Additional Pages

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Conspiracy of the Ignorant and Evil

I believe that Romney will be elected. I expect there to be a collective sigh of relief from business people all over the nation. Obamacare will be repealed, though popular aspects of it will live on to haunt us all and set precedent. Repeal and Replace is the cry from Romney, proving that he is all that I thought he was, less liberal than a Marxist. So, why do I support him?

Because we as a movement are not ready to play real hardball over liberty. We are shamefully hesitant, even me. I don't need to be the one holding the flag at the end of the day, I understand that one must fall so that another can succeed. None of that is foreign to me.

Here's the real deal: I don't want to make the ultimate sacrifice without my positions, without my purpose being known. This is why I have called for leadership in the Patriot/Liberty Movement, because someone has to tell the stories of those making the sacrifices, or they are in vain. We cannot rally the troops by being a one-day headline, it has to mean something.

In war people are asked to take risks. They do so, because they believe in something. Maybe, in the moment, they only believe in defending their squad, or their position, it hardly ever goes to the bigger picture when those times come. In the moment they are in a place where they are under attack, where the path to relieve that attack is clear and the only thing left to do is act, they do. Yet, they do so with the backing of their nation. Their larger motives are known.

It is easy for the powers that be to denigrate us all as extremists, as nuts, as uneducated. The average American, struggling just to survive, will accept any explanation that relieves them of action themselves. "Oh yeah, those nuts, etc, etc." To cast us in the real light of being genuinely concerned and alarmed about the rights all of us have lost would work against those guilty of abuses. It is a disconnected sort of conspiracy of the ignorant and evil.

Every American should stand up for the rights that so many others have died to secure. That seems simple enough, it costs them nothing, but they don't do it because they are encased in social cocoons where stability and security are predominant in their thinking.

We are a rich nation in comfort and leisure. We watch sports and feel connected; we watch the same television shows and feel connected; we believe the same news stories and feel connected (even when the stories we watch are almost opposite of another segment of society). We work, we provide for our children and we try to figure out how to make it to the end of our lives in the best possible situation. There is nothing wrong with that, but when that becomes the sole purpose for survival, we have lost the true vision of our founders, which is to thrive as independent, free souls.

No, not everyone is going to fight for such lofty ideals. They didn't in the first go-round with Britain, but the people knew what George Washington stood for, what men like John Hancock had staked on the outcome. They saw sacrifice and while I'm sure it terrified them, they knew what was being fought over.

This is why there will be no help from the media or the politicians of the day, they are guilty.

We need identity. We need for others to understand our positions. No one will sacrifice where that sacrifice is meaningless. I would like to believe that we would rally to the defense of those who take the risks, but I have seen, like many others, the Hutaree hang alone. Yes, they were depicted as one thing in a corrupt media, they were also exonerated. I don't pretend to know them, or fully understand their actions or intent, but I do know they projected a belief in a lot of the principles we talk about on a daily basis and they were abandoned.

We are, by design, exactly what they want us to be: individuals, isolated, defamed and neutralized. With the election of Romney we have the chance to prove that it is not just Barack Obama that stirred our blood and fueled our motives, but the abuses of government alone. If there is one single reason to vote for Romney, it ought to be that.

Overall, we need to figure out how to be associated without that association providing legal consequences. We need to openly display our colors. We need to seriously address the issues of the day and that requires a degree of coordination, of planning, of a voice. Is the III the banner we will hold aloft? Is it something we can proudly display? Can the III brand compete with and challenge the Tea Party for political equivalence? I know many might not understand what I mean by that. Clearly the Tea Party has the political clout, but they don't know how to manage it, they don't know how to wield power. They don't know how to be the face of Sinn Fein.

I'm open for discussion on these points and others.


  1. Great questions TL.

    Bill Nye

  2. Personally I never really thought of the III as a political organization. But a recourse when such organizations eventually fail us. As a political movement we are years behind and years yet away from having any influence... Although with the number of events occurring almost every day, that seem to incite those warm fuzzies in the hearts of freedom lovers. Maybe it wouldn't be that hard? There are many different ways to influence things.
    Winds of change?
    Or concussion.

    1. Well, the III is not in a place right now too do much, but there are a lot of disillusioned Tea Party types. There are many who are moore militant, but who are denied action by leadership. I suggest an alternative for them.

    2. We provide a home for the disillusioned, the fed up, the unafraid. And yet... also for those terrified of action. Comfort goes a long way to prevent action. As long as there are lazy-boys, futons and cable 75% of us will never do a damn thing. If people aren't motivated by fear and rage what will it take? Pain? Loss? Terrorists see a recruiting wave after every loss of civilian life at the hands of our war machine.
      We lose innocent people to swat raids and "Officer Safety" every day. It's just not personal enough yet. Theres a little saying around EMS to help newbies stay calm. - It's not your emergency. Truly the case here.

  3. God Bless TL,

    The "Provos" have been in the fight for decades. Dozens of us have been imprisoned, impoverished and killed. We may not be running and gunning in the streets yet, but we still keep them busy.

    We have watched the "Liberty,Tea-Party and Patriot Movements"
    Hoping for them to pick up the political/economic struggle.
    We have been repeatedly disappointed. The Militia are still treated as the "Ugly Gal at the Ball" by many involved in The Movement. We get ZERO logistical/financial or legal/moral support.

    Until our "Sinn Fein" steps up to provide political leadership and legitimacy (the very things the Militia SHOULD NOT provide) we will continue to stalk the shadows, train and prep and occasionally tilt at .gov entrapped windmills.(for the low hanging militia fruit).

    The III and Tea Party ARE Sinn Fein, they need to damn well start acting like it. (ie: quit jousting with sparklies, quit knee capping each other, quit dissecting mushy frogs of dogma and philosophy. They just need to STAND together period.

    1. Well stated sandman.


  4. Marc that is a two way street. You can't build tribe by doing nothing and hindering others.

    Bill Nye

  5. I'm winging it here, thinking off-the-cuff, so bear with me.
    It seems to me building tribe is the most important thing we can do. If the Hutaree were tribe to you, you might have stood with them. Those who tribe with Bill Nye would step up if he were targeted by .gov.

    As I told TL a year or so ago, when he spoke of being described by .gov as a criminal if/when they decided to target him, those who the Govs would destroy, they first vilify. They call them terrorists, or child molesters, or tax cheats, or some other perjorative term, to drive their friends and family away.

    But those he is tribe with would know the truth, and would step forward to stand with him, or at least to let the truth be known. Those who do _not_ step forward to stand beside him "would hold their manhoods cheap".

    I don't envision any way to nationalize us such that we (this large group of individualists) will move and act together - as we should have when David Olofson was arrested for a malfunctioning weapon, or when BATF and the FBI attacked and immolated those at Waco. No, it will only happen with a tribe, with those known personally to each other, with a band of brothers who step forward to support, to fight for their personal tribe.

  6. The problem is not so much 'building tribe' as is the reasons behind the building of the tribe in question as well as why the vision of 'tribe' is so much more important than the vision of 'Restoration'.

    If you examine the group mentioned, Hutaree, some who knew them (and their own web site) emphatically stated that Hutaree's hope was to be in place when 'the end times' came and then start to convert 'by the sword' those remained and then who got in their way. Anyone who had anything to do with them even once knew that score, and that's they had no network and why nobody went to their aid (even those they called for help).

    I don't know Bill Nye except from what I have read a good while ago on his blog (and haven't been there for a long time), so I can't really judge what his beliefs are other than home preparedness. Reason for not going there? He's got his own thing going, which is fine. I don't come here much, maybe monthly, and rarely comment, because there's no movement toward the objective. It is what it is, as they like to say, and that's no stone being thrown at anyone; just my perception, so take it FWIW.

    The point of the above is to illustrate that we shouldn't be building towards 'tribe' (which is really a primitive municipal organization), but rather trying to develop the core standard upon which all can agree that an attack on it would require the response of all.

    In our Revolutionary War, there were several, but all could agree on each: "No King but Jesus!" was one (religious freedom). "No taxation without Representation!" (limiting wealth redistribution) was reputed to be another. I'm sure people here could come up with a few more that were widely accepted.

    The positions are what the political arm comes up with and publicizes. To date, that has not been done in such a way as has been widely agreed with and understood. The III political platform booklet did not enjoy wide acceptance or distribution. Others, Vanderboegh, WRSA, TL Davis, Kerodin, Arctic Patriot, and more than I can name, have all put forward their positions, but none of them to date have agreed on a universal position or truth that can be rallied behind.

    And here we sit. Training, prepping, waiting for a leader to appear and take the reins.

    Several questions might need to be answered before the so-called 'tribes' in existence start to knit together into a considerable organization:

    - What would the 'tribe' replace the current corruption (.gov) with if successful?

    - What is defined as 'overt' tyranny? Why?

    - Why should 'tribe A' take one for the team so 'tribe B' can be successful against OPFOR?

    - Why does no agreement on "An Attack on One is an Attack on All" exist?

    - Why do well meaning discussions typically devolve into ego-driven arguments on personality rather than the issues we all face?

    This is just a start of the questions that must be answered for Joe Nobody is ready to turn off his wide-screen and listen to any political arm of the Restoration Movement.

    1. Well said. That is the straw at which I have been grasping for so long.

      If it is tribe, when do we stand up?

      If it is a line in the sand, which line is it?

      What single thing, or even several things that point to the same action?

    2. Mr. offered many applicable and pertinent thoughts.

      May I suggest that what should be created is not "tribe" but a shadow government. For guidance on doing such one only needs to look to the writings of our Founding Fathers.

      What is needed is a shadow government.

      DAN III
      "There Are Enemies Amongst Us"

    3. "May I suggest that what should be created is not 'tribe' but a shadow government."

      Uh huh. So do you plan to be one of the rulers of that "shadow government" or one of the ruled?

      How many guesses do we get?

  7. Gee T.L., I would think you and your neocon cohorts, folks like Jim Klein and RegT, would love Romney as Romney supports your beloved state of Israel. Hell, what's more American blood & treasure loss in another foreign land ? is that T-shirt you're wearing made in Communist Vietnam ? Can't buy one made in the USA but hey....58,000 dead for what (oops, forgot that was so many years ago, history doesn't matter) ? Oh yeah....for your "freedom".

    F-R-E-E-D-O-M ! When I read that word anymore it seems to me to have as much sincerity as the convenience store clerk wishing me to "have a nice day".

    "There Are Enemies Amongst Us"

    1. Hey, Dan...would it be asking too much for you to let me speak for myself and you speak for yourself? Is that within your skill set? I understand that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is an "enemy of liberty" and that "neocon" casts a very wide net for you. Still, simple courtesy would say that one man can speak for himself without another man putting words--let alone beliefs--into his mouth.

      Can you deal with that, or are you just too bored keeping up with your own views? I already know that you consider me a "flaming asshole" and that you wish me endless suffering here on Earth---is that seriously not enough for you?

      BTW you might find it interesting that since I don't engage fallacies--here specifically the Fallacy of Tu Quoque--I don't wish you any suffering at all.

    2. "Gee T.L., I would think you and your neocon cohorts, folks like Jim Klein and RegT, would love Romney as Romney supports your beloved state of Israel."

      Bad news, Dan...the Internet remembers everything. So now anyone can see that you wrote this, and also that I wrote this...

      "While they probably shudder at my agreement, I do think Curtis and Dan have it right--at least in principle--that American wealth, and especially blood, shouldn't be exported to other countries except pursuant to the personal decisions of those who own the wealth or the blood."

      What's that saying about brain, gear, foot and mouth?

    3. Dan, I have always been tolerant towards you, because I like you and I don't have to attack people with whom I have disagreements. We simply disagree, we don't have to be enemies over it.

      Having said that, you seem to only read what you want to think, because my only support of Israel is to use our political clout to allow them to fight their own battles. Trust me, Israel does not need American blood to deal with their enemies. Where America can be of assistance is in the veto power of the UN, which would love to go into Israel with a coalition of communist/Islamic allies.

      Also, Dan, I am a Christian and where Israel comes into my favor is simply as a common foe to Muslim nations.

      That does not make me a Neocon, which is a misuse of the term anyway. A neocon is one who has recently switched to a conservative. My Conservative views go back to Nixon, who sold us out on that score.

      But, I do not understand the personal animosity. I have never advocated spilling American blood other than to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban and that was to repay them for placing my children on the front lines of a nasty war with their war against civilians on 9/11.

      You don't know where I stand, because on this blog I try desperately to be a moderator, a thought-provoker and almost never give voice to the true nature of my radical, militant tendencies. That will play out without me announcing to everyone that I would be a good suspect for this or that action.

      I am asking you to restrain your personal insults. It doesn't get you anywhere with me, because I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me. I have always allowed readers to challenge my views with thought-provoking rebuttal and have never banned anyone, or removed a comment, except the one that was a spammer using the comments to represent themselves as Kerodin spewing racial epithets.

  8. "What is defined as 'overt' tyranny? Why?"

    That one's easy. Tyranny is the PHYSICAL imposition over an individual's volition, or free will. Further, it's ONLY that. Why? Because ONLY physical force can abridge a man's choices and decisions...which is to say his freedom or liberty. You can SAY whatever you will about me, but that doesn't affect me a whit unless I choose to let it affect me. Physical coercion is different---only chains can bind me, and only PHYSICAL force can move a human body differently than his own volition chooses. This is basic, as is the FACT that a government--ANY government--has absolutely nothing else at its avail EXCEPT physical force. A law doesn't request, a tax isn't a plea, a regulation isn't begging. These are all DEMANDS and they are demands that are backed up with PHYSICAL force---if you don't do 'em, you will be either caged or killed.

    That's the easy question. Here's the tough one...

    "Why do well meaning discussions typically devolve into ego-driven arguments on personality rather than the issues we all face?"

    I know you're resistant to this, but it's a simple FACT. I'll put it this way---like it or not, ALL values are "ego-driven." There's simply no other way for a value to come into existence. Arguing against this is like arguing against gravity.

    Values are derived by individual cognitive minds and they serve the organism in which that mind is found. You wouldn't ask the purpose of eyes...they are to see things as they are; duh. So why does everyone ask the purpose of their conceptualizing minds, when the answer is just as simple? The purpose of a mind, just as eyes or ears or noses or fingers, is to identify reality as it is. We do this CONCEPTUALLY or ABSTRACTLY, but the fundamental purpose is still identification. And the purpose of THAT is to keep us going, to keep our own asses alive.

    Now sure, the nature of volition is such that we can CHOOSE a value higher than mere survival. Many of us do, whether our families or our country or our religion or whatever. But that's still a CHOICE and a choice is ONLY made by an individual mind. Period. Period.

    TL asks in his reply, "What single thing, or even several things that point to the same action?"

    It's obvious, if one is willing to accept the FACT of the matter. THIS is axiomatic, as worded by Mama Liberty---"I own myself." This is TRUE, no matter what anyone believes about it. I'm not saying it's good or moral or right or anything (yet!)...just that it's TRUE. The claim cannot be denied without changing the meanings of the words. That is to say, it's AXIOMATIC.

    So I own me, you own you, the next guy owns himself and all the way across the world. Tyranny is the refusal to accept this fact, to pretend that one person, or group of people, can somehow own another individual. Well, they just can't; that's all.

    If I physically stop you from being responsible for your own life--that is, if I pretend that you don't own yourself--then I am a tyrant. If I send an agent to do that, or a million agents, then we're all being tyrants. We can institutionalize it; we can call it "Rule of Law;" we can say it's "civil society; we can say whatever the hell we wish...what we CANNOT do, is change the FACT of the matter. You STILL own yourself, and you're STILL responsible for what you do.

    THIS is the "single thing" that we all share.

    Obviously it's the nature of physical force that nothing can stop it except likewise physical force. This is defense and is completely different from initiatory force. Defense is wholly moral because it KEEPS one's ownership of oneself where it belongs. Initiatory force is wholly immoral, because it tries to pretend that another man's life is someone else's to live.

    I keep going over the byte limit, so I cut a bunch. Hopefully the point is clear enough.

  9. TL, both you and Trainer have the right idea, but what I was trying - in my fumble-fingered fashion - to say is that those of us who desire liberty are, almost by definition, individualists. As such we have differences of opinion which - unless you are completely juvenile and illogical (no, I won't mention his name) - is perfectly all right, and acceptable. Agreeing that liberty is important is easy. Agreeing on how we get there, what tools we use, even banding together in sufficient numbers, is NOT so easy.

    Most of us don't know each other. Some of us aren't even willing to meet in person with each other, to see if the people we have met here are worth knowing, worth moving forward with toward some sort of action. What good is a leader, or a set of principles, if we cannot come together in small numbers, let alone useful numbers?

    As much as I respect Trainer and you, TL, I don't see all of us supporting each other until it gets so bad it is probably too late. That is why I say "tribe", meaning that those who have physically met and established at least some tentative bonds are likely to be the only ones that will stand together when .gov moves on any one of them.

    As Trainer states, we _do_ need more than that. I just don't see it happening, and I have reason to believe that it won't. Until then, I simply hope that those of us who have met and formed bonds will step forward to help each other when the time comes.

    (The Hutaree were a bad example and I apologize for not knowing enough about them to understand why they stood alone.)

  10. "- What would the 'tribe' replace the current corruption (.gov) with if successful?"

    BTW Trainer, that's the zillion dollar question that keeps causing us (people) to go 'round and 'round in circles. As long as some men believe they have just cause to rule over other men, everything else is detail. There's not a sane man alive who doesn't think he has the correct judgments and values. If he didn't believe that, he'd change 'em!

    One of the toughest things to accept about liberty is that if the rational man is to be free, then the irrational man must be free too. As long as he doesn't PHYSICALLY interfere with the choices of others, reality will take of sorting out the rational from the irrational...another huge benefit of free-market capitalism.

    Reg, sometimes I think you're right and it'll all be too late for good men to stick together and win. Other times I figure that destroyers are bound to destroy themselves, so maybe there's hope. Either way, there's not much for rational men to do but move forward and try to build. I figure by about Citadel XIII, we should have it right!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.