Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Commentary: One Week...

I will continue my One Week series.  In some places you may have to read between the lines.  You may have to use your brains.  If you decide the strategy is something for you, mettle and grit are requisites and you will have to define Victory as did Leonidas and his allies.  Don't jump to conclusions.

Victory does not necessarily mean you are alive at the end of the day.  Victory does not necessarily mean you have vanquished the enemy.  Victory does not mean Evil dies and unicorns begin pooping Skittles.

Victory means you have done your duty for Liberty, stood and were counted.  Victory means your bravery is such that other men feel shame if they remain out of the fight.  Victory in One Week means you have helped to start the destruction of Communism, that you helped shrug off the first chains of tyranny, Victory means you have emboldened your Countrymen to do the same.

Please do not read a few hints and commentaries and think you have it all figured out.  Let it evolve.

Victory is NOT going to be found by meeting in Washington DC with a few thousand people who demand the resignations of our current leaders.  Indeed, I would take the position that such is un-American - Third World, unfitting of Americans.

Americans are to be honest in their actions.  Americans do not resort to the power of the Mob, for the precedent is unacceptable.  Americans are not clever or tricksters - ours is to be found in boldness and rectitude and ultimatum that include the ballot box or outright honest hostility.  When Americans change their Government, we vote them out, we impeach them, or we go to war.  Assassination is not American redress (except as part of legitimate war).  It is not worthy of the Patriot.

In one of my very first columns written online (it was at Kerodin.com) I suggested that Patriots band together, sling rifles and Go Bags, muster and then march on local LEO shops across the country, as one, all at the same time.  This was one of the first time Vanderboegh decided to try and eviscerate me personally and my concept, accusing me of trying to send Patriots to their deaths and to start a bloody civil war ala Fort Sumter.  I won't comment on that, I will simply offer this:

Got Phalanx?
You and I know that the only power truly at the disposal of .gov, at any level, is the men of LEO and the men in .mil who will accept the orders to go forth and project their force on behalf of bureaucratic and elected Masters.  If the ether were to suddenly vanish those in LEO and .mil who would go forth at the orders of their Masters, there would be no force projection upon Patriots and other Citizens.  There would be no LEO shutting down lemonade stands.  There would be no LEO arresting anyone for smoking a joint on the corner, no dead Citizens when the wrong (or right) house is invaded in a no-knock, no chains put on a merchants shop by IRS slugs.

The key to every edict, law, demand of .Gov is their ability to send men with guns out into the populace who will do violence on their behalf.

So how simple is this concept: No LEO, no abuse of Liberty.

Liberty immediately flourishes.

I invite anyone and everyone who thinks my assessment is wrong in physical terms to post and articulate why I am wrong.

LEO need not be killed.  As I said earlier, what if the ether simply swallowed them up?  What if they were simply convinced not to follow orders?

The problem of tyranny in America would end - right now.

Tell me I am wrong...

**WARNING**  If you post a stupid comment, I will go all Kerodin on you. If you make a good faith effort, I 'll do my best to control my asshole gene.



  1. Bearing in mind your comment at the end of your post...Let me say that this did come via SSI. I am posting it because of it's truth, not it's source. It is as relevant today as it was then.
    “For, remark you this . . . that somewhere, somehow, and by somebody, a beginning must be made; and that the first act of resistance is always, and must be ever premature, imprudent, and dangerous.” James Fintan Lalor

  2. What comment are you talking about? I'm not much for plagiarism, much less from a commie PoS.

  3. Ah, I just went to Sipsey and see what you are talking about.

    My piece is part of a series I began writing days ago, and more importantly I'd suggest you look at just how hypocritical the Sipsey piece is from his typical "No Fort Sumters". For years he has been degrading anyone and everyone who suggests starting the festivities without his explicit endorsement and permission - and now, at least in this piece you reference, he seems to be trying to incite some poor Soul to do the martyr gig.

    I do not do the martyr thing, so to conclude that my piece and Sipsey are "saying the same thing" is a poor job of reading comprehension.

    My recommendation: Stop reading either Sipsey or my site - I don't care which. But the two messages are wholly incompatible.


  4. K,

    I'll take a shot.

    I agree with your premise that LEO enforces regime law. I agree that a march on DC won't solve anything. But I don't agree with 'no LEO, no abuse of Liberty.'

    Where do you account for the Free Shit Army in all of this? It's not uncommon for other despotic regimes to employ localized civilian para-military/police forces (Iran's Basij or Saddam's Fedayeen, for instance) as a buffer to threats to regime legitimacy (not to mention to provide brutal enforcement of regime law).

    If LEO doesn't get it done, the regime will find a way. It may be military, it may be 'Obamacorps' or some other Hitler Youth-esque factions - it may even be that FSA takes some initiative. I don't know what your game plan is but I'll offer my thoughts so far.

    What are your key assumptions in adversary courses of action? What do you expect from them? What are your key assumptions for FreeFor?

    It seems that one key assumption is that FreeFor will line up behind the hundred once 'festivities' commence. It seems that the other key assumption is that 100-500 men can affect the beliefs and actions of tens of thousands of police officers. What if your key assumptions are wrong?

    A big part of mission analysis is gathering the facts. The fact is that the American People don't support direct action right now. The fact is that many in the Patriot community don't support direct action right now. The most active among us tend to get trapped in the III% bubble, and end up believing that mainstream III% opinion is mainstream Patriot opinion.

    That said, I don't know your entire gameplan so I guess I'll just have to keep reading.

    1. Sam - just read your FB and understand that you have no real interest in this topic, other than to shoot it down, bring mockery at every turn, and deride it before you even know the details. So, do us both a favor and just don't bother me anymore. Your private emails and your public statements have little in common.

      Good luck to you.


    2. Sam C, have followed you for a while. On this one you are dead wrong. Sam K has trained my folks here (at a $$ loss to himself and his wife) I met him originally at TL Davis' Liberty Summit in Mercer PA a few years ago. I have corresponded with him frequently and found both him and his wife Holly to be stalwart Patriots who have done much to consolidate various groups around the ConUS. I background checked him and am well aware of his record. (I have one too if that's anyone's business). Yet I have never seen or heard of him acting with anything but integrity and honor in defense of our Liberty and Constitution. (kinda like you) His One Week plan is a theoretical exercise in direct action. (Direct action makes many patriots balls shrivel) Me and my tribe would be proud to fight beside him OR YOU. Perhaps you don't know him and rushed to judgement. If that is the case I suggest re-evaluating your somewhat disrespectful stance. If you have a true reason or motive for disparaging the man, feel free to message me. Montani Semper Liberi.

    3. "The fact is that the American People don't support direct action right now."

      That's your false premise IMO. They may not want the same action as most of the readers here, but they sure 'nuff want action. They voice that opinion unambiguously, in vote after vote after vote. And in a myriad of other ways, too.

      You could argue that they don't know what they're doing, but when it comes to direct action, I'm not sure why that matters very much.

    4. I'm generating discussion. If you can't take dissent of your opinions or defend your position, then how can you expect to accomplish this One Week Plan?

      You asked for feedback. You told us to tell you that you were wrong. I'm posing some pertinent questions.

      As for the difference between my public comments and my private communications it's because I want to see the movement succeed. If the Citadel succeeds, if the III% movement succeeds then Liberty benefits. What I say on my FB is open for anyone to read, otherwise I wouldn't post it. I'm not hiding my thoughts, especially when you asked for people to offer their thoughts to prove you wrong.

      I've said numerous times to numerous people and in numerous places that I was willing to hear out your plan. I am.

    5. Sam, your tone and your commentary on your FB are derogatory and mocking, before you have any idea what the details of the plan may be. So spare me the "objective" bullshit, please. You deliberately misrepresented my post, or your reading comprehension blows dead bear - not sure which.

      And before you claim that you were not mocking or ridiculing:

      Samuel Culper III Oh, well read his blog now. He has a plan that will roll back tyranny in one week.

      Samuel Culper III This post is just a sanity check.

      Samuel Culper III ONE WEEK, DUDE!!!!1!!!!11!!!

      Samuel Culper III I know! Maybe the snow will be melted, too, California will fall off into the sea so I have ocean front property, and global warming will take over and it'll be in the upper 70s.

      No worries, though: I am used to people who don't let facts and reality get in the way of their personal animus and/or agenda.

    6. Why do you keep giving hints at your plan? If I had a great plan that would do it in one week, I'd disseminate that thing far and wide in as short a time as possible. I'd get it in as many minds as I could instead of just dropping hints, telling people to go study Dorner and John Mohammad. Why don't you enlighten us? Why draw it out over a long period of time instead of posting it and having everyone share it because it's such a good plan?

      Yes, I am mocking the plan because I think it's a joke at this stage. I'm still willing to hear it out but I don't see a plan right now; what I see is you dictating that you have a plan but are reluctant to disclose the framework for unknown reasons.

    7. Oh, well that settles it, huh Sam? I'm not doing something that satisfies your timeline? I'm doing something in a way you don't approve?

      Woe is fucking me.

      Thank you for finally dropping your mask completely.

    8. See, you're still dodging the point. What is the plan? You still haven't answered any of my legitimate questions.

      If it's a home run, I'll play.

    9. Sam, why is it so important to you that I yield to your timeline? I'll reveal MY plan on MY timeline, in the manner I choose, if that's ok with you.

      I'm really curious why you are so insistent - you are coming at me pretty hard for 2 people who barely know one another.

    10. Because you've piqued my interest. The heart of the issue really isn't law enforcement. It's the American People who celebrate a tainted culture, who voted the Statists into power, and who will slit your throat to get their food stamps as sure as we're standing on the Green.

      The root cause of regime violence isn't LE, it's not government, it's the people who support the violence in order to meet their needs. Until you address that problem, which is probably in the ballpark of 100MM, then we haven't addressed any problem.

      This is not personal. I would tell you if it was. You do a lot of good work on this blog to build fervor and point on the wrongs and the wrong-doers. In fact, part of my introduction to the III% was through this blog. I believe I've told you that before.

      I want to see the Citadel succeed. You'll be living virtually a stone's throw from me. I will help the Citadel however I'm able.

      But, as for this plan, I don't quite understand it, I'm naturally skeptical about most things, and all I know is from what I've read. From what I've read, I just don't see a plan. So I will continue to read, and wait until the plan is published. If it's a good plan, then I'll support it. If it's not, then I won't support it.

      All you can ask for is a fair shake, so I'll give that to you and the plan.

    11. Sam, you have not given it a fair shake. You begin ridicule and mockery before knowing the facts - any of the facts. You may back peddle all you wish now and claim it wasn't motivated by personal issues - but you've already tainted the concept with 1-2 dozen readers of your FB, without knowing a single fact.

      So, please stop with the "fair shake" nonsense.

      You are supposedly a military analyst - and you drew conclusions and offered ridicule without the facts in evidence. That draws into question your skills as an analyst, or your veracity regarding motivations. Either way, it is now very clear where you stand, and I don't need it.

      Good luck to you.

  5. Just a question, don't you think it violates the most basic principles of democracy for a small militia to attempt to seize power through force from officials democratically elected by the populace?

    1. Of course it violates all that Liberty advocates seek if small groups seek to "seize power".

      Yet it is the ultimate in Patriotism to simply be rid of Tyrants. But tighten up your language a bit - we are not a democracy (which is mob rule and antithetical to Liberty) and voting Tyrants into office does not legitimize tyranny, ya?

    2. I think that tyrants are any statesmen not chosen by the people, who rule by means of force and steal the peoples' freedoms. Isn't this what you're planning to do? If so, that would make you tyrants, isn't that so?

      While you might say that specific politicians are behaving immorally, and I'm not sure I'd disagree with you if you did, that is still just the corruption of individual politicians. Political corruption means that the people are no longer free to criticize those politicians for their actions.

      As long as this freedom remains I don't see any necessity for a militant response, for in doing so you'd be violating the populace's freedom to choose their representatives and effectively banning their right to freedom of speech yourselves.

    3. Where the fuck has your head been stuffed for the last 10 - 20 years(at a minimum)?

    4. My condition is flaring and I am sick of fearfully treading on "eggshells." I want to stab you in your face until my hand breaks, and with no hesitation switch to my other, and continue until that hand is broken.
      FUCK YOU!

  6. Can you name a single sitting politician who does not participate in violating the Natural Laws and Rightful Liberty of the people in his/her district? Just one.

    1. But if the politicians are simply carrying out the will of the people who they were elected to represent, I don't really think that could be called tyranny. If they're not carrying out the will of the populace they represent then that is a case of individual corruption, not corruption of the system itself.

      The beauty of democratic systems of government is that individual politicians who are corrupt can be weeded out by the people without need for violence. I don't think our entire system has gone so bad that we need paramilitary groups to stage coup d'etats to overthrow it, I think that's antithetical to our nation's founding principles.

    2. Really? So, if "The will of the people" decided that you were to be stripped of 80% of your wealth, imprisoned, and then killed, that would be acceptable under "Democracy".

      Sorry, no majority has the right to infringe the Natural Rights of any individual who is not violating the Rightful Liberty of another. That's Mob Rule, and it is disgusting.

      And for the record, please do not throw words like "coup d'états" around on this blog. I am a Constitutionalist and I have ZERO interest in overthrowing the US Government. I have great interest in having our elected officials live within the parameters of the Constitution, and if they need to go, I am committed to to doing so only by Constitutional means.


    3. "I don't really think that could be called tyranny. If they're not carrying out the will of the populace they represent..."

      You're kidding with that, right? What, do you think Tyrants just step into the palace and suddenly control the entire population? It might happen that way with the conquest of foreign lands, but it NEVER works that way with domestic tyranny.

      IOW they ARE "carrying out the will of the populace they represent." That's the problem, duh. And did you say Democracy? Either that's another joke, or you really need to learn up on this stuff. Mob rule is the OPPOSITE of rational interaction.

    4. We are by definition a representative democracy, I don't know what you're thinking the word "democracy" means, although I suppose being anti-democracy explains why you're so hellbent on overthrowing representatives chosen by the people.

    5. Anon: Please look up the word "republic" and the phrase "unalienable rights" and "Natural Law".

    6. Republics are a form of government in which representatives are elected democratically, yes. The term "republic" is used to denote a form of democracy.

      As for the latter two, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Thomas Jefferson's opinion that the United States constitution should be changed by each generation as necessary to suit their needs, and was never meant to be an immutable document to last eternity.

      I'm not necessarily even saying I'm agreeing with Jefferson there, but I am interested in hearing your opinion, seeing as you claim to be a "constitutionalist".

    7. Anon: You have already demonstrated that you do not discuss topics objectively and honestly, and now you want me to address something that is off-topic to this thread. Sorry. You have an agenda and you already know what answers you want me to offer, so save us both some time and just go write my side of the conversation to fit whatever article you are writing.

      If you grow a set of balls, email me with your true identity and your publication, and perhaps I will go on the record with you. But you and I are done online.

    8. I'm sorry, a question about the constitution is unrelated to a blog post about defending the constitution? I'm not quite sure I understand your logic here.

      You were the one who told me to look up the phrase "unalienable rights" and "natural law", the former being a term coined by Jefferson, then you refuse to answer when I respond with a question about Jefferson?

    9. Again: Identify yourself and your publication in email, and perhaps I will go on the record with you. For now you are simply too obtuse or stupid to hold a serious discussion and stay on topic.

    10. So anyone who has a differing viewpoint from your own is "obtuse" and "stupid" and unworthy of discussion?

      It sounds to me like you need to leave your echo chamber for a bit.

      I'm still very interesting in hearing your comments on Jefferson's statements that the constitution was not meant to be an unchangeable document, considering that you have a Thomas Jefferson quote at the top of this blog even.

    11. Anon: This is the last comment from you I am letting through. Given your IP, I know who you are. I have said several times - send me an email, have the fucking balls you identify yourself, and your publication, and we'll see if I choose to go on the record with you.

      Don't bother writing again, I won't bother my readers with your silliness. In the meantime, enjoy a nice warm mug of Fuck Off.

    12. "So anyone who has a differing viewpoint from your own is 'obtuse' and 'stupid'' and unworthy of discussion?"

      LOL...you really need to read more carefully. That's not what he wrote.

      You might try thinking more carefully too. Obviously you don't know how old your trite cliches are. They're quaint already; I can hardly wait until they're obsolete.

    13. Anonymous, without question,(and I use the term more loosely than diarrhetic bowels), a "journalist" trolling, whoring and pandering for Bathhouse Barry, his Team and every traitorous quisling who wish to be ruthless master's or their privileged lackeys.
      A shamless and limitless shitbag and whore like you should consider making international flight reservations, in the near future.

  7. Maybe so, however I firmly believe that the right to violate the rights of the people belongs to the people. These leaders that you've decided are corrupt may very well be corrupt, but they were still leaders chosen by suffrage. Even if it may be the result of bad vision, that vision must be corrected by the people themselves, not paramilitary organizations, no matter how long that might take. The responsibility belongs to the people themselves, that's the important point.

    As it stands though, I don't think our system has gone so bad that people are being unjustifiably imprisoned and killed. Your words are as if the value of fire should be denied simply because arson exists. I don't believe it's necessary to take violent action against any political leader unless the people are no longer free to voice their criticisms of that leader. To do otherwise would be a mockery of the ideals are nation was founded on.

    You say you have no desire for coups or bloodshed yet in the very blog post we're commenting on you expressed your desire to overthrow the elected government currently in office. If you don't mind me asking, what do you intend to replace them with after you violently depose them?

    1. Anon: You are now simply outright lying, so I am going to have to draw a close to our discussion. Your last statement that I "...expressed a desire to overthrow the elected government..." is a blatant lie, and I even wrote that my intent is NOT to overthrow the .gov. We can not have a reasonable discussion when you refuse to remain intellectually honest.

      And your opening statement proves that you have no business on this blog, in the company of these Patriots: Quote "I firmly believe that the right to violate the rights of the people belongs to the people..."

      Sorry, that puts you in a very elite class of stupid.


    2. So saying you intend to "go to war" with the government doesn't imply that you want to overthrow them? If not what is your reason for "going to war"? Maybe I misunderstood your post and you aren't actually calling for any violence, which would be very relieving to me if true.

      As for the latter point, to elaborate I simply meant that only the people can choose to forgo their own freedoms, for in doing so the responsibility is placed on the people as well as the responsibility of correcting their errors. On the other hand no military or paramilitary organization has the right to take away the freedom of the people against their will.

    3. Anon" C'mon, dude. Go and find where I said "go to war" or called for violence. Please stop reading what you "want" to read, and read the actual words on the page. It makes for a much more meaningful discussion.

    4. Your exact quote was:

      "Americans are not clever or tricksters - ours is to be found in boldness and rectitude and ultimatum that include the ballot box or outright honest hostility. When Americans change their Government, we vote them out, we impeach them, or we go to war. Assassination is not American redress (except as part of legitimate war). It is not worthy of the Patriot."

      As well as:

      "accusing me of trying to send Patriots to their deaths and to start a bloody civil war ala Fort Sumter. I won't comment on that, I will simply offer this:"

      Followed by a picture of a Spartan military force at war as depicted in the movie '300'.

    5. Uh - so? Again, I never called for violence or overthrow - really, are you capable of reading English, or is it your second language? I actively denounced those actions in the quotes you provided.

    6. Uh, you denounced assassinations, unless they're part of a war... after you called for war. Plus your blog is full of information about weapons and even a "projects" page in which you mention that you're training a paramilitary force to fight perceived "tyrants".

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds as if you're calling for war against the government. Correct me if I'm wrong though, do you mean metaphorical war perhaps?

    7. Gads, not only are you a writer, but obviously a Leftist. One more time - write me at Kerodin@Kerodin.com, identify yourself and your publication, and perhaps I will go on the record with you. But trying to expand the scope of this thread to what my "...blog is full of..." ain't happening here.

    8. "... I firmly believe that the right to violate the rights of the people belongs to the people."

      By that logic it was perfectly acceptable for Hitler to send Jews, gypsies and other "undesirables" to the gas chambers because the people voted him into power. How very comforting to know that we have people in this country who would be ok with rounding up "undesirables" and killing them as long as it was voted on by the majority.

      I suspect that you wouldn't be as accepting of that vote if it was you who was voted into the boxcars.


    9. Good eyes, VJ. That was one of the classic lines of all time.

      A right to violate rights. Gee, I wonder where he was educated. From this alone, we can deduce that the troll is either a liar or a sick-f**k. Tough call, that one.

      Hey, at least Lineman shared below how such idiocy could exist---sheeple are even dumber than lab rats.

  8. Let him go, Sam. You know what I think about cowards that hide behind an 'Anon' tag.

    1. Gotta agree with W.C. here. This guy is running tons of bullshit, but doesn't have the balls to back up his words with a name? For the record, I'm proud enough of my opinion that I will gladly give full name, address, or anything else anyone wishes to know about me.
      Josh Rowe III

  9. Yea Why again are you wasting time with an anon poster...We all know about the cowardice of anon postings...He doesn't add anything to the discussion and its a pain trying to wade through his nonsense and outright garbage...Whoever it is doesn't have the brains of a lab rat at least the lab rat knows he's in a cage and is constantly looking for a way to escape...Honest men don't hide behind an anon tag unless they are known to the blog author or others that can vouch for them so you can't take anything he spouts about as truth...

  10. The anon poster is not so anon to most of us.

    Bill Nye

    1. Hi Bill. You are missed around here. I know you are busy - stay safe and please give our best to your family.


    2. So does he need secrecy to enhance or destroy liberty and if its the latter why don't you shine the light of truth on him/her...


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.