Additional Pages

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

God Help Us

Let me state quite clearly that the previous post, Naivete, was not written to call for a leader, it was to expose some issues concerning leadership. My statement was that we need a leader, what needs to be done cannot be done arbitrarily, it must be done deliberately, with planning and tactics and overall strategy. We are too small in number to be effective otherwise.

Yes, if we were being invaded by a clear enemy with different uniforms and ways of speech, we could in a very random and arbitrary way resist by whatever means available. We could individually identify and clearly see our target and what could be done, with the assistance of other citizens who are also quite concerned with the invasion, perhaps.

But, we are not. We don't even know who the enemy is for sure, it might be the next door neighbor, or he might think it is us.

While I might often state things as questions, or play devil's advocate to inspire the debate, believe me, I have no misunderstanding of the issue. We need a leader. Now we might engage in any number of debates along those lines, who, when, how, etc. But the fact of it is not in dispute as far as I can tell.

The key issue, then, is who among us is acceptable to all? None? Okay, who is acceptable to most? None? Okay, of those who are acceptable to the few willing to follow them, why are they acceptable? The answer to that will have a million different reasons all pointing to the fact that few if any of us are willing to look at the other's favorite as ours.

The point of the debate was to expose the fact that when one leader gains favor here, for these reasons, he will necessarily lose favor there, for those reasons. We need a leader, but we are unwilling to be led by anyone except those we choose and for our reasons.

My purpose for raising the debate was not to call for a leader, but to expose the fact that as it stands, we cannot be led.

"Give it time, many more will have to become angry, much angrier than they are now and when that point occurs a leader will step forward."

This is undeniable truth, I believe it with my whole heart.

The difficulty I am having with it is that this will be a flash, not a slow fuse and the sort of people prepared to rise will be the worst of all leaders for our movement, not to get things straightened out, I believe someone will rise and sort things out, give people the peace of mind so rudely and recently ripped from them with the turmoil. But, he will not be "our" guy, will probably not believe in the Constitution at all. He will do us much more harm than we can imagine. But, he will make the trains run on time.

"And, that will produce the leader from our midst!"

Sorry, the train will have left the station as far as the rest of our would-be supporters are concerned. We are back to the numbers we have now, but with much less freedom of communication, much less liberty in general and probably hunted down individually for the very actions we take now to preserve the rights and liberties that are duly ours.

If we have years, by all means, build tribe, educate, persuade, cajole, anything that brings them around. Be prepared to pull them towards us for training as they wake when their own ox is gored, when finally they have cancelled television programming, or so drastically altered it that Dancing With The Stars cannot be aired.

But, if you woke up tomorrow, as we woke up in 2009, only this time the system did melt down, the European Union dissolved, the poor suddenly multiplied by millions overnight, tycoons jumped from buildings, crashed their planes, hung themselves, etc. The world called on America to put them back on track, but it was unable, broke, suddenly trembling on very wobbly supports itself. To who then would they turn? China? At what price? Do you think they won't pay it?

America, then, alone, suffering from riots and disorder. Banks closed, savings lost. Do we then step in front of the steam roller, the raging mobs of terrified people lost without a debit card, starving and looting and say: "The Constitution will save you? Here, come on our side, we have food and shelter?"

No, we will have to have been much better organized long before that, years ago.

I believe we are not far from 2009 again (certainly not three years, maybe not even three months) and it won't unfold as a well told story, each part in its place, but as a chaotic flash where the cries of even 300 patriots go unnoticed and discredited as the source of all the people's discomfort. "Without the limits of the Constitution, we could have solved this much sooner! Down with the Constitution."

That's what I think and why many of us who would like to be choosy about a leader, ought to seriously and honestly stop to think that the opportunity to spread the Gospel of Liberty is fading, if not gone already. I think we should be figuring out how to battle those who will come to power with the specific and popular purpose to put an end to all of this Constitution nonsense and just let the government do what it needs to, to help the people.

God help us.

19 comments:

  1. I think there are two parties of thought.

    You either believe that "we're fucked and there's nothing we can do about it" or you think there's still hope.

    Personally I'm on the side of inevitability and am more interested in surviving and thriving in what is to come.

    There are very few options for people who believe there is still possibility for a change in course and none of those options are any good.

    Perhaps more topics on creating new Constitutional political frameworks and philosophies to be used in our communities of the future?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "and just let the government do what it needs to, to help the people."

    But the Gov't is not here to help us. That is very clear.

    Pickdog
    III

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. D,

    One cannot be a leader to those who do not want to be led; who don't desire to organize. An organization needs a leader. But a leader needs an organization. To me its the chicken or the egg. Which comes first ?

    I have a handful of individuals in my AO who believe the SHTF sooner than later. When I implored them to attend your Mercer Summit they chose not to. One made a remark to another that "Dan will be there, thats all we need". Those folks live 60 minutes from Mercer. Sad.

    One can't lead those who don't want to be led. Personally, I don't have the desire to beg those who have an awareness of impending troubles, to organize into a local, cohesive entity. Begging is not in my nature.

    No leader exists for those who don't desire leadership. Leadership is work. It is tiring. It is burdensome. Most of all, it is thankless. Been there. Done that.

    As I stated in your earlier essay, when it starts raining incoming all that matters is who is on your left, who is on your right, and what one can see to their front. Organizing even that simple team is an endeavor easier said than done.

    Who is on your left ? Who is on your right ? And do you have clear observation to your front ? If you can answer those 3 questions knowing you have your flanks covered and a clear LOS, you are better off than most.

    Thanks for all you do. You're appreciated.

    DAN III
    Pennsylvania

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tricky TL,

    Making folks think. Making people examine the Movement and its purpose. Got my wheels turning for sure. What I see is clear,
    our Sinn Fein is stuck in the mud of politics. Biting and clawing at each other over semantics, religion, philosophy and rules for a fight that is half over.

    Meanwhile the Provos continue to do what we have always done, train, prepare, network and occasionally die in a hail of bullets or go to prison as a POW. You are right, "God help us"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our leader is within each of us. The sheep will not be led but by officialdom, and the III will not be led but by themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "My purpose for raising the debate was not to call for a leader, but to expose the fact that as it stands, we cannot be led."

    Right, and the rational man NEVER fights facts. Craig had it--"Our leader is within each of us." Begin at the beginning, and that's the beginning. Liberty is just the acknowledgement of that fact, in a social context.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As things get sporty, the action will be at the fire team and squad levels in everyone's half-tank-of-gas AO.

    If you have a fire team, you are lucky.

    Don't think officers.

    Think competent NCOs.

    And I would argue anyone reading these words ought to be learning how to be one.

    And consider this post:

    http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/so-you-say-you-want-a-leader/

    Resist.

    -- ca

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cart before the horse, indeed.

    Remember that the American Revolution started as a confederacy of night watchman states, and slowly devolved to what we have today. Unless a culture of voluntary interaction takes hold, history will repeat itself. And all the rifle fighting in the world will ultimately amount like pissing in the wind. Yet I see so many calls to save the Republic, save the Constitution...

    "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

    I would also strongly argue that the liberty movement doesn't need a top-down organization with leaders. Keep building tribe. Bottom-up organization is good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No one can be led until they make up their minds to be so led. Subordination to leadership is a depleting of ones independance. I've done it, and I didn't die. As long as it's temporary, it should work. Leaderless cults or units flayling away at organized and led opposition are referred to in history as, The Losers. I too, used to be discouraged, and exasperated, as well as stumped. Then I got busy, and no matter how many times I banged my head into the wall, I didn't quit. The end result being, that he who tries, wins. Either you go for it, or stay at home.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sandman, thank you. At least I feel like I got through to someone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I give the patriot movement a… 1 in 10 chance.

    Seriously. I think America was Gods way of showing mankind that he was not fit for liberty. Even for the “patriot movement.” At least until the “patriot movement” learns what it means to govern themselves. You have to remember that most of today’s “patriots” are a reflection of their me-education.

    For example:

    “…individual liberty and freedom has its limitations.”

    Response:

    “Limitations by whom? Please don’t come back with any of that mob appeal bullshit.”

    This is the type of idiocy that permeates throughout the “patriot movement.”

    Good luck. Because when the time comes, many “patriots” will form roaming gangs of license rather than groups and militias to restore our republic.

    Me. Me, me. Me, me, me me. That's what liberty is all about!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there's such a wide "me-education," then why does nearly everyone, including you, plead for anything but? I haven't heard a lot of selfishness talk coming from the commie-libs, or any other sort of statist...have you?

      If you don't mind sharing, exactly for whom or what do you imagine that liberty applies? IOW in YOUR life, who is to be the beneficiary? Or is there even meant to be a beneficiary?

      You've made it clear that you think it's "idiocy" that liberty applies to "me, me, me, me, me." So do tell---to whom DOES it apply?

      Delete
    2. Those of "US" who want it moron. Gawd! It's "YOU"... AGAIN!

      Delete
    3. In fact Jim, after reading much of your comments, I am beginning to believe you are a piker. One of the many monkey wrenches throwing themselves into the patriot movement.

      You are exactly the type of person in whom I am talking about there above... Me, me, me, me, me... It is not about liberty for us... it is all about you. Well crap, go get some liberty for yourself since it is all about YOU. It's not about us. It is not about the whole collective patriot movement. It is about YOU and YOUR liberty. To hell with everyone else... because, well... everyone else is not YOU. It's me, me, me, me, me! It's not "we want our liberty." It is "I want my liberty." Me, me.

      For you Jim and your friends:

      Chew on this for awhile… while looking in the mirror:

      While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

      Are you a servant of corruption?

      I believe you are. And the "liberty" movement is full of your... kind.


      And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, ...we... ...mutually... pledge to ...each... ...other... ...our... lives, ...our... fortunes, and ...our... sacred honor.

      Certainly, it wasn't a one man show of me, me, me, me.

      Personally, I think you should try as hard as you can to get over your thunking... or go somewhere else to play.

      You will never get it Jim. Your mind is corrupted.

      Delete
    4. Sorry if I confused you. No, I don't believe 330 million people should be focused on serving Jim Klein. Is that really what you thought I meant?

      The "me, me, me..." is about what EACH PERSON should be doing. You don't wanna do that? That's cool with me. Do whatever the hell you want but keep your paws off me. Is that really so tough? Do you understand that's ALL the Founders were after? They wanted to pray how they wanted, work how they wanted, trade how they wanted.

      I don't even care that theirs is not the world you want. Have whatever world you create. Surely you can live your life without me in it; I know I can live mine without you. Where's the problem?

      And who the hell is, "Those of 'US' who want it moron"?? Are those the people you determine "want it" in the proper fashion? Are they the ones who sign the magic pledge? Who the hell owns you, anyway? And by extension, who the hell owns your property?

      That shouldn't be so tough, directly answering a few questions from someone you judge to be a moronic, idiotic, mentally corrupted lightweight. So answer them.

      Delete
  12. See you in Washington, DC
    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/stand-up-for-liberty-and-all-else-will-fall-into-place/

    ReplyDelete
  13. "In fact Jim, after reading much of your comments, I am beginning to believe you are a piker."

    Sorry, I forgot that one. Noted.


    "One of the many monkey wrenches throwing themselves into the patriot movement."

    If one guy typing ideas on a computer is throwing a "monkey wrench" into your "patriot movement," while millions of armed military and LEO are trying to obliterate it, then you gotta helluva problem.

    Maybe you're doing, or believing, something wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes Jim, "they" were a collective bunch. It was about “we” and “mutually” and “our” and “other.” The declaration never mentions "you" or "I" or "me."

    And no Jim, it isn't about you. The "patriot movement" is full of you's (i.e. me). You are just one of many. But like I said, I don't expect you to get it. Always learning and never able to come to the truth. The truth does not need to be reinvented Jim.

    When the "movement" becomes bigger than "me," maybe we'll get somewhere. No?

    Maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The declaration never mentions 'you' or 'I' or 'me.'"

    No? Then whom are they mentioning here...

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    What is it that you're saying has life and liberty, and pursues happiness? Everyone else? Cities? Everyone you like?

    It's not you, it's not me. It's not any single individual according to you. So who the hell is it, exactly?

    ReplyDelete