved to do my duty that will be expected of me by my fellow countrymen who will need me as bad as I need them!

Rooster in MI.

Anonymous said...

A return to the Articles of Confederation? Someone needs to read more.--Anon@6:55

Articles of Confederation is a default position, like emergency back-up lighting when an electric transformer explodes. It's better than nothing and allows you to buy time until you can get another transformer back on line.

MALTHUS

Jay said...

My dad went to jail while fighting Leviathan. We lived in nigh poverty as a result of his life's work.

He voluntarily sacrificed a life of fame and success for liberty, writing books no one wants to read right now and speaking out against Leviathan at an extreme personal cost.

He didn't agree with everyone he fought alongside on everything, but he didn't shun them.

Dedicated_Dad said...

I've been waiting for someone else to bring it up but... Looks like it's my turn.

Temnota nailed it, especially his third paragraph. Go read it again -- I'll wait.

...

Done? OK!

Strap in - this may be a bumpy ride...

There are those who believe the white and black CULTURES (they may say races, but they're misguided - it's CULTURE that's the problem) are so different as to be incompatible, and for this reason we're all better off with "separate but equal."

I'm not saying I agree, I'm merely stating what I understand to be the beliefs of some groups -- black AND white.

If black folks want to cling to those like themselves - and choose not to associate with others - I believe they have the inherent, G*d given right to do so SO LONG AS there's no coercion of any kind directed at any-ONE involved.

I also believe the same applies to hispanics, asians, whites and blends of any/all of the above.

Further, I also believe this applies to the JPF, the PFJ, the PPFJ and anyone/everyone else to boot!

In our current "PC" society, for any white folks to say "We really don't want to associate with anyone except other white folks" is automatically considered "evil." They're labeled "white supremacist" at best, most likely "neo-nazi" or worse.

IF you want to kill others for having the wrong color skin, I want to kill YOU. The same goes for nationality, religion, and any other "splits" you can dream up.

Hence Temnota's wise point -- the mandatory lack of coercion or use of force to achieve your goal of separatism.

Personally, I believe our G*d-given and Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association trumps all "warm and fuzzy" platitudes on "diversity."

After all, freedom of speech includes the right to say stupid crap, and true Liberty likewise includes the right to DO stupid crap - so long as you're not depriving anyone ELSE of THEIR G*d-given rights.

What am I saying?

Simple: There's room in my "band" for those who might choose - post-Restoration - not to associate with me or others -- for WHATEVER reason.

There's ZERO TOLERANCE however for anyone who espouses superiority or "supremacy" of any stripe, or who would wish to harm anyone else for being "different" from themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's important to not be drawn into the lefty/liberal traps.

True Liberty includes freedom of religion, conscience, and - yes - even association.

Temnota NAILED it.

Food for thought...

DD

Anonymous said...

At the risk of being called a paranoiac, does the discussion on RTC resemble a Delphi technique? Is it intended to generate consensus for an Articles of Confederation II movement?

Read and consider this essay:

More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.

Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.

Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.

The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.

http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html

MALTHUS

Temnota said...

@Chuck Martel:

I'm not convinced that "building a force" is a desirable goal. We're not going to win this force-on-force, that's how the other guys WANT to be fought. If there's violence, it's going to be small-scale, motivated by circumstances specific to that place and those people, and it will be personal.

Think globally, act locally.

Restoring the Constitution is a good buzz-phrase, but remember that most of the other team thinks THEY'RE supporting the Constitution, as they understand it. To them, we're just a bunch of insane sore losers, and they have most of the media on their team.

@Daniel K. Day:

RTC is OK, as far as I'm concerned. It's a little bit vague as a meme for the general public, since there's a fair amount of disagreement about what that Constitution actually means. For internal Patriot consumption, it works fine.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was talking with the wife the other night, she asked me how “Things were going” after thinking about all that I have read and observed, told her it won’t be much longer till things come to a head! She asked what I meant. I told her that means some folks are going to kill and be killed [murder she asked] no sweetheart kill is the correct statement.

I then explained to her why this has to happen [I’m paraphrasing here] that some folks have to be killed/executed as an example to the others that would follow in their footsteps, for if those guilty of treason, dereliction and deceit are not dealt with harshly, then how will we ever hope to prevent others from following the same path.

She had a grim look on her face {as she realized this is coming from her husband that has 20+ years of Army under his belt} she then asked me if I would be a part of this? I just gave her a grim smile and she knew that yes I would be, but having no illusions as to the out come, as she has sent me to war twice already. She just hugged me and said to do your best I trust you please make this right again for our kids!

With tears in my eyes I went back to the barn to inspect my equipment “again” and pray that I will never have to use this in anger, but standing firmly resolved to do my duty that will be expected of me by my fellow countrymen who will need me as bad as I need them!

Rooster in MI.

September 1, 2010 10:46 AM

Well said Rooster. This will leave none of us untouched or without harm and or wound.

Chris
III
Texas

EMWONAY said...

Anonymous said...
"Lets look at what we have on our side.
Limited on hand resources
No long term supply chain
No in place intel network
No organization above the small group
No geographic location solidly on our side
No national event that solves some of the above problems
No clear strategic goals
No clear tactical goals
No mesh network but many isolated nodes that can be shutdown (nodes can be people or groups or data)
No trust in others outside your group
No real political wing (the "tea party" is not our Sinn Fein)
No clear methods and proceedures
No means to fund any of the above beyond personal finance"

You are looking at this "glass half full".  Let me show you...

"Limited on hand resources...."

They are all around you if you think about it. The first successful ambush you conduct and a duffle bag takes care of the important things.  Limited resources means less to carry, less to guard/hide, and less manpower to move around the resources... These are good things.

No long term supply chain....

It would be nice to have air-drops of ammo and chow... But it's not necessary.  Again, an ambush and a duffle bag solves a lot.  A supply chain can be cut off, bogged down through harassment, used to trace back where the supplies came from... A underground supply network designed for maximum security and thrift will happen naturally. "necessity Is the mother of invention..."

"No in-place intel network"

Again some of this will develop naturally.  But, look around at the networks in your community and life that already exist that either closely resemble an intel network or could be used as one.  A church community within a larger town sized community.  You've got your intel network.

More on intel gathering: You are going to have to do some of this on your own.  On a tactical level all sorts of intel gathering can be done.  Little kids are just about perfect.  They love candy, and our troops love giving it to little kids.  They will explain things they saw or heard without bias, or "a dog in the fight" so to say, and can move in and out of areas that a guy with an AR in multicam can't.

When I was in Afghan, Occasionally you would get a blatant IED, almost no attempt to cover it up.  They were trying to test our TTP's and EOD response times, complacency and so on.  You can do all sorts of intel gathering on many levels.  It's not as easy as spy satellites but it can be done.

"no organization above the small group"

This is a good thing.  Larger units will be defeated DUE to their size.  Smaller groups hide and move better.  Less logistical burden.  Less Chances for OPSEC issues.  For the hand we are being dealt, small units are great.

"No geographic location solidly ours"

This means no place to carpet bomb, encircle and starve out, etc.  Remember that We are everywhere.  We need to own everything. And own nothing at the same time.  We are not trying to fight a tank battle during WWII.  This is a guerilla type of warfare.

"Clear strategic goals"

RTC.....prevent this from happening again.  

"tactical goals"

Don't die.  Focus on killing their will, not so much them.  Remember your strategic goals while planning and carrying out your tactical goals...

TO BE CONTINUED.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Dedicated_Dad said...

I've been waiting for someone else to bring it up but... Looks like it's my turn.

Temnota nailed it, especially his third paragraph. Go read it again -- I'll wait.

...

Done? OK!

Strap in - this may be a bumpy ride...

There are those who believe the white and black CULTURES (they may say races, but they're misguided - it's CULTURE that's the problem) are so different as to be incompatible, and for this reason we're all better off with "separate but equal."

I'm not saying I agree, I'm merely stating what I understand to be the beliefs of some groups -- black AND white.

If black folks want to cling to those like themselves - and choose not to associate with others - I believe they have the inherent, G*d given right to do so SO LONG AS there's no coercion of any kind directed at any-ONE involved.

I also believe the same applies to hispanics, asians, whites and blends of any/all of the above.

Further, I also believe this applies to the JPF, the PFJ, the PPFJ and anyone/everyone else to boot!

In our current "PC" society, for any white folks to say "We really don't want to associate with anyone except other white folks" is automatically considered "evil." They're labeled "white supremacist" at best, most likely "neo-nazi" or worse.

IF you want to kill others for having the wrong color skin, I want to kill YOU. The same goes for nationality, religion, and any other "splits" you can dream up.

Hence Temnota's wise point -- the mandatory lack of coercion or use of force to achieve your goal of separatism.

Personally, I believe our G*d-given and Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association trumps all "warm and fuzzy" platitudes on "diversity."

After all, freedom of speech includes the right to say stupid crap, and true Liberty likewise includes the right to DO stupid crap - so long as you're not depriving anyone ELSE of THEIR G*d-given rights.

What am I saying?

Simple: There's room in my "band" for those who might choose - post-Restoration - not to associate with me or others -- for WHATEVER reason.

There's ZERO TOLERANCE however for anyone who espouses superiority or "supremacy" of any stripe, or who would wish to harm anyone else for being "different" from themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's important to not be drawn into the lefty/liberal traps.

True Liberty includes freedom of religion, conscience, and - yes - even association.

Temnota NAILED it.

Food for thought...

DD

September 1, 2010 12:20 PM

The first and most important employed tactic of Warfare and Battle is "Divide and Conquer". Thanks DD, I have much to say but lack the prose that many here have and so must simply add what I can as I see fit. Forgive my lack of contribution, I still type like a 3 yr. old. Best THREAD I have seen here on MVB's Blog in awhile.

Chris
III
Texas

Anonymous said...

"What is it going to take to get to critical mass on this? More tyranny? Highly likely, as most/enough folks just aren't jacked up enough-yet. Heck, they aren't even educated yet on how far the collectivists have veered from the Framer's Constitution."

It's going to take enough of the population being uncomfortable to get to critical mass. Ruby Ridge, Waco, that doesn't involve them. As long as they can get beer, pizza, large screen TV, AC & heat, church on Sunday, and the other comforts of life (as in Stalin's baubles) they will not get involved. The Constitution and liberty mean nothing to them.
Retired in Texas

EMWONAY said...

CONTINUED.

"no mesh network but isolated nodes that can be shut down..."

Isolated nodes are hard to find, and when shut down it doesn't amount to dick because it is isolated from the other nodes...

"no trust in others outside your group"...

I would say that this is good SOP.

"No real political wing"
 
While the tea party crowd isn't A full blown political wing of a resistance, it is laying the ground work for one. As the lines are drawn between the people and .gov, one will form most likely from the tea party networks being created now.

"No methods or procedures"

This is a plus.  I would not want my TTPs broadcasted to the enemy before the war.  Unconnected units operating differently makes it harder to figure out the methods and procedures used from unit to unit.  

"No funds..."

Again, ambushes and duffle-bags.  Also, through your underground intel networks and supply chains and the underground economy is how you will be supplied.  You can also intercept supplies of the enemy.  "borrow" what is not being used by businesses etc.



I think that you need to study the difference between "attrition" and "maneuver" warfare.  Our perceived weaknesses have to be turned into strengths.  We can't fight a superior power by trying to "out superior" them.  You have to use their strengths against them like a baseball bat.  

Meadowlark said...

There's no such thing as a collectivist libertarian. The collective either owns a part of your labor and thus a part of you, or you own yourself and all your labor. There is no middle ground.

Either you're a Christian or you believe that robbery is moral. There's no middle ground. You're either a Catholic or you're pro-choice. There's no middle ground. You're a Constitutionalist, or a Libertarian, but you're not both. There is no middle ground.

Anonymous said...

Grenadier1... a GREAT start to a much needed discussion.

EMWONAY... a GREAT response.

This is the "discussion" that needs to take place. It's noting less than an exposition of problems and their possible answers.

I'd like to see this continued.

--concerned

DB said...

Anon A.K.A Grenadier1 said: "Lets look at what we have on our side.
Limited on hand resources
No long term supply chain
No in place intel network
No organization above the small group
No geographic location solidly on our side
No national event that solves some of the above problems
No clear strategic goals
No clear tactical goals
No mesh network but many isolated nodes that can be shutdown (nodes can be people or groups or data)
No trust in others outside your group
No real political wing (the "tea party" is not our Sinn Fein)
No clear methods and proceedures
No means to fund any of the above beyond personal finance."

You just made a list of the items that would be needed by the other side to effectively fight us. Now, keep all affiliation[s] and organization[s] loose and they will never be able to infiltrate and/ or take down the 'rebels' (i.e. You and me).

Anonymous said...

RLJ@9:45AM

Society is people associating together for mutual benefit, sort of like what we do here electronically. Laws, traditions, rules, standards govern our social interactions so that we can function for mutual benefit. With no [standards], peaceful interaction is impossible.

I don't think the Bible suggests a structure that "governs" conduct, so a rant aginst "government" doesn't do much enlightening for me.

And remember Burke: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an un-pitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Gunner

Concerned American said...

MALTHUS:

Your question is sound.

But this ain't Delphi.

This is a group of Americans trying (at significant risk -- you do know you are being noted for your attendance at these types of "incorrect" webistes, right? - to figure out the best way forward.

I just wish more folks could use the "I may think your idea is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, but I will attack only your idea, not you" form of discussion.

Sincerely,

Miss Manners

Agora said...

"Of course there are apparently some who prefer to be ultra-principled even if they are defeated. . . .

How about you?"

Not all of my battles are physical in nature. Nor do I consider the most important struggles to be physical struggles.

How about you?

Pericles said...

A note to the AoC fans. The AoC is no longer operative because it failed. And it failed a very important test - the ability of a nation to defend its trade routes and citizens.

There is a really good history lesson about the Barbary pirates, the holding of ships for ransom, citizens being made slaves, and the AoC government was feckless. It was killing the shipbuilding industry, because insurance rates were going too high, and agricultural products could not be exported at a profit. The economy was being damaged by that piracy and even using almost 20% of the national budget to pay off pirates was ineffective - it just got more piracy.

That is why the Constitution delegated the powers of defense and regulating commerce to Congress - the AoC was a complete failure at protecting the international rights of US shipping and citizens.

Kerodin said...

Calls for anything but a return to Constitutional principles are patently ridiculous.

Firstly: The PR blunder would be epic. The 3% need a healthy portion of the 97% to recognize success. Clamoring for a return to the AoC, something most Americans younger than 35 never even heard about in school, simply won't work. The majority of Americans can't even get their heads around the basics, and the AoC represents a paradigm shift that is simply a bridge too far for a sound-bite culture.

Secondly: The only real problems with the Constitution are in execution by self-serving genetic garbage who twist it for their own ends.

That's where the problem lies and targets are to be found - those who abuse the spirit of the Founding Principles and those mental midgets who support them.

If Liberty is the goal, the Constitution is the vehicle.

Sam
III

Anonymous said...

Grenadier1

Understand that when you get organized and tactical, strategically planned and linked up that the people you don't want involved, will be right there by your side. "They" will know everything you do because you built them into your organization. It's what these people do and very successfully I might add. In case you haven't noticed we are now the official enemy because we're not going to allow this to happen without a LOT of blood. "They" know this.

"They" read every word you and I type or Rather "their" computers do at least initially. At some point "they" start listening to your calls, computers first then human, later. All government resources, directed against you, your Constitution and bill of rights, payed for by you and other taxpayers.

Try to think in terms of beating them at their own game, worst case. Assume the worst and work from there.

Anonymous said...

Guys,
I was not suggesting that we fight a 2G or even 3G war against the PTB.
I am a student of Robb, Lind and Boyd. I am well aware of the concepts.
I stated what we do not have to generate a thought process.
EMWONAY- Good responses I disagree with some but clearly you are up to speed and getting us in the right direction maybe Mike can create a seperate entry for us to continue this line of thinking. Thank you.

Please all re-read my last paragraph.

Grenadier1

Anonymous said...

Should we not be concerned about the principals of would be leaders and their supporters before we decide to back them?

For instance you (sic) statist follower and supporter MALTHUS, who believes we all should be, must be ruled.

“Hierarchy and contract law are irreducible elements of every society. They cannot be dissolved in an anarchistic milieu.” – MALTHUS

W Walker, why are you concerned about the principles of "leaders" if there exists no hierarchy to establish leadership authority? No hierarchy must necessarily mean no leaders, either.

How does positing the necessity of hierarchy and contract law make one a statist? Even the anarchist Lysander Spooner argues for the moral necessity of contract law.

Mike, as your statist follower and supporter shouldn't I have been initiated into the Hierarchical Order of Contract Law with a secret handshake and decoder ring, or sumpthin? I feel kinda cheated...:^(

MALTHUS

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should all get back to the reality of the situation. Its all good to have ideological discussions and debates but they do not put up a single road block to our enemies.--grenadier 1

What you realize is that a resistance movement (or any other type of society) cannot be built exclusively on metaphysical speculation. It also requires entrepreneurial speculation, so as to direct scarce resources and accomplish meaningful work.

I would recommend formation of a dues-paying membership to address some of the concerns you mention. In return for these dues, you get a III% patch.

Naturally, this requires a hierarchical organization having elected officers. Such an arrangement would automatically discourage participation by anarchist cranks and allow the rest of us to get some meaningful work done.

MALTHUS

Anonymous said...

Let me add some general statments so we can get on the same page.

First off Mesh Networks-
This term is from the data world but its applicable to any netwrok. It means a network of nodes that are completely connected to all other nodes in the network. This means that if one is taken down no loss of connectivity is suffered. Now how does this apply to our situation? I can hear some of you already complaining about the "interconnected" part hear me out. I am not speaking in terms of physically meeting and knowing every single individual or group. What I am speaking of is the means of communicating and sharing data and ideas. Let me use an example.

Lets say we have a jihadist who makes IED's. He has a small factory in the back room of a local store. He has plans and methods that he has been using for some time. He supplies these IED's to all the local jihadists because he is the only one who knows how to build them. He must constantly keep in front of the countermeasures being utlilized against him but this is very difficult because he can only react to them once they have been put into place.
Once the police or Army locate him and take him out they have deprived the area of its bomb maker until another source can be located or trained to fill the role. This may well be enough time to get the upper hand on the cells in general and completly surpress opposition in the area. All because one guy is taken out. He is an isolated node of ability and information and is thus a critical node.

Now think of the same situation however change this. The bombmaker keeps his plans and videos on how to make bombs online. Not only are they online but its a filesharing network so it resides on many different servers and cannot be simply shut down. While he may still be the local supplier he is networked with other "local" suppliers from all over the world. As these other suppliers change and improve their designs he copies them and offers his own improvements based on the countermeasures being utilized against him. In his area ther are 4 other bomb makers all utilizing his methods and designs. This adds to the security of all of the bomb makers because the police and Army cannot identify exactly where the bombs are coming from based on design and the single factory. If he is identified and taken out the impact is negligable because his designs and instructions live on and there are others that can quickly take his place.

cont.
Grenadier 1


Grenadier1

EMWONAY said...

Grenadier...

I like the explanation on the nodes. I wasn't trying to jump all over you. Just disagreeing.

Dennis308 said...

We are over looking something here, And I think it is a VERY important part of History. In two words MANIFEST DESTINY.

Both Madison and Hamilton were very radical believers in Manifest Destiny,(all that wilderness going to other nations) a plan or dream that could not have been realized with out a Strong Central Government and the resources that only a strong central government would have at it´s disposal. Under the AoC the United States in all probability would never have extended beyond Tennessee and Alabama, and the States of Ohio and Kentucky all the way to S. Dakota(see Louisiana Purchase via James Madison)would have been considered French Territories because of the connection to the Mississippi River. And all the Southwest would still be Spanish/Mexican rule.

So although the Constitution has it´s faults it is the basis for what made this country what it IS today geographically speaking at the very least.

Also like Daniel said most of the failure to the Constitution has been on the part of the people of this Nation to FORCE the Government and Courts to Adhere to the Constitution. Our Senators and Congressmen have to go home sometime and answer to their constituents if for nothing else that to run for re-elections. And up until recently only about half(if that many)of the eligible population even bothers to vote, much less address their Representatives in ANY MANNER!

Now it very well might be that Leviathan has grown past the point of control by Democratic means(people usually won´t vote against themselves). And a Restoration by more radical Second Amendment means is necessary to return to a more Constitutional and non-oppressive Government.

There are a couple of things that could be done to fix the weak points that are in the Constitution. But Only After the Defeat of the Progressive/Socialist Collectivists that are for now the major threat to Personal Liberty.

1. Remove the ability of the Legislators to Exempt themselves from all Registrations past, present and future.(Bet they read what´s in a bill then)

2.Remove the ability of Regulating Bodies,IE IRS,EPA,etc. from making rules without being voted on in both Houses of the Legislation.

3. Mandatory Term Limits on ALL Federally Elected Offices. And a ¨Resting¨ Period between the holding of different offices Congress to Senate for example.

Dennis
III
Texas

Paul X said...

I'm an anarchist, one of the guys Mike likes to tweak I suppose. I actually don't care much what the guy next to me thinks about things, when it comes down to fighting. RTC? Hey, why not? It would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

However after the restoration I may explore my differences with whomever ends up back in power. Secession will probably be on the menu, and a place where I can live without someone lording it over me. Hell, I might even end up fighting again (assuming I last that long, which is doubtful).

But yeah, that sort of thing is appropriate afterwards, not now. And in the meantime I'm still going to argue for anarchy rather than constitutional government which clearly doesn't work. You RTC guys will just have to put up with my bitching about it if you want any help.