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."
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, 2008We 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.
never understood the no first use of force, no targeting of innocents. Always thought that was Mike's way of keeping the heat off him. But I also thought he was gonna take the Absolved way out of here too.
In any event, there will be plenty of violations of the catechisms in the next dust up. The III% movement will be losing a lot of good men if those "rules" are enforced too strictly.
Good idea! It might benefit new readers to repost some of the other educational posts from the early days as well. There's a treasure trove of stuff in the blog, but it's a lot to wade through looking for the meat of the "Three Percent Solution", and I think it's vital that new readers understand, especially given all the enemy propaganda that is extant.
Those "rules" are what guarantee our morality. When we stop enforcing them strictly we no longer deserve to exist as a movement.
-Wish Mike were here and able to comment on the just released Soros email documents that fully incriminate him in a host of wrong doings.
-Getting competent with a rifle is not easy, cheap and non-perishable once achieved. Practice and preparation are never ending. I am no world class rifleman by any means but I can damn sure shoot clay pigeons off a berm at 300 meters from prone with my .223 bolt gun. At will.
Here are a few excellent sources of our founding that may help others, as they helped me in my own journey of liberty and self determination. It is a never ending path, but one well traveled by the great and the small.
Knowledge is power, the truth really does set you free.
The True History of the American Revolution
.99 cents on kindle.
This is a gritty dirt person perspective of the years leading up to 1776, which in almost all respects, are the most crucial to understanding what the fight for freedom is about. A diamond in the rough. It will blow your mind how you have been misled. I'd say it is the one source of our founding you must read if no other.
Ben Comee - A Tale of Rogers's Rangers, 1758-59
Free on kindle
This is essentially the dirt people nuts and bolts down and dirty birth of Liberty in colonial America, while it is an invaluable intimate look into small unit infantry tactics in it's purest form, it is a tale about insurgency and guerrilla tactics, and the awakening of the primal rights of Freemen in America years before the war of independence. Most of the effective and grass roots personalities who went on to figure prominently later in the revolutionary war cut their teeth, bled and learned how to fight, but even more important, why you fight during the French Indian War. Splendid first hand accounting of fighting in the frontier and wilds of colonial America. If you want to know what being a guerrilla is, this history will enlighten you like no other source except first hand combat. Some things never change, and small unit infantry is the essence of combat. It's in here.
Another history that will blow your mind. Told by a truly free man who did it.
THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
David E. Vandercoy
Valparaiso Univ. Law Review
Open source on the web
There is nothing that compares to this succinct and sublime essay. A short and lets say brutal expose on the 2nd Amendment. To the point, no holds barred piece that defines in unmistakable terms the means and primal rights to self defense, the long long historical precedence behind it, and why it is absolutely critical in no uncertain terms it is more so today than ever before in human history.
As Mike was fond of reminding us through the years, those who ignore the past, take the dirt nap first, and, when democracy turns to tyranny the armed citizen still gets to vote.
Well this treasure trove of logic and reason defines, proves Mikes many axioms are the truth.
Remember, guns are property, that is the first thing.
Superbly composed, by a classically educated thinking man.
It is a ten minute read that may well change everything you thought about arms and the primal rights to them.
And Then There Were None
Eric Frank Russell
Open source on the Web.
Eric Frank Russell's masterpiece on consent, the power of withdrawal of it, pluralities and self determination. A great entertaining yarn in a short story. Definitely told in a wonderful tongue in cheek style. I read this 36 years ago as a young man, it has only improved with age. In this story is the "greatest weapon ever devised", and it's nothing you would ever imagine.
Russell also wrote WASP, a tale of what one determined indomitable spirited man does to an entire tyrannical government. Some terrifying and hilarious escapades are presented in a wonderful story of never say die. You won't put it down, guarantee it.
also open sourced @: https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/wasp/
Henry Dampier's sleeper masterpiece:
About The Corporate Slave Class
There are not words to adequately describe Mr. Dampeir's insights into what some refer to as the Amerikan Nomenklaturer class, the totalitarian's among us, who are in many ways Lenin's most sophisticated of useful dupes. If you read this you will recognize this class of American's, and come away with fresh insights into why, if for no other reason, the fall of this republic has transpired. Others I have recommended this essay to are left as speechless as I was. A to the point no fluff short read.
Al Benson Jr is another lesser known reasoned thinker and writer who deserves much praise for selflessness in the cause of Liberty, and secession.
His introduction to Gary North's outlier Conspiracy In Philadelphia is frank and brief, but it is about a bombshell of thinking outside the box, which is what North does in his masterpiece.
The premis, if I have it right, is the US Constitution was cunningly crafted as an instrument of administrative tyranny. That not once, in it's history from the moment the USC was signed and ratified, has it ever created or protected one erg of liberty. That it was a downhill slide from 1778 to this moment into tyranny. Sound crazy? Read for yourself. It stomps on every sacred cow imaginable. Regardless of it's veracity, in fact in spite of veracity, it is a game changer if for no there reason than there are so many truths revealed it changes everything. There is nothing radical about it, that is why it is considered by many to be radical. In a time of universal deceit shoved down our throats and crammed up our arses, the truth is revolutionary.
If Liberty Was the Object, Why Did They Give Us Centralism?
Al Benson Jr.
Here is another outstanding piece by Henry Dampier:
Kill the Kulaks
If you don't know who and what the Kulak's where, you better, because just logging onto Sipsey Street makes you one.
And they are really out to kill us.
It is the only way they can destroy what America and Liberty is.
Remember about dirt naps?
William Lind is a foremost intellectual and professor on 4th generation war, but more important Lind is a disciple of Colonel Byodd, small unit infantry tactics, insurgency, and fighting cultural marxism in all its putrid forms:
His blog "Traditional Right is a most worthy read.
Lind wrote a spectacular novel called "Victoria". Victoria takes place in the present time, in NewEngland, it begin's with a Marine captain, the State of Maine, and a cast of wonderful characters, and how Maine and NewHampshire secede from the federal government. It is about bitter clingers, us dirt people, how not only hope springs eternal but virtue and principles, and traditions, prevail when people choose, and choose is the key word, to become self determining regardless of the perils and tribulations. It is about the true and everlasting Christian west. it is a tale of crusade, for faith, liberty, happiness, and prosperity. A seriously heart warming inspiring story about winning.
The first half of the novel is free open source, it can be had on kindle for a small cost.
This next essay is a gold mine of 4th generation war against the tyranny of the State. It is a most cautionary tale, the foes involved and their ideology's notwithstanding.
It should be mandatory reading for any student of insurgency warfare and the timeless resistance to tyranny.
I doubt the author intended for it to be such, it is a technical essay on the waging of 1st generation war against a stone age insurgency. You will recognize the parallels to the the Neocon's and their warmongering around the globe, the ruling political class of the federal government, and the corrupt nature of tyrannical states.
THE LIMITS OF SOVIET AIRPOWER: THE BEAR VERSUS THE MUJAHIDEEN IN AFGHANISTAN, 1979-1989
by Edward B. Westermann
As one commentor on WRSA stated:
"What if the only viable option is a long-term "stay-behind" operation, with the primary goal being multi-generational cultural preservation?"
indeed, Liberty can only succeed through action, as true liberty is the action of acting free. But you got to know the truth of us first I believe.
I truly hope somebody will find something of value or it is enlightening in these above, even if it is a fraction of what I have gained, it would be a wonderful thing.
Habitas Libertatem Aut Mori
The next Fort Sumter could actually be another Reichstagsbrand set off by the other side.
"Those "rules" are what guarantee our morality. When we stop enforcing them strictly we no longer deserve to exist as a movement."
Spot on mjw!
I am very interested in getting more involved within the III% movement. Been around awhile doing Patriotic stuff in other venues for years, but have moved on for various reasons.
Anybody in Illinois, especially NE IL that is part of a group TRUE to the original intent of Mr Vanderboegh's III% concept?? A few Yahoo's that I have met around here that claim to be involved didn't even know who MV was.
Kinda PO's me.
For those of us who face socialists with 1000 ways of using force against civilians, please define the following. It really leaves one with the idea that no force can be used unless "fired upon" first.
"As Three Percenters we are bound by an ironclad commitment to no first use of force."
Ditto for the targeting of innocents. Are there any "innocents" whom support a tyrannical government or dictator? How many government children does it take to support a dictator? How many to cheer when a patriot is executed?
Great questions. Let's take them in turn.
1. No first use of force means that you cannot go and make up your own Reichstag event. I see a common misconception from people who read only those words but do not understand the context from which they are written. We absolutely believe in the judicious use of force when protecting your self, your family, or your property against violence.
2. Children do not pull triggers, and therefore should never be on the menu. Agitprop and material supporters, which are also not children, are quite on the menu.
Easy enough? If you want to me to go into depth on any particular point, please feel free to email them to me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Sometime in the future, I would like to do a more simplified version of the Catechism which will, hopefully, address some of these misconceptions.
Post a Comment