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

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Oughtsix: One Win, One Fail

Before I begin my series of posts from this weekend at the NC PatCon - which was a magnificent event with outstanding progress on tangible, important issues, I want to address Oughtsix on a discussion that we were having before I left for Brock's.  I wasn't ignoring you, Oughtsix, I simply didn't fire up the computer since Thursday night.  And since WRSA shuts down comments on threads after a few days, I can't respond there.  Your question is a good one, so I'll answer it here.  I'm not sure if Oughtsix even reads here, so if anyone has his email, please point him here so he doesn't think I was just ignoring him.

Here's the thread: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/nevada-analyses-from-the-commentariat/#comments

Here's the question from Oughtsix.  You may need the entire thread for full context:


One win, one fail.

How does this:

” If we can choose our actions in such a manner that minimizes pushback by those who will never pick up a weapon anyway – good.”

Square with this:

“Yup. They gotta go. Period. They are not Americans anyway, they do not share the values of Liberty. They gotta go lest they simply re-infect the reset.”


The first statement is based on sound principle. The second, imo, is based in the emotionally satisfying urge for payback upon, well, just about everybody. I sympathize, I share your concern, but…

It’s an impossibility any way. Too many of “them” and too few of “us.” Among “us,” there are, I suspect, a majority who will have nothing to do with a “french” style revolution. No “J’ accuse!” No guillotines and tumbrils. The movers and shakers, the architects and the corrupt… those who in every word and deed knowingly sought to impose tyranny, enrich themselves through staggering schemes of corruption and outright theft and shred the nation… they may be legitimately killed in combat, while trying to escape, or captured and put on trial for their lives.

Then later:

What I will not countenance is any sort of organized, wholesale slaughter, deportation, internment or other collectivist/tyrannical/pathological Final Solution of “them”… as to be determined by WHO? exactly? Such would seem to be the gist of Kerodin’s remarks here, and many similar elsewhere.

 - End of Oughtsix comments relevant here.

My reply:

You and I are on the same page regarding any "...organized wholesale slaughter..." but we part ways there.

Popping a cap in Ganny's braincase just because she voted for Al Gore (which unquestionably makes her stupid and part of our problem) does NOT, under ANY circumstances, justify death.  Now then - Granny who voted Blue, donated money to Blue pols & groups because she likes those pols & groups that actively work for the violation and infringement of Rightful Liberty DOES make her more guilty because she wasn't just stupid, she took active steps to advance those goals.  But again, that action does NOT rise to the level of a noose.

For the stupid, low-information, uneducated masses who are part of the problem, once the really Bad People have been handled, must be dealt with in such a manner that they can't undo the Reset.  That means they must become self-sufficient - because of course there will not be any Entitlement programs in the aftermath.  You feed yourself or you will die of starvation.  Next, these people MUST be removed in every way, shape and form from the levers of society.  They have proven they do not respect Rightful Liberty via their actions.  They have demonstrated that they approve of - and help facilitate - theft by proxy.  They no longer get the vote.  Contrary to myth, voting is NOT properly Constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens.

Finally, I believe there is only one way these people should be permitted to remain physically on the continent: They must swear an oath, in front of their peers, to respect genuine Liberty and swear to never again take any action that infringes the Rightful Liberty of any other American - under penalty of immediate death or forcible deportation.  And for anyone who refuses to swear that oath - they are invited to walk - or they will be dragged - to a conveyance out of the country and ordered never to return, under penalty of death.

Note: I am a hardcore Constitutionalist, but you'll notice I did not say they must swear an oath to the Constitution or the country or anything except to respect the Rightful Liberty of their Countrymen.

That's it.  And I do believe if they refuse, it is entirely within the Natural Law right of freemen at Liberty to remove such people, who refuse to stop infringing upon their neighbors, period.  We give them the option to leave unharmed, with whatever property they own.  If they refuse, duct tape and the hold of a ship or airplane is how they leave.

We can not tolerate, and do not have any obligation to tolerate, people who refuse to leave us alone.

They have nearly destroyed this country and the millions of good people who live here by their meddling and intent to be Masters.  We have every right to be rid of such people.



  1. Very well articulated, Sam.

    I put a link to this post in reply to .06's original remark.


  2. Interesting thoughts, best reserved for additional reflection. Your tack does somewhat resemble what was done during the post-Civil War era in terms of stripping the right to vote away from certain people. I get that no plan is a perfect plan, BUT it would seem you do not hold representative government a natural right (correct me if I'm wrong). While that seems ass-backwards, at this late hour I'm not as eloquent as I perhaps could be. If the government derives its power from the consent of the governed (hahaha, in an ideal world here), then it would seem a just government would be incapable of being so when certain classes of free men (incompetents and children aside) are disenfranchised. No taxation without representation comes to mind. While I am certainly in favor of some sort of voting requirements, to be intellectually honest, one would have to address that issue as well. Part of me rues the fact the words "no representation without taxation" were not written in the document as well. I digress. While I applaud your effort to formulate a workable solution, the cynic in me wonders how to codify the idea of respecting the liberty of another. You'd likely get ten different answers if you asked ten different people. God knows, we have seen what SCOTUS can do with ambiguous statements, even if they aren't so ambiguous.

    The crux of the matter is a cultural/spiritual/_____ problem that is one of the heart and mind. The assurance of liberty for future generations is a fool's errand IMHO, simply because it seeks to control the uncontrollable. While one can make it easier or harder, it is no different than attempting to control the safety of a loved one driving to work. One may buy a safer car, take safer roads, or take them to defensive driving courses et. al., but at the end of the day a semi can still punch your ticket. You mitigate what variables you can and hedge your bets, it's all we've ever been able to do. The future of liberty is won or lost one child at a time, one family at a time...one mom...one dad at a time. It's why we are here to begin with. Civic virtue, America's cultural zeitgeist and love of liberty died long before the Idiot in Chief was elected. The cancer is not the symptoms. O, BLM, Conn. and Benghazi are just that...symptoms. I don't have the answer at this point, but I'm not ashamed to keep asking questions until I find it. I doubt very much I'll make it past the "Kill it with Fire" part, but it doesn't hurt to ponder what the lucky few will have to figure out for themselves...

  3. Well said,

    The reset will provide a glaring spotlight to help separate those who have acted with willful malfeasance and malice, from those who simply participated in the fall out of ignorance.

    Do I have a passionate desire for payback? Absolutely. Am I willing to become that which I hate to do so? Not a chance.

    We have many people of conscience in the leadership of this movement, who I believe will guide us to a proper resolution.

  4. I believe you are absolutely correct K. The perception of people is skewed because that perception is that if someone isn't actively, physically trying to hurt you, they are not a "threat". This falls under the "perception is reality" mantra, and couldn't be further from the truth. A communist, exercising his "rights" (are they rights, if they help to subvert the rights of others?) in this country, and working to bring about the downfall of our system of government, is more dangerous than the street thug, intent on beating you to get your wallet. The street thug generally, doesn't want or plan on killing you, he just wants your money. The communist wants to remove any stumbling block from the road to "glorious communism", and they've been proven to be more than happy to remove your existence from that road if need be without a second thought. The argument of "Granny" who just wants what she can get, "Cuz she earned it." doesn't hold water in a free/liberty society. That mentality is why we're in the situation we're in (prior generations couldn't stand to take a hit, so they left it to the next one, and yes, I do blame them!). Free choice, doesn't mean, free of responsibility, and the only way to stop the femoral hemorrhage, will be to clamp off that artery. We're not saying the artery can't be repaired (Oath you spoke of), but it can't be allowed to bleed anymore after treatment. Whether it was from a knife fight (actively trying to bring the nation down), or an accidental cut (ignorance and selfishness, in who they support and vote for), it doesn't matter. It's still a "bleeder" and needs to be "treated". The way I see it, your "right" to be allowed to choose will cease when your actions or inaction (the afore mentioned generational mindset) cause someone else's rights and freedoms to be trampled out of existence. If you've been shown to have been a documented supporter of a politician or group that worked to subvert or destroy our nation and system of a "Constitutionally limited republic", you will not be allowed to make decisions for the rest of us. Whether your a "70 something Granny", or a "20 something yuppie", it makes no difference, you will be considered a threat through your own prior actions.

    1. And, DING we have a winner. Trials and rope for the guilty. The rest, get some small relief and a ride to the border.

  5. The oath you propose is worthless without significant education in the concepts of freedom, liberty, and rights.
    Over the years I've come to realize that most leftists genuinely believe that they already abide by it.
    Their indoctrination in collectivism has made them utterly incapable of comprehending them, even when the concepts are explained to them in simple language. They're sincere in their belief that forcing people to practice leftist doctrine is the morally superior position and they are unable to differentiate between voluntary action and government force.
    Many times I've tried to explain the idea that initiation of the use of force and requiring people to practice beliefs that violate their conscience are immoral and I have always been met with confusion, hostility, and the utter inability to comprehend such "radical" ideas.


    1. singlestack, this has been my experience as well. Their indoctrination has warped the moral landscape of their conscience. I have tried unsuccessfully to explain to more than a few that this is exactly what happened under Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and others. The concept of amicably disagreeing is beyond their grasp and comprehension.

      For me the question becomes: is it possible to re-educate these individuals to the point that the old indoctrination is broken beyond repair? The answer lays inside each individual with their willingness to be re-educated.

  6. This is "not relevant" here?

    "Those duped, mis-”educated,” ignorant “sheeple?” They are the victims, no less than we are. It’s our job, or at least it certainly behooves us to do so in our own self interest, to help them see that when our chance to do so is won. Those that refuse and act according to the tyrannical paradigm are fair game, having self identified as the enemy."

    "Anything less and the legitimacy that we must have to justify our actions and to try to re-establish a just society is irretrievable and barbarism the result. That is not what most of us are willing to fight and die for, and it’s not worth having."

    While my remarks are less thorough and brief, I would think that we have not "parted ways" quite so abruptly as you indicated.

    1. The duped, mis-educated, sheeple have a chance to stay - swear the oath and sin no more. Then they can stay. Violate the oath, and they go away immediately.

      As to "parting ways" I didn't mean "Go away, we are too far apart to ever be allies" ;) I simply meant that I do agree with you that any "organized slaughter" is unacceptable, but I DO believe an organized deportation mechanism is prudent for anyone/everyone who refuses to swear the oath and stop meddling in the affairs of others. ;)


  7. And then there was this as well, ion response to The very good and heartfelt remarks from LF Mayor (same comments thread):

    "Be assured that I am not in disagreement that “what to do” with the remnant of the dissolute masses is a Very Big Deal. I’m willing for them to sort themselves out and pass or fail, with a big assist from us insofar as we spell it out for them- become productive and self responsible or you’re on your own. Sink or swim.Try to game “the system?” It ain’t there any longer and such will not be rewarded. Try to be a predator on the productive? No longer any cover for that either. No system of wealth redistribution. Contribute to your own, and, therefor, the general well being of all or suffer the consequences of your own bad decisions… for a change.

  8. This reminds me of a story about Benjamin Cleveland. He was a colonel in the North Carolina militia during the Revolution as well as a justice for his county. He was a massive man, over six feet tall and 300lbs plus. He was also a notorious Tory hater.

    Colonel Cleveland was once summoned to a town where two men from a Tory gang were held after being captured. One of the men was the leader of the gang. Immediately upon arrival Colonel Cleveland hung the leader and gave the other man a choice. He could either hang next to his commander or he could cut off his own ears and leave the territory never to return. The man thought about it for a moment then called for a knife and a whetstone. After sharpening the knife he proceeded to cut off his own ears. He then left the territory with blood streaming down his face never to be seen again.

  9. "We can not tolerate, and do not have any obligation to tolerate, people who refuse to leave us alone."

    Maybe that's the end of it; maybe the rest is a distraction. Seems to me that's a tall enough challenge NOW. Surely there's enough work to be done presently, without bringing in problems that don't exist yet.

    Otherwise you're going to spend all the valuable time trying to defeat the age-old question...Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Juvenal: "But who will guard the guards themselves?" That's a fun question for statists to be sure, but I suspect most Free People will inevitably realize, "That responsibility is mine."

    Plus, lemmings have a natural tendency to walk off cliffs. There's no moral evil in letting them, though there might be one in believing that it's for another person to decide.

    1. It is important now, JK. Without an endgame we'd end in a quagmire of confusion and in-fighting. If the mission is defined up front, everyone knows when the game is over.

      As to whether or not I or any other Patriot has the moral right to decide who stays and who doesn't - that is the same moral right I possess when deciding if the same people are enemy combatants to be engaged, or not. The "War" is about people claiming the moral Right to infringe the Liberty of others. The war isn't over until all those who would infringe, by whatever means, have stood down.

      To reduce the situation to the 7-year-old level: They started it. We'll finish it.

    2. Like I told you in another place. It is you that doesn't understand.

    3. "Without an endgame we'd end in a quagmire of confusion and in-fighting."

      Strikes me that there's some confusion and in-fighting over the so-called "end game," as it is. Hearts and minds, and I'm not persuaded at all that FREEFOR can afford to sacrifice allied hearts and minds, especially on tactical matters.

      I'd suggest that the "end-game" is basically one of principle. To me, Jeffersons Rightful Liberty does nearly a perfect job of it, though of course I'd entertain any better ideas.

      There are few errors greater than inverting a hierarchy of values, or confusing means for ends.

    4. Yeah, we can.

      You take out the trash once.

    5. I've found...through experience...that these questions are best resolved FTF...like in NC or other places these discussions occur. OP and SK are on the beam when it comes to "the Moral High Ground" and "Rightful Liberty" Jim.

      Don't "trust me" on this. One of these times, try to make it to one of the FTF events....lots of ground covered.....just sayin'

    6. Which questions, DTG? Surely you're not saying that the broadest principles involved, should be figured out privately by a tiny group of people. And we do know the value of tight cohesion, and even secrecy, in a tactical fashion. So I'm not sure of your point, especially since you're aware that I know the value of FTF.

      Alan's yapping about taking out the trash. Hell, I bet even he doesn't know if that's principle or tactics. While I do believe in dreaming big, I don't believe in dreaming irrationally. But that's me.

    7. It's not irrational dreaming there Jimmy. It's called prayer. And the broadest principles have already been figured out by a tiny group. Well, not so much figured out. More like an innate understanding. As a result a circle has been drawn and that tiny group is beginning to step inside and face out. And if everything I learned in Sabbath school is true, God will make them victorious no matter the forces arrayed against them.

  10. Well, maybe I was wrong in using the term, "questions," when I should have said, "issues," so I apologize for that.

    The broad principles, every time I attend an event where they're being discussed, the nuances are worked out and I find that they have been figured out in consensus (meaning all involved can live with what is being determined even thought it might not be 100% their particular way). Take CA's 'alliance' post: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/the-conniefreekmilitianerdcincinnati-alliance/ Winning first and then setting up the framework to avoid it happening again is not a bad thing. Taking out the trash was done at the end of the first Revolution: Tory and Loyalist leaders were deported to Canada with their property confiscated. Some were hung after a trial.. Others were allowed to stay or leave if they so desired. CA's post, which puts words to what I've observed of late, is the most workable solution based upon the several principles of individuals and various groups. Perfect liberty? No. By consent? Absolutely. And that's what being FTF in the events does for us; provide a direct objective and a political end result. We're finding out what will get us to, "only by consent" in the long run.

    Hope that explains what I meant by FTF is better...

    Discussions in this medium is problematic in the lack of tone and inflection, and the natural courtesy one forwards when one is communicating to a live human, as you and I both know from our own FTF discussions. Example (and I'm not defending Alan; he's more than capable): Your insult to Alan's thoughts, ie, 'yapping' implies the mindless noise of a dog or coyote (at least in my mind), and, while really neither here nor there, as we're all adults and confident personalities to one degree or another, I'm pretty sure that if the conversation were taking place FTF, we'd all be somewhat reserved in how we described each other's points of view and wouldn't describe someone's thoughts as 'yapping' without thought to possible consequence, the least of which might be a disruption of productivity.

    My .02....

  11. "Innate understanding," eh? That would be some neat trick, but that's epistemology.

    Meanwhile...victorious is great. I'd say you diminish it a bit when you imply that it's caused by something other than individual choices and actions, but I don't suspect you're ready to see that. It's funny that you recognize how much you can accomplish, but don't relish that others can too. To me that's a great thing...more of something good, is better. You seem very tied up that they should be busy accomplishing what you want them to accomplish, and apparently believe that they shouldn't get what they want, if you don't approve of what they want. I think everyone should get what they want, as long as they earn it and don't loot it from others.

    Maybe if we resolved that particular disagreement, we could stop tying up blogs when there's so much work to be done.

    1. Well, all you gotta do is give up.

      This running fire fight with you ain't impeding my work in the least. In fact, I find it most amusing and of some value.

      You were a topic of discussion last week-end ya know. How I pictured you was shattered as a result. But while that was the case, it also explained a lot.

      You keep sluggin' Jimmy. I'll be here for ya as long as your stamina holds out.

  12. "We're finding out what will get us to, 'only by consent' in the long run."

    Worthy words, but I'm always about that to which the words refer. Hopefully the two will correspond. On the second half of the comment, maybe you noticed that I used "yap" for myself as well, earlier. Polite ad homs are still ad homs.

    Maybe we can get there, OBC, in the short run too. If not, why not? That's the important question, but still outstanding is whether or not the broadest questions (or issues) should be handled privately by a small committee.

    I'm not sure how that could be, if OBC is the goal.

    "Trust me," works great in a tactical situation where the subordinate has already chosen to trust his superior's orders. We've beaten that horse to death. But prior to that, in choosing one's highest personal goals? Especially in this current environment? Hmm...color me skeptical.

    You know me...a simpleton. Either it's "only by consent" or it isn't. What am I missing, or which is it?


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