Casus Belli: Of Tripwires and Simpletons Who Risk Nothing Wanting to See Them Tripped.

The Old Powder House in Somerville, Massachusetts as it stood in 1935.

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means "of war". . . The term came into wide usage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the writings of Hugo Grotius (1625), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1737), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1748), among others, and the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or "just war theory". Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared. -- Wikipedia.

Forgive me for all of those who are not simpletons, but it appears I must insult your intelligence with basic definitions and rudimentary common sense in order to attempt to reach a few hardheads who continue to foam at the mouth, eager to plunge their country into civil war under circumstances which will guarantee defeat of the cause which they claim to espouse.

"Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict."

When I use the term casus belli in posts, it is merely pointing out that the particular trend or incident is adding to the just cause by which the civil war, when it breaks out, will be justified.

The cumulative effect of such individual reasons, stacked one upon the other, will later be seen as background, the fuel, the dry grass if you will, of the conflagration.

The prairie fire will be started by a single spark, or series of sparks -- incidents so compelling that no one, given the common understanding of the explosive tinder building up, will be surprised that it happened, only when it happened.

The Founders experienced such a rising series of casus belli, each new outrage of the King's ministerial government piling upon the one before, causing reactions among the liberty-loving populace COMMENSURATE WITH THE THREAT.

The Stamp Act caused the colonists -- WHO DID NOT YET THINK OF THEMSELVES AS REVOLUTIONARIES but merely English citizens whose rights under the English Constitution were being abrogated -- to react with violent demonstrations, assaults on royal lackeys and their property, tar and feathering, etc. The resistance was sufficient to get the Crown to back down.

The Boston Massacre was not the tripwire for general war. Why? Because neither the general public nor the men who were increasingly viewing themselves as revolutionaries were ready for such a step. Indeed, John Adams and other Founders acted as DEFENSE attorneys for the British soldiers at the subsequent trial. Yet the propaganda that the Founders made of this incident was absolutely brilliant, and essential to laying the groundwork for independence.

The tax on tea was not the tripwire for general war, again because no one was ready. The political pretext for resorting to defensive violence had not yet been made. There was no thought that the officers of the King should be targeted, but the tea itself? A brilliant choice of targets and an impeccably executed plan of vandalism. It was Sam Adam's finest hour.

Then came the Intolerable Acts and the continuing battle of the Crown forces with smugglers. Revenue cutters were burned, customs men harassed (NOTE: NOT KILLED), and as British troops flowed into to overawe the malefactors, the liberty-minded colonists began to take over the militia system or create their own units independent of the colonial structure.

Then came the British attempt to seize militia arms and powder. The militias responded to several of these raids by mobilizing around and in front of the British columns, culminating in The Powder Alarm of 1774.

The Powder Alarm was a massive popular reaction to the removal of gunpowder from a magazine by British soldiers under orders from General Thomas Gage, royal governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, on September 1, 1774. In response to this action, amid rumors that blood had been shed, alarm spread through the countryside as far as Connecticut, and American Patriots sprang into action, fearing that war was at hand.

Although it proved to be a false alarm, the Powder Alarm caused political and military leaders to proceed more carefully in the days ahead, and essentially provided a "dress rehearsal" for the Battle of Lexington and Concord seven months later. Furthermore, actions on both sides to control weaponry, gunpowder, and other military supplies became more contentious, as the British sought to bring military stores more directly under their control, and the Patriot colonists sought to acquire them for their own use. -- Wikipedia.

The Powder Alarm caused smuggling of war supplies to increase and militias to redouble to their training. No one went to war, because neither side was ready.

When the war did start -- the tripwire if you will -- was thanks to a miscalculation by the British that they could march out of Boston, seize or destroy the arms and powder and get back to town before the militia could react. Even the mustering of the Lexington militia on the green was in the spirit of the Powder Alarm. Captain Parker actually backed his little force up, away from the road, so as not to block the ministerial troops path, but yet to make a demonstration that they had better not get out of hand in the village.

But the actual tripwire, the "shot heard 'round the world," could itself have been a negligent discharge by a nervous regular or militiaman. The Brits of course blamed the militia and vice versa. But the conduct of Parker's formation and the lop-sided odds, made it seem likely to the rest of the colonials that the "bloody lobsters" had started it. And remember, about a third of those colonials thought that the "armed rabble" had it coming, and that it was about time the King's men did something.

In 1861, the tripwire was the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Prior to that incident, Lincoln was faced with a huge political problem. A majority of the people of the North wanted to avoid a civil war. So Lincoln contrived to get the Confederates to cede the moral high ground.

By April 4, President Lincoln . . . ordered merchant vessels escorted by the United States Navy to Charleston. On April 6, 1861, Lincoln notified South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."

In response, the Confederate cabinet, meeting in Montgomery, decided on April 9 to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

Toombs, as we know now with 20-20 hindsight, was absolutely correct. Lincoln's gambit worked and the Confederacy took the bait to it's peoples' eternal sorrow. Imagine the Federal rout of the First Battle of Bull Run WITHOUT the justification of Fort Sumter. The pressure on Lincoln to stop the war and negotiate would have become immense. Arrogance and stupidity killed the Confederacy at the very first. That it took four years for the Federals to subdue the South in cruel war was a testament to the Southrons' courage and tenacity. BUT THE CONFEDERATES GAVE THE FEDERALS THE FIRST, AND ARGUABLY MOST IMPORTANT, STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT THEM.

Fast forward to today.

First, one of the arguments most often heard in simpleton quarters is "THEY" (whoever they are) are "too smart to start a war" and will simply gradually increase oppressive measures until they achieve our absolute slavery.

This assigns some sort of god-like power of restraint to the largest, most inefficient, ponderous, corrupt and mistake-prone bureaucracy ever created in this country: the federal government of the 21st Century. Only an ignorant simpleton would believe such a tall tale.

For the better part of two years, one agency of that government, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been chasing a phantom opponent simply because one of their favorite snitches told them he was a confederate of a law-abiding man that they wished to see squashed. ATF lawyers have demanded to know from expert witnesses in depositions if they knew this man, always eliciting the answer, "I know of no such person." ATF agents have been dispatched to run down every lead, every rumor, searching for this nemesis of the Chief Counsel's Office WHO NEVER EXISTED. Millions of taxpayer dollars have certainly been wasted in the search.

This is hardly evidence of federal omniscience or omnipotence.

Secondly, the argument that "they" will be patient enough to play the long game of gradual tyranny reckons without our own ability, LIKE THE FOUNDERS SHOWED US, to resist with lesser measures and gradually make our would-be oppressors so frustrated and crazy with our resistance that they attack us with deadly force, by accident or design.

The tools available to us to accomplish that are the same as were in the liberty toolbag of the Founders: strikes, shunning, petty yet strategic vandalism, street theater, demonstrations, smuggling, etc. The fact that we haven't fully employed these tools is an argument AGAINST the preemptive use of deadly force on our part, not FOR it.

Recall Michael Collins:

“They can jail us. They can shoot us. . . BUT . . . we have a weapon more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of the British Empire! That weapon is our refusal! Our refusal to bow to any order but our own! Any institution but our own!”

That refusal, if we practice it diligently, adamantly, will force the frustrated leviathan to use deadly force.

Third, there is an argument offered by some (many more than actually have it as a valid reason) that to engage in lesser acts of resistance than shooting -- breaking political party windows or vandalism of ARRA signs for example -- will compromise their "operational security" for the big event when shooting starts.

Perhaps. But only if they're stupid in carrying out such operations. We are not talking about carrying out operations against defended targets, for crying out loud. Nothing is more vulnerable than the easy pickings of an ARRA sign on a deserted road at two o'clock in the morning. Besides, engaging in the process of operational planning and execution exercises the tactical muscles for when the shooting DOES start. Each who makes this argument must look into his or her own heart for the answer to whether or not this is simple reluctance to do ANYTHING rather than an exercise in proper prudence.

But in any case, unless sanity breaks out among our would-be tyrannizers, at some point there will be an initiating event of deadly violence by Leviathan against a man or woman who simply wishes to be left alone.

Let us then look at what the Three Percenters have staked out as tripwires:

Any more restrictive firearms laws, is a big one. Katrina-like confiscation obviously would be resisted by force at out doorsteps first, and then taken to the enemy in maneuver warfare style. But what of lesser moves? A "gun show loophole" bill would be resisted first by hosting our own Fed-free gunshows, provoking a response. Any ammunition restrictions would be resisted first by rolling our own, smuggling, theft, etc. Again, provoking a response, and then, a spasm of targeted counter-violence.

Enforcing "health-care" would be met by refusal to pay the fines, refusal to go willingly to jail, and eventually, at the point of a gun. Again, a PROCESS OF RESISTANCE only ending in deadly violence if Leviathan chooses to do so. And they will, if we do our part right.

Federal election tampering, or outright theft, is another. Here I can think of an excellent use of tar and feathering of local and state election officials, breaking of windows, and other vandalism as a first response. If the election is certified despite these moves, then the situation will rapidly move to violence without doubt.

But why, in any of these cases, should we cede the moral high ground and shoot first? Just because some of us are tired of waiting? Or because they're too scared to use lesser measures? Or because they risk nothing nothing in urging US to take the first shot? Such people are urging us to the trip the wire without consequence to themselves. For if they lack the guts to start acting like free people and engage in lesser forms of resistance, what evidence is there that they will go to the extreme when it is called for?

I mean besides their own hot air reduced to keystrokes.

I agree that not all of us are public figures like myself, with names and addresses well known to the PTB. Nor should we be. My JOB is to be a living, breathing gambit -- daring the Power to take a shot at me, and gradually defeating them with every passing day that they do not make an example of me -- exposing the lie of the man behind the curtain that the Wizard is all knowing and all powerful, encouraging others to resist by simply existing as a symbol of the federal government's true vacillation and impotence.

But if YOU are urging us IN AN EASILY TRACEABLE COMMUNICATION to engage in deadly violence against the PTB, then you are not a "grey man" anyway. You trade that when you speak out on the Net. Only a simpleton thinks otherwise. So, telling me that you are not willing to risk lesser violence in order to preserve the operational security that you just threw away by telling me in this venue is hardly persuasive of anything except to reasonably doubt your intelligence or courage or both. Likewise, people who urge others to begin shooting in such a venue have to be asked: who are they really serving? And what are they risking by doing so?

Finally, I ask again, who among us on that final day the wire is tripped will not desperately wish that we had ONE MORE DAY, ONE MORE HOUR, to train, to recruit, and see to our own logistics for the killing time?

If present events play out into a likely future, that wire WILL be tripped. But until it is, it is your responsibility to do everything you can using lesser measures to avoid it and, failing that, to prepare for that day to fight and to win.

No Fort Sumters. No OKC bombings. Let the enemies of the Founders' Republic make those mistakes, not us.

Mike
III

Kerodin tries to get a leg up on that old Fort Sumter thing. Pete concurs. Somewhere an FBI COINTELPRO control agent is smiling.

A reader draws my attention to this post. As Kerodin posts have a tendency to disappear when adults notice, I reproduce it below:

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

If Rule of Law is dead...

...then under what set of Rules do we exist, and should we exist?

96% of you, in the poll at right, say Rule of Law is dead.

82% of you in the poll beneath agree that you are personally ready to participate in a black-bag-a-commie-for-mommie Op. (queue Jedi Zoomie for commie-bashing, boot-stomping, knife-in-neck style propaganda... ;)

In the poll below that 94% of you re-affirm RoL is dead, and it is time to respond in kind.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know these polls are not even close to scientific, and the pool of people answering those polls are of a shared and non-mainstream political worldview.

But, does it matter, even one little bit, that the people answering the polls, in such overwhelming affirmation that it is time to go to work, represent such a small percentage of the populace? It didn't matter to Sam Adams and his boys on the docks. It didn't matter to Patrick Henry or most of the others who gave birth to this republic. I continue to use III%, but you and I know damned well George Washington could never put 3 percent of modern Americans in the field today, and if he did, they'd frag his arse before nightfall. I know damned well how truly few we are - and every one of you is worth a thousand of them, or more. I choose you. We'll call it III Percent, and we'll work with what we've got.

So now what you need to think about, very seriously, in the dead of night when you are not able to sleep, in that very quiet place in your own mind where you do not even allow your husband or wife of fifty years to enter: If Rule of Law is dead, that means that the rules which governed our upper-paleolithic hunter-gatherer aunties and uncles are in effect. (They always have been, but that's a topic for another cheery day.) That means you can't trust anyone to treat you fairly, under any circumstances. It means that when you are stopped by LEO, he may choose to put his M4 in your face, because he can. He may shoot your toy poodle, because he can. Banks can simply hold your money, because they can. If you make it to court, you will lose, because the Rule of Law is dead and the Rule of Man is in play. They will win because they can.

What has changed since Heller and MacDonald, in real terms, regarding 2A? 2A has lost ground in every major Blue state in the republic (the states that elect Presidents), 2A has lost the biggest fight since 1934 in the Obamacare "Prohibited Persons" designation which is already expanding the number of "Prohibited Persons" via "Mental Health" and has your doctor reporting to Herr Wolf. And people are braying for secession, as if those Blue areas will never choke them off economically, starve them like Ukrainians, and then move in and take those precious guns from cold, dead, famine-clenched hands before re-claiming the valuable land.

If you believe in your heart that Rule of Law is dead, are you going to continue to live under what they decree to be "Law"?

If not, then you'd better have your war-face on. You'd better have your Go Bag and tools of war with you, every moment. Because when they confront you, whether at your home, at your office, on the subway, in email from some local bureaucracy, at the pizza place for lunch, or on a traffic stop, their Law gives them the Right to kill you, where you stand or sit. They do not need a reason.

Personally, I only see one way to return the Rule of Law in America - mother*ck those bastards so badly they BEG to reinstate the genuine Rule of Law to protect themselves from us.

But we decide when, and if, that happens - not them. Crying "OK! We surrender!" is a suckers move, and if you stop then, you are just laying the ground for your kid or grandkid to have to face it all over again.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time and you had best un-fuck yourself.

That is all.

Good f'n morning.

Kerodin

Pete, Kerodin's biggest fan, heartily concurs.

The reader who forwarded these to me wrote:

"F-cking Pete. Asshole is pimping out K. The collective sheep are being goaded into throwing a Ft. Sumter. Idiots. You know when the bastard finally goads a rube into doing something it will be K’s name on the endorsement as the 'leader of the III movement' and it is that message that will be blasted out on every news channel from Kalifon-i-a to Kathmandu."

"By their works ye shall know them." Certainly somewhere an FBI COINTELPRO control agent is smiling. Of course it won't really be a Fort Sumter, they have neither the numbers nor the popular support for that.  It will be another OKC bombing, complete with FBI snitches and provocateurs.   At best, these neo-collectivists are soliciting the butchery of innocents.  Does anybody here still think that this is all about my ego?

You know, these guys are starting to make me look like a prophet.

"No Fort Sumters" means exactly that.

Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor. THIS is where the South lost the War Between the States, right at the beginning.

Let me explain.

First, Oath Keepers CAN'T fire first. It would be a violation of their oath. To do so would muddy the differences between them and the real revolutionaries, the real usurpers, the real tyrants.

Second, the moral high ground is lost by the side who fires first.

This does not mean that one side cannot set the stage so the other side discredits themselves by firing first. Indeed, this is what our enemies are hoping. Why else have they provided all the provocations?

The entire unconstitutional federal leviathan which has been erected to supplant the Founders' Republic in the past 75 years rests on one assumption, which the leviathan uses at every turn to achieve their purposes: if you defy us we will destroy you, either economically or with deadly force. As long as these usurpations were in the least bearable, we did not resist by force of arms, counting upon the political system and courts for redress. But these usurpations are no longer bearable, any hope of political redress hangs by the smallest of threads in 2010 (assuming we have another election) and the federal courts have demonstrated their inability to check the leviathan on the most outrageous federal misconduct. Just ask David Olofson.

My earlier outburst at Obama's simpering disingenuousness comes from the fact that he knows, as does everyone, that

a. whether the Intolerable Act in its final form provides directly for jail time, or for a fine which, if you refuse to pay it will land you in jail, is a distinction without a difference, and

b. if you refuse to pay the fine and they come to house to force you to go to prison as a result and you resist, they will kill you.

He knows how the federal government exercises its power and he could care less. He believes he has the right to force us to his will. He will wrap his arguments in lies and good intentions, but in the end, absent the Constitution and the rule of law as codified by the Founders there is only force.

But even with these latest federal constitutional crimes about to happen, it must be the collectivist federals who fire first and that is simply achieved by our refusal to knuckle under. If, for example, in the case of "health care" we refuse to pay the fines, they will seek to arrest us and jail us as an example to the others. Their entire system would collapse if someone successfully resists, as it is based upon the illusion of omnipotence, omniscience, and inevitablity.

If we simply REFUSE to cooperate in our own oppression, eventually some federal thug is going to feel compelled to kill one or more of us for our temerity, likely on our own doorstep, in our homes, with our family watching (or, made casualties themselves).

This is the gambit. If we take it, they are lost. If they take, they are lost.

Lincoln hoped and prayed that the South would fire on Fort Sumter, just as these tyrannical bastards are hoping to get the same reaction from us. Lincoln got his wish. We should not give the present day tyrant wannabes theirs.

If we refuse to bow to their tyranny, however, eventually it is they who lose patience. Time is against them once people start defying them. They MUST scare the rest of the sheep in order to maintain power.

And so they will come to us with deadly force. Then we can resist with deadly force. En masse. Together. And we will finish these domestic enemies of the Founders Republic by giving them incentives to leave or die.

AFTER they start it.

In legitimate self-defense.

Seems simple enough to me.

Why there is such confusion over this principle I do not understand.

Mike
III

David Codrea: "Responses to Malheur Crisis Show Deep Divisions within Patriot Community."

"A common factor among many is that some of the loudest voices are complaining about what others aren’t doing. What they themselves are doing, and their qualifications for expecting others to follow their recommended courses of action, is in many cases left unsaid. . ."

When we don’t have complete information, sources are trusted or distrusted by varying degrees depending on who’s listening and what agendas are in play. Add to that instances where breaking information about significant developments has been sent out, supposedly by people in the know, only to be refuted later by others with access to those on the ground at Malheur.

It happens, and not always by malice. But it does demonstrate the critical need to verify reports before acting.

Right now, what we don’t want, is another Waco. And a factor preventing that, so far, is the government realizing it is being watched, and any repeat of such brutal rules of engagement is likely to make containing things problematic. In a very real sense, that’s been beneficial to the wildlife refuge occupiers throughout, and to the remaining holdouts.

It’s understood that’s not enough for some. That said, we can’t ignore two undeniable truths:

The Hammond family declared from the outset the Malheur takeover was not what they wanted. And now, on the other end, Ammon Bundy is calling for the remainder of the occupiers to “Turn yourselves in and do not use physical force. Use the national platform we have to continue to defend liberty through our constitutional rights in an Article 3 Court with an Article 3 judge.”

That Bundy’s call has not produced an immediate stand-down, and that his own father has now declared they “will retain possession of the Harney County resource center,” shows strong divisions exist even within the family, and then within the small band involved in the takeover.

It’s no wonder we see such distrust and anger — including that being directed by some liberty activists at others.

Now might be the time to ask ourselves who that benefits.

Stewart Rhodes comments:

Yet another Bundy writing checks he expects the rest of us to cash with our blood. I have lost all respect for their entire family. They appear to think they are patriot royalty, who get to decide, all on their own, what is best for the rest of us, and presume to speak for us, when it comes to spilling our blood.

And now Cliven is even going against Ammon's recent call for the remaining occupiers to leave. Ammon has finally caught a clue, but the old man remains clueless. All he will do is get people killed, and make this worse. Nothing like starting a fight off with a Fort Sumter, and a defeat, all wrapped into one. At least Sumter was a victory, though an empty one.

Stewart

Stewart and I have had our differences but I concur with this assessment and frankly I'm getting bloody sick and tired of this apocalyptic vision of Latter Days Saints theology that the Bundys are trying to chain around all our necks. You know, John Brown at least had the guts to lead his own sons into disaster at Harper's Ferry. Cliven sat back from afar and directed his own sons to do what he believes is "God's will" -- a religious vision thing for him without personal risk.

I am also appalled by the apparent inability of self-described "Three Percenters" to be able to exercise discernment, judgment and simple command and control of their own emotions, mouths and troops. I would refer them to the Three Percent Catechism, but that presupposes that they have the ability to read and understand basic English.

Andrew Traver: "No more Mister Nice Guy." The Gun Grabber Cometh.

The Brady Bunch, which heralded his coming with demands that the Obamanoids appoint a permanent director, and celebrated his appointment when it was announced, is telling its members privately that "Traver is one of ours" and that "we can expect he will use the full power of the executive branch to crack down" on firearms rights.

Initially there was some resistance to Traver at Main Justice because of rumors of more scandals swirling around the historically scandal-plagued Chicago ATF office. However, that is all past now. Traver has been embraced by the administration in an act that proclaims "No more Mister Nice Guy."

As a long time observer of the ATF put it to me last night:

I think Traver went from being tainted/damaged goods to acceptable now, because of some deal with the ATF Devil, and I think the "Pistol Grip Shotgun" issue is far, far from done. I also think Obama is going to be stupid enough to bite it off, and that it will enrage ordinary people beyond belief.

That may be the entire point of the exercise.

Those of us who yearn to see this situation end without major violence (or, if that is a pipe dream, at least to postpone it as long as humanly possible) understand that the agency's provocations can only happen so many times until the PTB get their Fort Sumter or our Lexington (although they will be hoping for an Oklahoma City bombing or Reichstag Fire).

The key to the perception of Fort Sumter or Lexington lies in the legitimacy of the agency and administration. WE understand the true nature of the ATF's unconstitutional mission and the "do as we order or else" interpretation of the rule of law that they pervert. That is because we have studied the agency's mundane evil as exemplified in many, many cases over the years from Kenyon Ballew to Ruby Ridge to Waco to the kitten stompers who terrorized Harry and Theresa Lamplugh to the framing of David Olofson to their present day policy of wreaking "economic Wacos" on anyone who legally opposes them.

The agency IS the agenda. And the agenda is the gradual disarmament of the American people. The fact that there may be honest piano players and floor sweepers in the whorehouse does not refute the unlawful activity within the walls, nor the evil intent of those who call the shots and pocket the power and money -- taxpayer dollars, mind you.

"Credibility. It's the only currency that means anything on this kind of playing field. Dean's got the tape and he's going to come out with it. And when he does, I want his credibility. I want people to know he's lying before they hear what he says." -- Jon Voight as Thomas Reynolds in Enemy of the State.

These are the rules that the "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" gun grabbing bureaucrats play by. What do you think the sole purpose of the SPLC and its "Narrative of 1995" was and is? We identified the tight symbiotic relationship that SPLC and the ATF had way back in Nineties, when Morris Dees provided political cover for the ATF at a critical moment by lying about the authenticity of the Gadsden Minutemen's "Good O' Boys Roundup" tape to Fox Butterfield of the New York Times. We knew he was lying. Could we interest any so-called "honest reporter" in the story? No. The FBI later confirmed the tape's authenticity. Was even THAT news? No. The story was passe by then.

So here we are today, and the Brady Bunch tells us (or, at least, one of us they thought was one of them) that the Gun Grabber cometh.

The Narrative of 1995 -- Morris Dees' Big Lie -- is not only still operative, it is now embedded in the programming of almost every LEO who's ever had "hate group identification" training.

The only way to counter any lie -- big or small -- is with the truth. The ATF's actions, done in the comforting dark away from general public scrutiny, make a lie of their public claims. The challenge is how to expose them.

Getting Ramsey A. Bear on the congressional witness stand is a good start.

How can the ATF's credibility survive even two or three news cycle's worth of R.A. Bear, "economic Wacos," the framing of David Olofson, and the production of false documents to justify an agenda?

Then the next time the ATF says ANYTHING, people will say, "Yeah, right."

And once discredited by the truth they made themselves, once the agency is in disarray and the agenda exposed, does this not make another Waco less likely, or at least, less likely next week, next month, next year? And don't we need all the time we can get to prepare for whatever the uncertain future might bring?

I have been criticized by folks on our side for being so focused on exposing what they call, in the words of one, "little scandals that will never amount to anything." But to ignore them is to miss the bigger picture.

What happens within the bureaucracy is largely a matter of perceived credibility and the safety of the darkness. Up until now, the ATF has plundered people's lives and robbed them of their freedom, all done with lies that would not survive in the light of day. They would not be so froggy if people perceived them as the liars they are.

This matters.

This matters because, as the Brady Bunch is crowing among themselves, the Gun Grabber cometh.

Demand rigorous ATF hearings NOW, before he gets to where he wants to go.

At the least, even if it ultimately comes down to rifles and "One Hundred Heads," we can say we tried.

Mike
III

The ease with which civil wars can start. Uncomfortable musings on Christmas Eve, 2014.

"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this." -- George Mason, 1787.

In one sense it is doubtless true that nobody, in 1775, wanted war; in another sense it is almost equally clear that both the Americans and the British were aching for a showdown. -- Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, The Spirit of 'Seventy-Six, 1958.

I have long been warning that given the collectivists who seek to impose their will upon the rest of the country with their appetites for other citizens' rights to liberty and property even at cost of the lives of those who disagree with them -- and especially with their designs upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- civil war is not only possible but probable. My hope has always been to prevent that war by pointing out to all that it IS possible and that the bloody costs will accrue to everyone, especially the war makers and decision takers, if we are stupid enough to go down that path for the third time in our history. (And, yes, I count the Revolution as our first civil war.)

To that end, I have been studying HOW civil wars start. We like to think that such fratricides happen after long periods of consideration -- that no one would be so foolish as to wade into such butchery with little thought. Yet we have only to look at the bloody disintegration of the former Yugoslavia to see a modern example of how swiftly such butcheries can happen.

I was making this point to a friend the other day and he objected that Yugoslavia had been an artificial construct of Versailles in 1919, that it was a "lash-up of a nation" (to use his words) that was bound to fail. The United States, he felt, was not nearly as close to civil war as I feared from the evidence of the Yugoslavian disaster. I pointed out to him that the compromise that was the Constitution was a similar "lash-up" -- a compromise that was forced upon the Founders, despite the advice of men such as George Mason, who wrote as early as 1773:

[Slavery is] that slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentlemen [sic] here is born a petty Tyrant. Practiced in Acts of Despotism & Cruelty, we become callous to the Dictates of Humanity, & all the finer feelings of the Soul. Taught to regard a part of our own Species in the most abject & contemptible Degree below us, we lose that Idea of the Dignity of Man, which the Hand of Nature had implanted in us, for great & useful purposes. Habituated from our Infancy to trample upon the Rights of Human Nature, every generous, every liberal Sentiment, if not extinguished, is enfeebled in our Minds. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers. The Laws of impartial Providence may even by such Means as these, avenge upon our Posterity the Injury done a set of Wretches, whom our Injustice hath debased almost to a Level with the Brute Creation. These Remarks may be thought Foreign to the design of the annexed Extracts - They were extorted by a kind of irresistible, perhaps an Enthusiastick Impulse; and the author of them conscious of his own good Intentions, cares not whom they please or offend.

Mason, himself a slave owner, struggled to reconcile his own Whig beliefs in liberty with what Bruce Catton once called "the indigestible lump" of chattel slavery. Yet we know from our own experiences in the Twentieth Century, that collectivism is an even more evil form of slavery than that practiced by Mason and other Founders from southern colonies. This is not to excuse Mason and the others, yet Mason must be credited at the least with the struggle with his conscience. In that, the Founders stand up pretty well to collectivist butchers such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

George Mason.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Mason warned his fellow Founders:

This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union…. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities….[It is] essential in every point of view that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

His fellow Founders did not listen to him. And we now know from the experiences of the 1860s how prescient Mason was.

In The Presence of Mine Enemies, Edward L. Ayers describes the almost instantaneous resolve for war that formed on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line in the aftermath of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers to impose the will of the national government on the Southern states. I present this not to relitigate the issues of the war or to defend or attack the morality of one side or the other. The striking thing in Ayers' account is the rapidity with which what had been uncertain became set in stone, leading to a war that nobody wanted or expected.

The Civil War did not approach the border like a slowly building storm. It came like an earthquake, with uneven and unpredictable periods of quiet between abrupt seismic shifts that shook the entire landscape. It came by sudden realignments, its tremors giving no indication of the scale of violence that would soon follow. People changed their minds overnight, reversing what they had said and done for years.

The crisis came in a strange way. It was rehearsed through debate and deliberation, through what Abraham Lincoln called "airy" and "theoretical" concerns. People on the border, dedicated to peace and moderation, imagined all the permutations and outcome, calculating carefully what would be won and lost by each strategy. Border Unionists gained momentum after the first secession, pulling Virginia and its neighbors toward compromise and reconciliation. Partisans in the border North fought with one another over every petty issue until the day the Confederate troops fired on Ft. Sumter. Abraham Lincoln bent over backward to appease the border South, giving in on everything except slavery in the territories and the fort at Charleston.

Then everything changed because Lincoln sought to resupply that fort. Actually overnight, the Virginia Convention, so cautious and plodding, threw itself to the Confederacy with the support of the great majority of the voters east of the Allegheny Mountains, including the Valley. By doing so, they gave themselves to a war that they had every reason to dread. Over the border in Franklin and Pennsylvania, the Democrats abandoned arguments that war with the South would be wrong, unconstitutional, stupid, and unmanly. They gave themselves over to the new cause.

Each side had a simple explanation for the other's sudden change: the people on the other side were hypocrites, claiming to fight for one thing while really fighting for another. The South felt certain the North fought for dominion and abolition born of sheer spite, envy, and a puritanical self-righteousness. The North felt certain the South fought to extend slavery like a disease throughout North America, infecting white people in the established states with its black slaves. Both knew the other side used the language of the Constitution as a mere shield and excuse.

Indeed, the inconsistencies were striking. The North went to war to keep people in a Union based on the consent of the governed, to maintain connection with a slaveholding society it despised. Northern leaders expressed barely a word of concern for the millions of people currently enslaved. The south, for its part, went to war under the flag of freedom to maintain a massive and growing human slavery. The South risked war and the disintegration of a nation it had dominated to maintain rights that remained unchallenged in any concrete way.

But both sides had reasons that seemed deep and compelling to themselves. The North clearly believed in the global importance of the Union, the anarchy that would follow in the North if the South were permitted to to leave and other parts of the Union broke away, and the illegality of secession. Northerners believed that the Confederacy did not speak or act for most white Southerners, that a white Southern Unionist majority only awaited help and a signal to step forward. The South clearly believed that the safety and integrity of the entire society were challenged by the Republicans, a party that had arisen for the express reason of dominating the South. The south believed too that the Constitution gave states the right to leave if they so wished and that the election of Abraham Lincoln had been nothing other than an attempt to drive the South away through electoral means. The south now wanted to leave, whether the Republicans offered an immediate threat, a long-term threat, or no real threat at all.

People defended their actions through the words of the Constitution. Like a prism, the Constitution focused and intensified the sectional struggle. Rather than fight for slavery, the South said, it fought for the right of slavery, a right won and decreed by their ancestors who helped create the United States, and the right to remove itself from a union it had voluntarily joined. Rather than fight against slavery, the North said, it fought to preserve the government the Constitution created, to stop outlaws and traitors from usurping it.

Slavery lay at the the root of the South's actions, and white Southerners were not squeamish about saying so. Since all civil society in the South, everything touched by the public realm of law and government, rested on slavery, that civil society necessarily defended slavery as a crucial part of itself. White Southerners did not isolate slavery as the "real" reason they were fighting because slavery could not be separated from the rest; it was so tightly bound up with their sense of who they were that it could not be isolated. They spoke easily, as they had for decades, of God's plan to use the South to Christianize Africans. They spoke of enslaved people's love for their masters and mistresses, of the bonds that tied them together. They spoke of the waste and bloodshed that would accompany emancipation, of the desolation of the South, of the slow death of the former slaves.

Along with the Constitutional language and the language of slavery emerged another language, a language of elemental loyalties, a language of loyalty to family and locale, of native soil and the sacrifices of the fathers. It was a language everybody knew how to speak. It was a language older than the Constitution. It drew on cultural memories even older than the Bible, memories of Greeks and Romans. It spoke from instincts embedded in the human mind and body. It was a language made for wartime, and people on both sides of the border spoke it fluently.

Both the North and the South claimed the sanction of God. They read their Bibles selectively, turning to the language of retribution and vengeance in the Old Testament rather than the language of forgiveness and brotherly love in the New. They defined righteousness as they wanted to define it, as they needed to define it, not for His name's sake but for the sake of worldly ends.

Law and right, duty and honor, fate and history, so tangled only weeks before, suddenly aligned for both the North and the South. The paths of righteousness suddenly appeared straight and smooth.

And so a nation disintegrated in rapid events that few wanted or thought possible. I present this as cautionary tale to those who think that civil war cannot come to this country overnight. It can. It requires only one or two incidents to crystallize both sides -- to kick it off into bloody fratricide. We were faced with one possible flashpoint earlier this year at the Bundy Ranch. We face the threat of others every time there is an armed civil disobedience in opposition to the tyrannical laws brought about by Bloomberg Rules. We face the same threat every time a federal raiding party forms up for some stupidity that could rapidly devolve into another Waco. Civil war can come to this country overnight. The only thing that might prevent it is when those who would victimize others believe that it can and that it will have immediate and deadly repercussions for them. That is the only thing. But it is not the way to bet.

"A Simple Matter of Force": Olofson, Legitimacy & Longing for Fort Sumter.

Reactions to the Olofson appeal decision continue to roll in. Go here to read Peter's at Western Rifle Shooters Association. He says:

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

A Simple Matter of Force

David (Codrea) announces the affirmance of David Olofson's conviction.

WND covers the matter.

The Sipsey Street Legal Advisor notes his thoughts.

And here are mine:

1) We are now (and actually have been for some time) down to a simple matter of force between those who support ever-burgeoning government power and those who oppose such totalitarianism. The concept that the Constitution, the so-called "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, fundamental fairness, or any other check on Leviathan's power has any relevance to the nuts-and-bolts of everyday life in today's America is a dangerous anachronism. Distrust automatically anyone who tells you otherwise.

2) Given that Leviathan can now, among other things, try and convict men for possession of an automatic weapon but yet not have to disclose the manner by which it was determined that the firearm in question was actually capable of automatic fire, don't think that any semi-automatic firearm in your possession can't also be the basis of a felony conviction.

3) The term "a simple matter of force" refers not only to the power of Leviathan, but, more importantly, also to the rules now in effect. The rule of law was established so that disputes between parties could be addressed without resorting to violence. Look over the past nine months and tell me -- logically and factually -- how it can still be argued that the Federal Government is still bound -- in any arena -- by the rule of law.

Alea iacta est.

The die is cast.

Pete has a way of getting to the uncomfortable nub of things in fewer words than I can. But for some, it is not enough that the die is cast. They wish it to be struck, and struck quickly. I received this response to my post on Olofson:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Olofson Appeal Rejected: 7th Circuit Confirms No R...":

Mike,
Why are we still not shooting?

I know you've said no Ft. Sumters and that we would know when the time had come by one action.

Why is this not it?

Remember the scout sniper who said he would get 100 for you?

How is Mr Olofson less of a canary in the shaft than you?

The ATF has proven in this case and the ongoing crap with Mr Savage that they have no interest in objectivity. WHATEVER they want to deem full-auto will be. They will do whatever is necessary to make it so.

Why do we allow them to RULE over us when they have no interest in being answerable to us?

"Why are we still not shooting?"

Well, I'll tell you why. There are a million reason but I will give you a few of the ones I think most important.

Because our hand has not yet been forced. May I remind everybody of something that most who revere the "shot heard 'round the world" tend to forget? Captain Parker's company HAD PULLED BACK FROM CONFRONTATION WITH THE BRITISH REGULARS AND WAS BACKING UP EVEN MORE WHEN THE SHOT WAS FIRED. Why? Because their muster was intended to make a point, not start a war. Not then. Not there.

If I may summarize the silent statement of these men under arms: "We defend this village. Leave it in peace and we will leave you in peace." In modern parlance: "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."

Everyone knew they were headed for Concord. Hancock and Sam Adams had already flown the coop (although Paul Revere was dragging a trunk of secret papers that had been left behind across the back of the green and into the woods beyond). For months, many other marches such as this had been harrassed (as the British saw it) before this day. Once, two militia cannon were emplaced at the end of a bridge to deny the Regulars access. The lobsters took one look and very gently turned around and marched away. No shots fired. Point made, point taken.

Yet at Lexington the shot was fired. No one knows to this day who fired. In order of probability: a British officer firing deliberately; a British soldier with an AD ("Accidental discharge" in current terms, although a certain sergeant in the 101st Airborne says "AD" means "asshole discharge."); a skulker on the sidelines of one political persuasion or another who wanted blood to be spilled. Take your pick, but the point is Captain Parker sure as hell didn't give that order. Thus everything that happened afterward WAS SELF DEFENSE UPON THE PART OF THE COLONISTS. They did not return fire until their hand was forced. Perception of legitimacy: colonists.

At Fort Sumter, the South Carolinians fired when they did not have to. Perception of legitimacy: Lincoln.

Starting to get the picture?

We are not ready. Not politically, not militarily. I don't know about you, Anonymous. Are YOU ready to take on an even greater military force than the British Empire of the Eighteenth Century? I'm not. No one I know is. Well, there ARE a few folks up in Winston County. ;-) Anyway, FEW people I know are. The Minutemen and common militia at Lexington and Concord and long road back into Boston had been preparing for YEARS. Read General Galvin's book, The Minutemen. The ability to blunt and harry a British column was not an accident. I tell you plainly, WE ARE NOT READY. The military groundwork has not been laid. The political groundwork has not been laid. We are not ready and you want to start something that will make our defeat easy?

"A long train of abuses and usurpations." When did Jefferson write those words? MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER LEXINGTON. Olofson's case certainly falls into that category. But it is not yet time. This fight, if all else fails politically to prevent it, MUST be undertaken reluctantly. We must accept the burden of the abuses and usurpations as long as they can be borne, so that when we round on the whipmaster and feed him his whip it will be seen as justice by as many onlookers as possible. The Regulars MUST march out of Boston of their own accord. They MUST fire the first shot. Or the second. Or the third. THEN, and ONLY then, we will finish them and their tyranny. If they pass laws to accomplish this (they think) without direct confrontation, we will defy the laws and goad them into attempting to force us to comply. Think Boston Tea Party. Their whole system depends upon willing subjects. They don't react well to defiance. They WILL give us the moral high ground. Their appetites will demand it.

Because what happens the moment after that shot is fired is so horrible than any sane person would do anything to avoid it. I have NO patience for someone who WANTS A FIGHT. It usually means they've never been in one. Do you understand what horrors await us all after that terrible moment? Have you ever seen the bloated bodies of children on the road? Entire neighborhoods in flames? Heard screams of dying innocents in the night? Smelled roasting flesh of men, women and children, people, innocent people, even as you, or me, or our loved ones?

I doubt it. But you know what? Neither have I. My son has. But I have not. Still, I am smart enough to understand that that's what happens when you open up the Pandora's box of civil war. Why wouldn't you do everything in your power to put that off as long as possible, until you could not delay a second longer this side of defeat and slavery?

Those are some of the reasons I can think of. There are others.

Yes, the die is cast. The prospect that we will get out of this without a fight diminishes with every passing day and every power grab of this administration.

The die IS cast, but THEY MUST STRIKE IT.

Not us.

Them.

Our would-be tyrants.

Being a Christian has its solaces and one of them is the realization that all of this is in God's hands. We must stand, but the outcome is subject to His will. What will happen, is what will happen. But we do not serve God or man or the Founders' Republic or even our own selfish prospects for victory if we fire first.

No Fort Sumters.

No. Fort. Sumters.

NO FORT SUMTERS.

Not if you want to win. Me, I'd like to win. How about you?

A Brief Three Percent Catechism -- A discipline not for the faint-hearted.

Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life. -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 5 (quoting John Paul II).

Wikipedia tells us that "in the early church, new converts . . . were instructed (catechized) in the basic elements of the faith such as the Apostles' Creed, Lord's Prayer, and sacraments in preparation for baptism." Although I'm a Baptist, this always struck me as a useful tool to make sure that all of the folks who professed a creed actually understood the faith. Catechism hardly contains all the elements of a particular belief system, but it puts the newbie on the right path of study. I have been convinced for some time that the Three Percent needed a catechism of our own, since there are a number of folks who seem to want to reinterpret (if not hijack) the original concept for their own purposes. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi, "It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!"

The Three Percent idea, the movement, the ideal, was designed to be a simple, powerful concept that could not be infiltrated or subjected to agents provocateurs like many organizations that I observed in the constitutional militia movement of the 90s. In this I was both correct and dead wrong, as I have been battling folks almost since the beginning who have misunderstood, deliberately or not, what the Three Percent was in history, what it is today and what its aims are for the future.

What is a "Three Percenter"?

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

The Doctrine of the Three Percent in a few sentences.

The Three Percent are the citizens the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it. And we will. There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas. For we are the Three Percent. We will not disarm. You cannot convince us. You cannot intimidate us. You can kill us, if you think you can. But remember, we’ll shoot back. We are not going away. We are not backing up another inch. And there are THREE MILLION OF US. The next move, if any, is up to the aspiring tyrants among the domestic enemies of the Constitution.

This is not to say that all politics, even in the rigged, corrupt game played by both political parties today, is futile. It isn't. The Founders did not cede that ground to the forces of the King until forced to do so and we must not. Indeed, this is one way that we make the local contacts and build the local networks so key to the Founders' concepts of the militia as the guardian of, and the true expression of the will of, the people. There is a place then, for all who adopt the Three Percent ideal, regardless of age, sex, fitness, infirmity. Resistance is an expression of a determined minority, but that minority comes from everywhere and contributes what it can, where it can.

One other point. The Three Percent idea, being an idea, is internalized and finds expression in action when required without any top-down organization issuing orders. This was on perfect display at the Bundy Ranch stand-off when Three Percenters from everywhere flocked on their own to the Bundy's defense, interposing themselves between the Bundys and the Feds. No call was issued, they just came because they understood the concept of "No More Free Wacos." The Feds were shocked -- first into inaction and then into retreat. Indeed, the Bundy confrontation may be seen as the proof of the successful weaponizing of the idea of the Three Percent.

The Three Percent as a modern expression of the Founder's model.

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter XIX, Of the Dissolution of Government, Sec. 222, 1690.

The Founders, it must be remembered, thought of themselves as Englishmen who were merely seeking their rights under the English Constitution from the depredations of a corrupt monarchy and its ministers. In this they were guided by the philosophy of John Locke's social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate, further, under the social contract, the people could resist the government by force of arms when it acted against the interests of citizens and could replace it with one that served the interests of citizens. Such armed resistance, in Locke's mind, was an obligation which acted as a safeguard against tyranny. The language and reasoning of the Declaration of independence come straight from Locke.

Not only is the moral basis of the modern-day Three Percent movement the same as that of the Founders, but the tactics and strategy of resistance that was used by them, including the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence and Safety and the Minutemen, are fully applicable to today's struggle. First, as I wrote over six years ago, Three Percenters recognize that with such a declaration of resistance comes responsibility:

"Take not counsel of your fears." In the coming period many rumors will sweep the blogosphere. Imminent danger will perceived from a million different directions. But here is how we should conduct ourselves.

"Wilson, I'm a damned sight smarter man than Grant; I know more about organization, supply and administration and about everything else than he does, but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight but it scares me like hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman as recalled by James Harrison Wilson, in Under the Old Flag.

Now Sherman wasn't saying that Grant should fail to seek through intelligence-gathering or scouting what the dispositions and the intentions of the enemy were. He was saying that you don't let your fears affect how you fight the enemy in front of you. Sherman also recalled that Grant worried less about what the enemy was going to do him and more about what HE was going to do the the enemy. As Three Percenters, we must only react to what we see and know and not some rumored threat. Above all, we must not lose our cool. We must always remain under control, and ready.

We must not react to, or repeat, disinformation, for this is the principal way the domestic enemies of the Constitution have used to discredit us over the years. As Three Percenters we must always be the adults in the room. We do not have the luxury of reacting out of emotion, fear or hatred. This is made easier by the discipline of building deterrence.

Again, from six years ago:

Work on the credibility of your deterrence. Deterrence only works if it's credible. We must ready ourselves for whatever comes. That means training, physical fitness, building up logistical bases, more training, marksmanship competence, organization, more logistics, more training.

We have our enemy's promises that they will negate any possibility of our using the standard methods of politics against them. They have won the "majority vote" decision. Fine. But if we are to avoid conflict, we must convince them of how little this actually buys them in the way of power. We do that by building up the armed citizenry, one three-man buddy team, one six-man fire team and one squad at a time. Don't advertise. Friends and neighbors will do nicely. And remember, you're doing this in case the deterrence doesn't work. This is as real as it gets, folks. Act like it.

This is a major component of the discipline of the Three Percent. If you are focused on readiness you will be less likely to jump at shadows, less likely to take counsel of your fears. When in doubt about what is going on around you, train, organize, forge yourself and your teams into the sort of "well regulated militia" the Founders first created in the period leading up to 19 April 1775 and then later codified in the Second Amendment.

"Don't fire unless fired upon." -- Captain John Parker, Lexington Minutemen, 19 April 1775.

As Three Percenters we are bound by an ironclad commitment to no first use of force. We call this, "No Fort Sumters." From six years ago:

No "Fort Sumters." This means exactly and precisely what it says. We must not fire first.

Neither were the leaders of the Confederacy eager to start a war. Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, sitting in their offices in Montgomery (Alabama), much preferred to negotiate until they got their way. They always had, after all. In fact, Southerners in general considered Northerners to be incapable of standing up to them. They had seceded thinking the North would "just let them go." Should it come to civil war they were confident that the great European powers, desperately needing cotton for their mills, would intervene on the side of the Confederacy. The one possibility the South never considered was the one that actually happened: that the North would actually fight an all out civil war rather than let the Union be shattered and that England and France would not come to the aid of the South. Lincoln's adroit handling of the matter left Montgomery with few choices. If they attacked Fort Sumter, they'd lose both their moral high ground and their Northern allies. -- Joe Wheeler, Abraham Lincoln, Howard Books, 2008

We don't fire first, nor second, nor perhaps even third. This does not mean we can't defend ourselves. We must.

What it does mean is that the rest of don't react until everyone understands that it is collective self-defense. We must not cede the moral high ground.

If the Confederacy had not fired on Sumter, what would Lincoln have done? Whatever it was would have cost him the moral high ground and political legitimacy. And for the brave new world of imperial presidency that he was embarked upon, that might have led to an entirely different result. Division in the North, perhaps even impeachment. It is our enemies who are the revolutionists and the aggressors.

Take a stand on familiar ground and their appetites will do the rest. They will come to us. Just be ready. Then when it is apparent, ACT, at once and collectively, on familiar ground of our own choosing and in enlightened self-defense on a large scale seeking only the criminally culpable.

This absolute tenet of the Three Percent concept comes in for the most criticism from those who would have someone (someone, significantly, NOT themselves) take the first shot out of fear or other motives which may or may not be their own. It is in the interest of the domestic enemies of the Constitution to get us to go to proactive violence. The solution then is to refuse to do so. Their own tyrannical hungers combined with impatience at our defiance, like that of the Founders', will in time force them to cede this vital point or, far less likely, to give up the game. But it must be their choice and their action. Again, here it is vital not to take counsel of your fears and to assign some supernatural powers to the enemies of liberty. They cannot sweep down and bag the lot of us, as some Chicken Littles fear. We have them out-numbered by a long shot. If some of us are killed to make the point that THEY are the aggressors in Locke's "war against against the people," then we must recognize that this is what we signed up for when we took our oaths.

The other moral absolute that you sign on to when you become a Three Percenter is no targeting of innocents. We call this "No Oklahoma City bombings." And this includes the innocents who make up the non-combatants on the enemy's side. If you claim to fight monsters, it is important not to become one yourself. They target innocents in retributive terror operations like Waco, we do not. We are also criticized by some for this "weakness." It is, rather, not only a strength but our greatest strength. It is what defines us as defenders of liberty and the people. It is also what the tyrants most fear -- if innocents are taken off the target list, only the guilty remain. And the one thing the war-makers and decision-takers of tyranny fear is a Fourth Generation civil war targeted solely and precisely at THEIR miserable existence. It is the only thing they cherish, the only real thing they believe in -- their own existence and the power that existence gives them to feed their hunger off other people's liberty, property and lives. If the order-givers start to disappear, through death or desertion, the orders do NOT get given. With no Eichmanns to make up the schedules, no cattle cars depart to the East for "Arbeit Macht Frei." This strategy also takes advantage of our greatest strength -- our rifle marksmanship. The accurate rifle in the handle of a trained marksman is our "precision guided munition." Millions of such rifles, properly targeted, by people with the will to use them, amounts to utter defeat for any would-be tyranny, and death for any would-be tyrant.

These four principles -- moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents -- are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders' Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a "Three Percenter."

This is by no means a complete exploration of the subject and I will have more as time progresses. I invite comment and criticism.

Mike Vanderboegh, 29 June 2014.

For the benefit of our new Three Percenters - Welcome

I am seeing a trend of people that are familiar with the III% and even this blog, but that are not familiar with the concepts of the movement or why it was started.  

Don't mistake me, I think this is absolutely wonderful.  It means that more people are coming here for the first time and that means that new eyes are being opened.  This is my one goal: seeing the movement grow to dizzying heights and still remain true to the founding principles.

To that end, I am reposting "A Brief Three Percent Catechism -- A discipline not for the faint-hearted."

The original can be found here.

Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life. -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 5 (quoting John Paul II).

Wikipedia tells us that "in the early church, new converts . . . were instructed (catechized) in the basic elements of the faith such as the Apostles' Creed, Lord's Prayer, and sacraments in preparation for baptism." Although I'm a Baptist, this always struck me as a useful tool to make sure that all of the folks who professed a creed actually understood the faith. Catechism hardly contains all the elements of a particular belief system, but it puts the newbie on the right path of study. I have been convinced for some time that the Three Percent needed a catechism of our own, since there are a number of folks who seem to want to reinterpret (if not hijack) the original concept for their own purposes. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi, "It takes strength to resist the dark side. Only the weak embrace it!"

The Three Percent idea, the movement, the ideal, was designed to be a simple, powerful concept that could not be infiltrated or subjected to agents provocateurs like many organizations that I observed in the constitutional militia movement of the 90s. In this I was both correct and dead wrong, as I have been battling folks almost since the beginning who have misunderstood, deliberately or not, what the Three Percent was in history, what it is today and what its aims are for the future.

What is a "Three Percenter"?

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

The Doctrine of the Three Percent in a few sentences.

The Three Percent are the citizens the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it. And we will. There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas. For we are the Three Percent. We will not disarm. You cannot convince us. You cannot intimidate us. You can kill us, if you think you can. But remember, we’ll shoot back. We are not going away. We are not backing up another inch. And there are THREE MILLION OF US. The next move, if any, is up to the aspiring tyrants among the domestic enemies of the Constitution.

This is not to say that all politics, even in the rigged, corrupt game played by both political parties today, is futile. It isn't. The Founders did not cede that ground to the forces of the King until forced to do so and we must not. Indeed, this is one way that we make the local contacts and build the local networks so key to the Founders' concepts of the militia as the guardian of, and the true expression of the will of, the people. There is a place then, for all who adopt the Three Percent ideal, regardless of age, sex, fitness, infirmity. Resistance is an expression of a determined minority, but that minority comes from everywhere and contributes what it can, where it can.

One other point. The Three Percent idea, being an idea, is internalized and finds expression in action when required without any top-down organization issuing orders. This was on perfect display at the Bundy Ranch stand-off when Three Percenters from everywhere flocked on their own to the Bundy's defense, interposing themselves between the Bundys and the Feds. No call was issued, they just came because they understood the concept of "No More Free Wacos." The Feds were shocked -- first into inaction and then into retreat. Indeed, the Bundy confrontation may be seen as the proof of the successful weaponizing of the idea of the Three Percent.

The Three Percent as a modern expression of the Founder's model.

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter XIX, Of the Dissolution of Government, Sec. 222, 1690.

The Founders, it must be remembered, thought of themselves as Englishmen who were merely seeking their rights under the English Constitution from the depredations of a corrupt monarchy and its ministers. In this they were guided by the philosophy of John Locke's social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate, further, under the social contract, the people could resist the government by force of arms when it acted against the interests of citizens and could replace it with one that served the interests of citizens. Such armed resistance, in Locke's mind, was an obligation which acted as a safeguard against tyranny. The language and reasoning of the Declaration of independence come straight from Locke.

Not only is the moral basis of the modern-day Three Percent movement the same as that of the Founders, but the tactics and strategy of resistance that was used by them, including the Sons of Liberty, the Committees of Correspondence and Safety and the Minutemen, are fully applicable to today's struggle. First, as I wrote over six years ago, Three Percenters recognize that with such a declaration of resistance comes responsibility:

"Take not counsel of your fears." In the coming period many rumors will sweep the blogosphere. Imminent danger will perceived from a million different directions. But here is how we should conduct ourselves.

"Wilson, I'm a damned sight smarter man than Grant; I know more about organization, supply and administration and about everything else than he does, but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight but it scares me like hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman as recalled by James Harrison Wilson, in Under the Old Flag.

Now Sherman wasn't saying that Grant should fail to seek through intelligence-gathering or scouting what the dispositions and the intentions of the enemy were. He was saying that you don't let your fears affect how you fight the enemy in front of you. Sherman also recalled that Grant worried less about what the enemy was going to do him and more about what HE was going to do the the enemy. As Three Percenters, we must only react to what we see and know and not some rumored threat. Above all, we must not lose our cool. We must always remain under control, and ready.

We must not react to, or repeat, disinformation, for this is the principal way the domestic enemies of the Constitution have used to discredit us over the years. As Three Percenters we must always be the adults in the room. We do not have the luxury of reacting out of emotion, fear or hatred. This is made easier by the discipline of building deterrence.

Again, from six years ago:

Work on the credibility of your deterrence. Deterrence only works if it's credible. We must ready ourselves for whatever comes. That means training, physical fitness, building up logistical bases, more training, marksmanship competence, organization, more logistics, more training.

We have our enemy's promises that they will negate any possibility of our using the standard methods of politics against them. They have won the "majority vote" decision. Fine. But if we are to avoid conflict, we must convince them of how little this actually buys them in the way of power. We do that by building up the armed citizenry, one three-man buddy team, one six-man fire team and one squad at a time. Don't advertise. Friends and neighbors will do nicely. And remember, you're doing this in case the deterrence doesn't work. This is as real as it gets, folks. Act like it.

This is a major component of the discipline of the Three Percent. If you are focused on readiness you will be less likely to jump at shadows, less likely to take counsel of your fears. When in doubt about what is going on around you, train, organize, forge yourself and your teams into the sort of "well regulated militia" the Founders first created in the period leading up to 19 April 1775 and then later codified in the Second Amendment.

"Don't fire unless fired upon." -- Captain John Parker, Lexington Minutemen, 19 April 1775.

As Three Percenters we are bound by an ironclad commitment to no first use of force. We call this, "No Fort Sumters." From six years ago:

No "Fort Sumters." This means exactly and precisely what it says. We must not fire first.

Neither were the leaders of the Confederacy eager to start a war. Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, sitting in their offices in Montgomery (Alabama), much preferred to negotiate until they got their way. They always had, after all. In fact, Southerners in general considered Northerners to be incapable of standing up to them. They had seceded thinking the North would "just let them go." Should it come to civil war they were confident that the great European powers, desperately needing cotton for their mills, would intervene on the side of the Confederacy. The one possibility the South never considered was the one that actually happened: that the North would actually fight an all out civil war rather than let the Union be shattered and that England and France would not come to the aid of the South. Lincoln's adroit handling of the matter left Montgomery with few choices. If they attacked Fort Sumter, they'd lose both their moral high ground and their Northern allies. -- Joe Wheeler, Abraham Lincoln, Howard Books, 2008

We don't fire first, nor second, nor perhaps even third. This does not mean we can't defend ourselves. We must.

What it does mean is that the rest of don't react until everyone understands that it is collective self-defense. We must not cede the moral high ground.

If the Confederacy had not fired on Sumter, what would Lincoln have done? Whatever it was would have cost him the moral high ground and political legitimacy. And for the brave new world of imperial presidency that he was embarked upon, that might have led to an entirely different result. Division in the North, perhaps even impeachment. It is our enemies who are the revolutionists and the aggressors.

Take a stand on familiar ground and their appetites will do the rest. They will come to us. Just be ready. Then when it is apparent, ACT, at once and collectively, on familiar ground of our own choosing and in enlightened self-defense on a large scale seeking only the criminally culpable.

This absolute tenet of the Three Percent concept comes in for the most criticism from those who would have someone (someone, significantly, NOT themselves) take the first shot out of fear or other motives which may or may not be their own. It is in the interest of the domestic enemies of the Constitution to get us to go to proactive violence. The solution then is to refuse to do so. Their own tyrannical hungers combined with impatience at our defiance, like that of the Founders', will in time force them to cede this vital point or, far less likely, to give up the game. But it must be their choice and their action. Again, here it is vital not to take counsel of your fears and to assign some supernatural powers to the enemies of liberty. They cannot sweep down and bag the lot of us, as some Chicken Littles fear. We have them out-numbered by a long shot. If some of us are killed to make the point that THEY are the aggressors in Locke's "war against against the people," then we must recognize that this is what we signed up for when we took our oaths.

The other moral absolute that you sign on to when you become a Three Percenter is no targeting of innocents. We call this "No Oklahoma City bombings." And this includes the innocents who make up the non-combatants on the enemy's side. If you claim to fight monsters, it is important not to become one yourself. They target innocents in retributive terror operations like Waco, we do not. We are also criticized by some for this "weakness." It is, rather, not only a strength but our greatest strength. It is what defines us as defenders of liberty and the people. It is also what the tyrants most fear -- if innocents are taken off the target list, only the guilty remain. And the one thing the war-makers and decision-takers of tyranny fear is a Fourth Generation civil war targeted solely and precisely at THEIR miserable existence. It is the only thing they cherish, the only real thing they believe in -- their own existence and the power that existence gives them to feed their hunger off other people's liberty, property and lives. If the order-givers start to disappear, through death or desertion, the orders do NOT get given. With no Eichmanns to make up the schedules, no cattle cars depart to the East for "Arbeit Macht Frei." This strategy also takes advantage of our greatest strength -- our rifle marksmanship. The accurate rifle in the handle of a trained marksman is our "precision guided munition." Millions of such rifles, properly targeted, by people with the will to use them, amounts to utter defeat for any would-be tyranny, and death for any would-be tyrant.

These four principles -- moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents -- are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders' Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a "Three Percenter."

This is by no means a complete exploration of the subject and I will have more as time progresses. I invite comment and criticism.

Mike Vanderboegh, 29 June 2014.