Showing posts sorted by relevance for query No Fort Sumters. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query No Fort Sumters. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, May 27, 2013

Of Kokesh, John Parker and Fort Sumters.

Alan W. Mullenax comments on Latest on Kokesh: “We will see you on the front lines of freedom on July 4th, 2013 for this, The Final American Revolution.”
Gotta be honest, I don't know what to make of the dude. However, if he does in fact serve as a John Parker, I got no bitch. I'm of the opinion that patriots, what few are left, need a kick in the ass to get started. We constantly rail about no Fort Sumters. Mostly because of comfort and cowardice, again in my opinion. Personally, at the least I support the guy. Hell, I may even show up to the party depending on how things develop. It's important to remember that Samuel Adams and John Hancock were in Lexington on the night of April 18th. I have no doubt that the initial confrontation was thought out, staged, and executed. I have no bitch with that either. If this gig starts the party rolling, I have no bitch with that either.
A. Captain Parker did not march his unit up to the British roadblock on the Boston Neck and demand entrance. The Patriots contrived a situation over many months, if not years, to make the British come to THEM, not the other way around. That was because they were serious men, cognizant of the weight of leadership responsibility and convinced that while they would not back down, that they would surrender the vital moral high ground of refusing to take the first shot while standing upon their rights as Englishmen under the English Constitution. Get that? SERIOUS men. Whatever egos they had were subordinated to the task at hand. They did not try to execute wild hair ideas by posting a circular on the village green. Every move was fully thought out before execution. What thought, what reflection, what responsibility, what preparation and organization does Kokesh's proposed action demonstrate? If he wants to bet his own ass on such an ill-thought venture that's one thing. Risking others is something else again. But any comparison between Kokesh and Parker is both historically ignorant and insulting to Parker's memory.
To underline the above: Parker was just one small cog in a liberty organization. He was responsible to both his men and to the resistance leadership of the colony of Massachusetts. This was, as I noted above, the result of years of organization and preparation -- political, social and military. If Parker was urged to stand his ground by Sam Adams (as seems likely, since it was a change plan from what he had agreed to with his men earlier in the morning), then it was because Adams convinced Parker that the General Gage had finally stuck his official dick in the moral and political grinder. Remember that the British column was not only a raid for firearms but an attempt to capture the resistance leadership in the form of Adams and Hancock. Gage HOPED to accomplish both without a fight, but in his arrogance he didn't foresee what a political victory he was handing the resistance if it didn't happen the way he'd planned. The BRITISH had marched out of Boston under arms to work their will upon the Colonists. They were plainly the aggressor, not the other way around. No matter who fired the first shot, WHERE that shot was fired was vitally important in the propaganda predicate to the Revolution. Kokesh, if he can maintain his dope-fogged attention span, ought to read and internalize a little more history.
B. Mullenax says: "We constantly rail about no Fort Sumters. Mostly because of comfort and cowardice, again in my opinion." Since I am the principal advocate of the phrase "No Fort Sumters" it is presumably me that he's criticizing as cowardly and comfortable. He is entitled to his opinion. But I say that the Founders would not have thought so. Their entire record from the Stamp Act to 19 April 1775 demonstrates their appreciation of the political and military realities that they faced. How many provocations did they refuse to answer with violence, preferring to take as much time as they could to lay the groundwork for 19 April when they maneuvered the British into dancing to their tune? Many. They used those provocations to continue to build their case against the King and his ministers, to continue to build their own rival political and military structures, Again, they understood how vital it was for them not to take the first shot, nor even the second or third, but to absorb the blows until they were as fully ready as they could make themselves. That was not cowardice, nor addiction to comfort. It was smart and, in the end, through many other trials, tribulations and sacrifices IT WORKED. The historical record shows that the Confederates, by allowing themselves to be manipulated by Lincoln into firing on Fort Sumter, lost whatever moral high ground they had.
C. So, does this make those of us who are risking our asses standing our ground while defying these new laws of King Barack and his minions on the state level (no new federal laws having been enacted) cowards and comfort addicts, or merely smart, responsible people who rightly fail to jump at the latest "call to action" on the Facebook page of an historically-amnesiac, irresponsible anarchist doper?
This is serious business, people, and ought to be prosecuted by serious people who feel the weight of the responsibility that it entails. When you are talking about initiating another civil war that will stack up bodies by the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or even millions, there is no place for impatience, recklessness or failure to think things through. Contriving to surrender the moral high ground at the beginning of the conflict is to wink at the prospect of the failure of one's own cause. What then IS Kokesh's cause? Anarchy? Yeah, that'll work. But to what purpose and in whose interest? History will judge that. And somewhere the Founders will be weeping in righteous anger and frustration that we paid no attention to their successful template of liberty.
But comparing Kokesh to Captain Parker? Pull the other one.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

"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?

Monday, June 17, 2013

Recommended reading: Bunker Hill -- A City, A Siege, a Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick.

Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, which as we all know was actually fought on Breed's Hill.
Recently my friend Stewart Rhodes sent me a copy of Bunker Hill -- A City, A Siege, a Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick. It is, in short sentence, the best single work I've ever read on the battle, its prelude (including the Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre, the Tea Party, the Powder Alarm and Lexington and Concord) as well as its aftermath.
I most especially recommend it to those generally anonymous posters who quibble with my policy of "No Fort Sumters" and who dispute my contention that the Founders were smart men who understood the necessity of goading the Crown forces into firing first, thereby forcing them to cede the moral high ground to the forces of liberty. They did, in fact, leave us a template for future action to defend the Republic they bequeathed us. Even when they engaged in street violence, these were conservative men who sought to control events with the Boston mob. Their responses to British provocations were measured -- and maddening -- to both the Crown and the Tories:
The appearance of Joyce Junior (MBV: a masked mob leader who actually was the 26 year old son of Harvard professor John Winthrop and descended from THE Winthrops who had founded Massachusetts Bay Colony) in January 1774 appears to have been part of an effort by patriot leaders to control the aftermath of the Tea Party. Unwieldy mob eruptions such as the one that provoked the Boston Massacre inevitably made for bad publicity in both America and England. In an effort to depict the destruction of East India tea as an act of principle rather than of rage, the Tea Party had been minutely choreographed from the start. Joyce Junior was continuing this attempt to channel if not contain the violence.
So, on this anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, get this book and sift its many lessons from the Founders. You will, I think, come to understand that the Founders themselves would have embraced the principle of "No Fort Sumters."
The Death of General Warren at Breed's Hill.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

"The seeds of resistance": Gun Week Interview with Mike Vanderboegh, Part One

Folks,

Here is the Gun Week interview I told you about. Apart from chronically misspelling my name "Vanderbeogh" instead of Vanderboegh (I have taken the liberty of changing it in the transcript) and a couple of minor factual errors (noted below), it is remarkably even-handed and accurate reporting of what I said. I am unused to being quoted correctly and this was a delightful surprise. I have divided this into two parts, and will post Part Two tomorrow.

Mike
III


Gun Week, 15 February 2009, Page 9

The seeds of resistance: Activist, Blogger, Soon a Novelist, Vanderboegh talks to Gun Week

by Dave Workman, Senior Editor

He has crossed philosophical swords with second-generation activist Jeff Knox, and loudly criticized the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

His activities as a member of the Alabama Militia have been scrutinized by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

A letter he sent to a Madison, WI, newspaper warned of armed resistance against increasingly restrictive gun control. His soon-to-be-released novel Absolved, about fighting gun control tyranny, has already garnered something of a cult following thanks to the preview release of several chapters on the Internet.

He has been a high-profile gun rights activist since the early days of the Clinton Administration, and he sees no good at all coming from the new Barack Obama Administration.

Some might imagine Mike Vanderboegh as a disturbed recluse who listens to voices while waiting for Armageddon or a flight of black helicopters.

In reality, 56-year-old Vanderboegh is a family man, 23 years into his second marriage, proud father of a 30-year old son from his first marriage who just returned from the Middle East with the 101st Airborne, and two teenage daughters with his current wife. One is in college and the other is still in high school.

He lives on disability and suffers from congestive heart failure, the result, he jokes, "of 30 years of dissolute living."

"I was not in the military," he says matter-of-factly. "I am a veteran of domestic wars."

Born in St. Joseph, MI, and raised in Ohio, he did not finish college, and admits he was thrown out twice, "once for bad grades and once for causing trouble." Vanderboegh was an anti-Vietnam War activist and admits he even became a communist.

Wrestling For His Soul

All of that changed in 1976 when he was working at the University Hospital in Columbus. A German surgeon who came to the hospital for consultation became fascinated with the Bicentennial, and he began talking to Vanderboegh, promising to "change your mind" about Marxism and America.

"Over the period of a week," Vanderboegh recalled, "he wrestled for my soul, and he won."

He calls it an epiphany.

Part of that battle was learning from the physician about "the incredible tragedy of millions of young men, dying in the snow, each for the devil in his own way." It was an experience that led Vanderboegh to spend almost four years reading the history of the United States.

"I was still politically inactive," he said, "although I voted in every election, until (Bill) Clinton got me off the sidelines."

Divorced in 1985, Vanderboegh worked as a warehouse manager for an aluminum compay, and that was how he met his second wife, who worked then, and still does, selling forklift equipment.

(MBV note: Actually, Workman got that a bit confused. I met Rosey selling her forklift parts over the phone from a Yale dealer I was working for in Columbus -- she was in Birmingham. I didn't start with the aluminum company until some time after I got to Birmingham.)

It was while the couple was raising their new family that Vanderboegh became outraged at the incidents at Ruby Ridge, ID and Waco, TX.

Lightning Rod

Now residing in Pinson, AL, Vanderboegh -- unable to work a regular job but plenty able to pound a keyboard and communicate fluently -- has become a lightning rod in the gun rights movement. A self-confessed "small r" republican and Christian, he is not shy about telling anyone who espouses anti-gun views that a line has been drawn, and government will cross it at its own peril.

He is the "alleged leader" of a hard core gun rights movement that calls itself the Sipsey Street Irregulars, all self-styled "three percenters." A three percenter is defined as someone who will be part of a revolution rather than sit and watch from the sidelines.

(MBV: Well, actually we call it a "restoration.")

This description alludes to the relative handful of Americans who participated in the Revolution of 1776, and "Sipsey Street Irregulars" alludes to the opening sequence of his upcoming novel, depicting a raid by federal agents on a shop owned by a character named Phil Gordon. Gordon's shop is on Sipsey street in Prichard, AL.

(MBV: Actually, it is Phil Gordon's home and I never say the town he lives in. There are a number of real Sipsey Streets in Alabama, and I dare say, a number of Phil Gordons, come to that.)

Vanderboegh epitomozes the "New Wave" of gun rights activism; American citizens who cherish the Second Amendment and are not afraid of discussing its defense against gun grabbers and laws they believe to be unconstitutional. His contemporary and friend, fellow blogger and columnist David Codrea describes Vanderboegh as someone who "makes a lot of gunowners uncomfortable because he forces us to examine the ultimate last resort purpose behind the Second Amendment."

"The kind of rhetoric Mike engages in when he prods us to prepare, intellectually, emotionally, and physically," Codrea observed, "would have been both honored by and familiar to some at the birth of the Republic. No doubt others would have denounced it with horror as radical and base treason."

"No Fort Sumters"

However, Codrea insists that Vanderboegh "is not inciting sedition and not putting up others to starting a fight."

"One of the recurring admonishments to his readers is 'No Fort Sumters,' " Codrea noted. "What he is doing is daring us to think through what we'll need to face if the means of peaceable redress are shut down and the squeezing becomes intolerable."

"I believe in the Constitution," Vanderboegh told Gun Week, "in natural law."

His letter to the Madison newspaper in July 2008 underscored this "reality check" approach, reacting to a man from Cleveland, OH, who suggested the time has come to license and register all guns.

"There are some of us 'cold dead types'," Vanderboegh wrote, "perhaps three percent of gunowners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would."

"Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a 'safer society.' More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not."

"Then quit proposing the next American civil war. We're done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight. Be careful what you wish for."

That letter streaked across the Internet forums. If someone in the gun rights movement hadn't already heard of Vanderboegh, that letter put him on the map.

Novel Hits Nerve

His introductory chapters to Absolved cemented his spot in the movement, almost in the same way as Unintended Consequences made author John Ross a household name to gunowners in the last decade. Where Ross' book told a saga about gun control and the birth of the modern gun rights movement in epic proportions, Absolved, is, by Vanderboegh's own admission, somewhat more intense. He chuckles that he has gotten complaints from preview readers about killing off his characters too quickly. He also jokes that "the body count is higher."

His preview chapters have hit a nerve anong other "three-percenters." So have his blog messages, which can be found at sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com. However, he believes that many people "will (never) do anything more than deal with threats to our liberty by political means."

"I wrote a little fiction story," Vanderboegh said, "called 'The Window War' about how modern Sons of Liberty could make points by smashing the windows of Republicans and Democrats who signed off on more gun control."

"I want gunowners who value their liberty to understand how truly powerful we are," he added.

Yet, he says that power is not being used to prevent attacks upon gun rights.

"We are strong, but lack resolve." Vanderboegh lamented.

He said there are "a lot of three-percenters out there and they don't know they're three-percenters; they will not obey any new gun control law that infringes on their liberty."

He said the anti-gunners want to "ban every rifle above .338 caliber."

"They are fixated on .50-caliber rifles," he contended, "because they view it as a personal threat. There's never been an assassination with a .50-caliber rifle . . . They figure at some point they're going to be held accountable for what they're doing. They see it even if we don't."

Vanderboegh then mused, "Is it so radical to point out the universe as our enemies see it?"

He warned against treating gun control proponents as being simplistic.

"If you view them through this filter that says they're all alike," he cautioned, "then you're going to miss many opportunities to defeat them."

Sunday, June 29, 2014

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.

Monday, December 8, 2008

We Are Expendable, Or, "Giving battle, but on different terms"

We Are Expendable

"You don't understand," said the young naval officer, "we were expendable." He was very earnest as he lolled on the bunk of the officers' quarters of the torpedo station at Newport, along with the other three officers who had also just got out of the Philippines. I admitted I didn't understand.

"Well, it's like this. Suppose you're a sergeant machine-gunner, and your army is retreating and the enemy advancing. The captain takes you to a machine gun covering the road, 'You're to stay here and hold this position,' he tells you. 'For how long?' you ask. 'Never mind,' he answers, 'just hold it.' Then you know you're expendable. In a war, anything can be expendable -- money or gasoline or equipment or most usually men. They are expending you and that machine gun to get time. They expect you to stay there and spray that road with steel until you're killed or captured, holding up the enemy for a few minutes or even a precious quarter of an hour.

"You know the situation -- that those few minutes gained are worth the life of a man to your army. So you don't mind it. . ." -- They Were Expendable, W.L. White, 1942


In the interests of clarification of what Three Percenters stand for, I present the piece of mine below, Resolve, from last month. I would also like to add this little preface to it.

We have been called "insurrectionists" by the prags (among other things). Insurrection, in case you were wondering, is defined as "an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government." The key word here, and the action which our opponents wish to impute to us is "rising." As in the Irish Easter Rising of 1916. That is, the unilateral assault of revolutionary forces upon a government at the time and places of the insurrectionists' choosing.

If you read Resolve, you wll see that this is not what I have in mind, summed up in the injunction, "No Fort Sumters."

The prags allege that our strategy is flawed, either because we will lose political legitimacy by attacking first, or setting ourselves up for failure by sitting in our houses and letting ourselves be picked off one by one. Both of course are wrong.

Our model is rather Lexington and Concord. The British marched out, not intending to start a war but merely to carry out a lightning strike as they had during the Powder Alarm of 1774 and to be back in Boston before the "provincials" could react. They also intended to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock along the way.

No one knows who fired the first shot. It could have been someone from either side. The Lexington militia under Captain John Parker were certainly not given any order to fire and it is a matter of historical fact that the British officers lost control of their troops. In any case, the blame fell to the British because they had come to the home turf of the provincials.

Parker's injunction to his troops is our own as well, "Don't fire unless fired upon." The British had a choice that April morning. The road forked and the Lobsters could have ignored the militia and marched down the left fork, without a confrontation. The vanguard chose the right fork and found, and later lost, a war.

But after the British onslaught and the militia "unassed the a.o." as they say in certain quarters today, the colonials were treated to British cheers and an 800 musket volley of celebration. As David Hackett Fischer described it in Paul Revere's Ride:

In the houses and woods along the road, the people of Lexington listened bitterly to the British cheers and began to count their dead. seven Lexington men had been killed and also one of the Yankee prisoners taken on the road, the unlucky Woburn man who was shot while "trying to escape." Nine other Lexington men were wounded, some severely. The toll was heavy in that small town. Eight pairs of fathers and sons had mustered on the Common. Five of those eight were shattered by death. Most families in that small community suffered the loss of a kinsman -- if not a father or son, then an uncle or cousin.

As the British troops disappeared into the west, the people of the town gathered on the Common. There was at first a sense of shock, a terrible numb and empty feeling of cruel and bitter loss. Then there was another raw emotion: deep, consuming, abiding anger. The people of Lexington asked themselves, who were these arrogant men in their proud red coats? By what right did they act as they did?

Other militiamen were now arriving from the far corners of the town. Those who had slept through the alarm began to appear, weapons in hand. Captain Parker mustered his company once again on the bloody ground. There were not sixty militia as before, but twice that number. The men were silent, grim and pensive. Most had lost friends and relatives only a few minutes before. Some wore bloody bandages. A few had faces and shirts blackened by powder stains. Their weapons were no better than before, but they replenished their ammunition from the dwindling store in the meetinghouse.

This time there were no consultations of debates. With a few terse words of command, Captain Parker ordered his company to fall in. The men were no longer in doubt about what to do. They were ready to give battle again, BUT ON DIFFERENT TERMS. (Emphasis supplied, MBV.)


The unlucky militiamen who were killed at the first fire of the British and in the headlong rush to get away by British bayonets, were, to use the phrase of the torpedo boat officer, "expendable." They were expendable by accident, for they certainly didn't intend to get shot that morning while merely standing in formation. But they were expendable by necessity as well.

They had to die at the first, there on Lexington Green, so that all their countrymen would know from that point on that it was a war of defense against Crown tyranny. They had to recieve the first fire, and they did.

And this is what the prags do not understand about us Three Percenters. We view ourselves as expendable. We don't want to. On the whole, as Mark Twain's candidate for the hanging said, if it weren't for the honor of the thing we'd rather skip it. Yet we know that someone must go first. Whoever it is will be chosen by our enemies, by the enemies of liberty and the Constitution, and not by ourselves. By taking the position that we do, it is not that we volunteer for suicide. We merely understand that to have principles means that eventually you cannot back away from them. Eventually, someone has to stand. And, in the nature of things, someone must be first. Like the machine-gunner at the crossroads, we can only hope that the sacrifice will not have been in vain.

And then, like Captain Parker's Minutemen, those of us who are still standing after the first fire will be ready, in overwhelming numbers, to give battle again, but on different terms -- Our terms. And on our terms, we will restore the Founders' Republic. If our opponents do wish to go here, they should take the other fork in the road. Or, better yet, stay in Boston.

So, for those of you who missed it the first time, or were a bit hazy about what I meant when you did, kindly read "Resolve."

Mike Vanderboegh
III


http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/11/vanderboegh-resolve.html

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Resolve

by Mike Vanderboegh

5 November 2008

"Change has come to America." -- Barack Hussein Obama

"Revolution"


If I may, I'd like to begin my first essay of the Obama regime by thanking U.S. Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, for clarifying matters.

As reported in Michael Calderone's Politico.com blog, there was "an emotional moment on ABC News, as Georgia Congressman and Civil Rights leader John Lewis told Charlie Gibson that today's election was 'a nonviolent revolution.'"

Well, yes, thank you. But revolution against what? Overturning what? The name-calling, nervous-nellie opposition bloggers within the dyspeptic "Second Amendment community" have been accusing us Three Precenters of seeking a revolution. My thanks to Rep. Lewis for reminding us that the revolutionists, Gramscian and otherwise, are on the collectivist side of this argument, thus proving my point that we are in fact Restorationists.

All we seek is the restoration of the Founder's Republic.

Death Knell: "The masks are going to come off."

There is of course much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the "pragmatists" about the utter failure of their politics. Indeed, as I know from personal emails, there is even despair and some panic in some of my fellow Three Percenters. I am grateful to my good e-friend "thedweeze" for forwarding this commentary from Perry de Havilland in London.

It says much of what I was going to say and does it more clearly and with fewer words.

Unlike many, well, most of my compatriots, I am not filled with a deep sense of gloom and foreboding at the prospect of the most left wing president since FDR gaining the White House. In truth, I can see many reasons to think it may well be a far better outcome than if a Big State Republican like McCain won.

Of course Obama will bring an avalanche of policies that will be truly appalling and quite wicked, of that I have no doubt, much like his predecessors in office in that respect. As the global economy continues to come unglued, everything Obama does to deal with the mounting crises will I fact make things worse. Civil liberties will be hammered, all in the name of 'fairness', and the flood of regulations pertaining to every aspect of economic life will grow into a drowning ocean.

And that is actually the good news.

Why? Because in truth the Republicans under John "I support the bailout" McCain would scarcely have done much better. The economic global meltdown is only just starting to roll: if you think the sub-prime mortgage crisis was the biggie, just wait until you see the fallout from the fun and frolics of the impending mess in other areas, such as debt swaps. This is all going to get worse, a lot worse, and Obama is going to do absolutely everything to dig the holes deeper. Looking back on this period ten to twenty years from now, the Republicans crying into their beer tonight will be saying "thank Christ it was not us in office then".

The lesser evil is not going to win this time and much as it may not seem that way now... or any time soon I suspect... in the long run this has a far far better chance of leading to the rebirth of a genuine pro-liberty, pro-market political culture that the gradual incremental surrender of recent times made impossible.

Many will find the glee of the statist left over the next few days and weeks hard to endure, but to be honest I have been walking around with a grin all day. Finally the era of gradualism is over and the masks are going to come off. The USA has voted for statism and it is going to get exactly what it voted for at a juncture in history where it will very quickly be impossible to hide the cost of those votes.

Obama is not the start of a new era - he is the death knell for the old one.


I agree, although I hasten to add the little prayer, "From his mouth to God's ears."


"Entering the Grey Zone"


Some of you might think that de Havilland and I are engaging in pollyannaish wishful thinking given the crisis we are about to face. However, it is not only gunnies of various stripes who are panicked at the thought of an Obama presidency.

An old friend of mine called me the other day to report that an FBI agent in the west had confessed his fears at church last Sunday. Obama, he worried aloud, was going to shove him and his agency where he did not wish to go. They were, he feared, "entering the grey zone." Now there is more than one way to interpret those words, but he made one thing explicit. He had zero interest in dying for the cause of gun confiscation. No doubt such thoughts are flickering through many minds in the federal law enforcement bureaucracy at this moment.

This is something for us Three Percenters to keep in mind. He fears the scenario of my novel "Absolved."

You know, "Absolved" is but the first of a trilogy. I will make a tiny news ripple here by saying that the titles of the follow-on books are "Resolved" and "Dissolved." As with everything else I write, this is grounded in the history of the Founding generation.

On 7 June 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a three-part resolution to Congress, which read in part:

RESOLVED, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are ABSOLVED from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally DISSOLVED.

As a scribbler, I love the English language. We use one word in so many different ways and having so many different meanings that they become elements of logical poetry - sometimes illogical poetry if you believe any of my many critics.

Take the word "resolve."

Here are some definitions of 'resolve' on the Web:

- decide: bring to an end; settle conclusively; as in "The case was decided"

- conclude: reach a conclusion after a discussion or deliberation

- purpose: reach a decision; as in "he resolved never to be fooled again"

- answer: understand the meaning of; as in "The question concerning the size of Senator Schumer's ego cannot be answered"

- make clearly visible; as in "can this image be resolved?"

- find the solution; as in "solve an equation"

- resoluteness: the trait of being resolute; as in "his resoluteness carried him through the battle"

Resoluteness, purpose, decision, visibility, solution. These are multiple meanings but each has black-and-white clarity.

And make no mistake, it is our resolve which will carry us through "the grey zone." Let others doubt. We Three Percenters must not. We must be purposeful, resolute and decisive, even when the "pragmatists" are running around like chickens with their heads cut of, or slumping disconsolately in the corner as if someone pulled the plug on their video game.

No "Fort Sumters"

My Wolverine Grandpa used to say, 'When in peril or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." He usually said it ironically when someone nearby was doing exactly that. He also would offer, "It might help if he flapped his arms." This is what is happening in many corners of our nation today, and it is exactly and precisely what we must not do.

Here, I think, is what we must do:

1. "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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Which brings me to another component of the moral high ground:

4. And no OKC Bombings. The terrorist bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building on 19 April 1995 was more than the operation of "lone wolf" McVeigh, but I am not here to argue that largely undiscovered history.

Even if we accept the FBI explanation for it (and I do not), McVeigh targeted a building filled with non-combatants including a day care full of babies that could be plainly seen from the street or in a cursory reconnaissance of the building. It was simple terrorism and was used by the Clintonistas to discredit all their enemies, up to and including Rush Limbaugh.

So here's a warning for all you people who are seduced by the dialectic of 'The Turner Diaries'.

If you claim to fight monsters, it is important not to become one yourself. And I say to my fellow sheepdogs, that if you find someone who claims to be one of us turning feral, rip his throat out. This is the latest installment of the eternal struggle between sheepdogs and wolves.

Sheepdogs do not prey on sheep. They kill wolves.

Keep the difference firmly in mind.

5. Be patient. The raids do not begin tomorrow. It will take some time for the new regime to begin to suck up its courage, lay the "legal" predicate for its unconstitutional actions, tighten its grip and begin to squeeze.

We still have time to prepare, recruit, organize, train.

If, that is, we have resolve.

As a good old friend of mine just reminded me, this is not new. Like the Israelites, the American people have asked for a King and one has been given to them.

But I recall that the Founders went into battle, crying "No King but Jesus!" My agnostic and libertarian friends would doubtless choke on the last two words of that battle cry.

Let us at least agree on "No King!"

Let us also be prepared, trained, and patient -- but holding on ready. Let us never cede the moral high ground nor become the monsters we fight. But if our enemies insist upon it, let us fight for and let us win the restoration of the Founders' Republic.

In a word, let us be resolved.

Monday, August 15, 2016

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."


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.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

On the proper response to Connecticut tyranny going operational. "Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!"

The night is gathering gloomily, the day is closing fast --
The tempest flaps his raven wing in loud and angry blast;
The thunder clouds are driving athwart the lurid sky --
But "put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry."
-- "Oliver's Advice," a poem by William Blacker, 1834.
Folks,
I was taken to task by several readers for my violation of Godwin's Law in my letter to Darth Vance yesterday. My reply? "You know, if you don't ACT like a Nazi, you won't be mistaken for one." The Connecticut situation, and especially Vance's "un-American" and "I am the master" comments, have raised people's hackles like nothing I've seen in a while. Everyone is trying to figure out how they can help.
I have been overwhelmed by emails offering military help for Connecticut should it come to guns. These emails also ask for any contacts I have in that state so they can coordinate with them ahead of time. Aside from the OPSEC considerations this raises for those Three Percenters behind enemy lines, I am unconvinced that this is the proper course for folks living outside that state.
My thoughts on the subject are contained in the email response below to one such patriot petitioner.
-----Original Message-----
From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: REDACTED
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:31 am
Subject: Re: The Connecticut situation
J.,
While the dedication is admirable, I disagree with the OPLAN. I will be writing of this later today, but as my friend Bob Wright once told an FBI SAC in Albuquerque NM when he asked Bob if he would take his men out of state to the site of another potential Waco: "Why would I want to do that? There's plenty of you federal sonsabitches around here."
It is my belief that once initiated anywhere, including -- especially -- CT, the state trying to disarm its population would find itself in deep excrement instantly and would call for federal assistance. This would turn a nominally local beef (which actually it never was except in the same way that Lexington and Concord was a "local beef" in that it started in a locality first and immediately spread to other states) into a national one.
With the intervention of the feds in CT, the civil war becomes national and you -- and the citizens of CT -- are much better served by operating in your own AOs which you know and tying down federal resources there. Hypothetically, since the tyrants have taken the first shots they have relieved you of the moral responsibility for their deaths in legitimate self-defense, using 4th Generation Warfare tactics according to Three Percent rules -- targeting warmakers and decision takers only, no OKCs, no terroristic "collateral damage" of anyone other than legitimate targets. A successful appeal by CT state authorities to the Feds would actually DECREASE the federal resources available to them by starting trouble in all the states -- a national civil war. That is what is on the line in CT.
Bob's statement to the FBI was wise. Actually, traveling to the scene of conflict in another state would expose those who wish to help to defeat in detail by means of the tried-and-true LEO tactic of the traffic stop, one car or caravan at a time.
Stay strong, in your own AO, and get ready for the fight. If it comes to CT, it will come to you. Trust me. Be careful playing with hypotheticals and OPLANS that can be used against you by the inevitable informers and agents provocateurs, and simply increase your readiness to respond locally to a national fight for liberty initiated by the tyrants.
"Trust in the Lord, and keep your powder dry."
Mike
III
In addition to this, there has been much breast-beating on the discussion boards and blogs, similar to this comment (never accepted) on a post of mine regarding New York's tyranny.
"4GW means that not only the "only ones", but their families are at risk if cold should turn to hot."
No. No. NO. NO! How many times do I have to say it? From the 4GW link cited above:
However, a 4GW civil war waged by men and women who are loyal to the Founders’ concepts would not fight an unrestrained Al Qaeda campaign but one specifically targeted to spare civilians and to target the war decision makers. The next American civil war will either successfully break new ground in 4GW tactics and techniques or it will descend into a welter of blood and massacre. Governments have a tendency to do that when they’re losing. The 4GW warriors who claim to represent the Founders’ Republic will have to require of themselves far more discipline and intelligence -- no Fort Sumters and no Oklahoma City bombings.
Moral legitimacy is everything -- from refusal to fire the first shots to thoughtful rules of engagement tailored to American circumstances. If all you do is become the monster you claim to fight, you've lost before you've begun.
Be smart. Be prepared. Train harder. See to your logistics -- and to your own AO. Put your trust in God, my boys (and girls), and keep your powder dry. Keep your wits, and your restraint about you. It will pay off in the end, should this tyrannical power grab come to guns, Lord forbid.
Mike
III

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Some "No Fort Sumter" follow-up questions.

Bill Mullins asks:

"Now, Dutchman, I want to know if I can resist the black-BDU-gang BEFORE they actually kill one of us or do I have to wait for them to actually kill one of us first."


You can "resist" them by your refusal to comply. But you can only resist them by force of arms (which is I think what you're asking) after one, or more than one, of us is dead by their hands.

They have to cross the line and that means dead bodies on our side. It is the only way. The fact that some of us are willing to accept those rules as the price of the game does not mean that all are. I understand that.

Now, I am NOT saying that if they attack you, you have to stand there and take it. That's ridiculous. You have the absolute right to defend yourself and your property with deadly force.

Bob Wright and I were chatting about this topic the other day and he repeated something that he always said over the years -- that when it does kick off it will be over something that no one expects, in a place they would last guess, over an issue that comes as a surprise to everyone, except in retrospect.

But yes, I am saying that somebody on our side's got to die a victim of federal aggression before the rest of us take it as a tripwire and respond.

Because this tripwire could be literally anybody over just about any infringement ought to make the jack booted thugs more cautious. So far, there is little concrete evidence of that.

So, for now, I will continue to wave my arms and insult the interstellar cockroach, yelling, "Eat me!" It is not fair to propose the gambit if you are unwilling to be the bait yourself.

LATER:

We also have this --

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ""No Fort Sumters" means exactly that.":

Haven't they killed enough people already? Why do you want to wait for ONE more? Are you afraid to right what has already been done? Or are you just afraid to commit your humming bird ass to your aligator mouth?


Well, my brave anonymous friend, it is actually "hummingbird" and "alligator." And since I live what I preach and put my name on it every day, and if I am willing to be that "one more," tell me, brave boy, what is it that you are doing? Really? You don't even have the stones to put a name on your insult. What a wuss.

Mike
III