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

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Political Reality is Reality

The below is a result of a brief email discussion.  It is founded in reality.  The author has allowed me to post it and I hope it is a launch-point for a serious and reasonable political discussion.  

I will exercise a bit more editorial control than usual - if you offer a flame, senseless hyperbole or useless diversionary commentary, it will not make it to the thread.

Every man on the Green in Lexington was deeply involved in 'politics' before they resorted to their arms.  During the Revolution and after, 'politics' was involved every step of the way.  Anyone who thinks violence alone will restore a state of Liberty is incorrect.

Solutions, please - not re-hashing the problems.


You need a group of people who are willing to work together and not let their fucking egos get in the way. You also need lots of money. Think RNC or DNC level funds.

Then you need to establish a political platform. And not a single issue platform like gun control. You need to have a platform for every fucking little namby-pamby thing that Joe Average cares about. And you have to have simple emotional explanations for everything.

Once you do that, you have to accept that you're just another minority special interest group and start acting like one.  Infiltrate and influence the existing political infrastructure, start getting your people elected, and start shifting public perception of your particular minority towards tolerance and acceptance.  Engage in psychological attacks and character assassinations against political opposition.  Bail your people out of jail when they get arrested and engage in high-power legal battles aimed at getting laws changed.  Purchase media outlets and use them to advance your agenda.  Just like other minority special interest groups.

What few 3%ers realize is that the endgame of what they are advocating means the replacement of the current sociopolitical establishment of this country, and that they will have to become the future sociopolitical establishment if they wish to succeed.  That is non-negotiable. Otherwise someone else will come along and do it.  The other thing they fail to realize is that this is going to take a few decades to do. The "Civil Rights" movements had their start in the mid 1950s and 1960s. Look how long it took them to get to where they are now.

People are going to get jailed. Their families will need to be taken care of. Whistleblowers will need assistance when they lose their jobs. Political contributions will have to be made to swing neutrals in your direction.  Large-scale protests will have to be conducted sans permission and free-speech zones. People are going to get their heads busted in.  Look at what happened during the 1960s.

And you're going to have to do it all with an active opposition against you that controls 99% of the mass media.

With that said, I personally advocate the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged approach because I don't believe anyone in the 3% is capable of it.

- Sparks31
  Isher, Wyoming


  1. I won't say I have any particular bitch with what's written there. I will say that the suck starting a 1911 tone is a little demoralizing and frankly I have no use for it. If in fact all those things are required, then I would submit that Mr. Sparks better get busy. The longest journey begins with a single step and all that. In a word, lead. If he starts down the road he's asserting is necessary I can say without equivocation that he will eventually be joining with a bunch of dead men walking down here in south... no, check that, just Florida now.

    Or, he could follow. Or he could just get out of the way.

    1. Alan: His offering above, in context, is an answer to my direct question "What would a political arm look like..." - so he isn't preaching gratuitously, the tone is what it is simply because I yanked it out of a conversation.

      The reality *is* a bit demoralizing and sobering, isn't it? The facts are irrefutable - we are infested by tyrants and their supporters to a degree not even seen in the Colonies. The odds of turning this battleship without a full-collapse are nearly nil, and the odds of avoiding such a collapse are probably even worse. Coming out of absolute collapse into Rightful Liberty, even in small pockets, seems quite the long shot.

      Even most of the III community, of which you and I have been part for many years, talk more about the problems rather than working toward solutions. Only small groups are working together, spread out in vastly disparate parts of the country - and most of those groups don't even seek the same outcome.

      For every dozen eloquent essays that define or highlight the problems, how many essays do we see where people offer realistic solutions? And of those with solutions, how many actually invest energy into the real world to make it happen? Sparks is one of us who is investing his energy into the real fight - not just talking.

    2. I started and deleted a few responses to this nonsense.

      Bottom line? Quit fucking worrying about the big picture. Establish a beachhead and work to expand the perimeter. Eventually that perimeter will come in contact with another and so on and so on.

      There is no time to whine or wish for grander things, it is what it is. It is a shitty hand but it has to be played. What else are you gonna do?

      If one grounds themselves in God and American ideals and principles it will be alright. God damn them that don't. When the time comes, lay waste to their fucking asses.

      So Sparks is not just talking? Fuckin' A, I hope so. At the moment he's pretty fucking negative if you ask me. And offensive.

      I had a conversation with one of my brothers today. He asked me if I thought we had a chance. I replied that while it was my sincere hope that God would allow me to see first hand a restoration, all we were tasked with at the moment was to build a structure to pass on to another generation.

      Back your asses away from the keyboard. Take a walk in the light. They're there. I meet them almost everyday. We grow stronger as a result.

      Concentrate on what you can do without prerequisites. And never, never speak ill of a brother. Never.

      Now go to work.

    3. Oh, you're welcome.

      It really is simple ya know.

      They tell me I need security now in my travels. Dunno. Don't care. God will take care of it. As He does all things.

  2. Many, of those we now call "Founding Fathers" spent their entire adult lives in the name of a free assembly of States on these shores. Some gave their lives quickly; others very slowly, but they each laid it all down. Whether in battle, or in the long, drawn-out political grind to redefine ourselves from Crown Colonies to Free States, and then to the Federation of states we have today, they gave all.

    Most who let themselves become prominent before 1783 had their property confiscated and/or destroyed by the British. Many notables of that generation died in poverty, or nearly so, in order to see through what they had started.

    Do we think that any less will be required of us, and of our generation?

    The road ahead is rough, and it rises swiftly. There is no going easy, and there is no going back. Those with wisdom are resigned to what lies ahead, and are redoubling their commitment.
    Here. Now. Again. All or Nothing, because anything less will amount to nothing - of that you can be sure.

    In the fullness of years we will look back and see either that we have spent our lives to secure Rightful Liberty; or that we have spent them for nothing.

    God save us from that 'nothing' - that freefall into hell which will result if we fail. For that is what it shall be, for all of us who call ourselves "Americans".


  3. The 'Ra formed Sinn Fein after they'd established with TPTB that they were serious. By serious we mean be willing to make very hard choices. They eventually realized that without a political arm they were just never gonna get anywhere but it was only after they'd established very clearly that fucking with them or their candidates would get you killed that they were taken at all seriously. They were extremely wise to eventually separate ops from "pol" ops (sorry for the pun no disparagement of actual polyps was intended). We can learn from that. The mouthpieces need to not be anywhere near the ahem, punishers.

    I believe you are on the right track and I wish that we could skip the first part I just discussed but I'm certain that the powers in place are not going to allow that kind of change without a pile of corpses and in fact they have a huge head start (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC, Mike Hastings etc etc.).

    I truly appreciate what you are trying to do here and it's a damn good idea. You could call it the "Gun Party" because it just sounds so fucking festive!

    1. Anon: In today's America, how would you quantify a comparable "We are serious..." message of sufficient mass to force our current TPTB to not only take notice, but take pause in violent retaliation?

    2. Different Anon here.

      They. Will. Not. Stop.

      Until they have to. Until you make them. Violent retaliation will happen if you want it to or not. We are at a point where they do not have to care IMO. If the III gets inertia, it will get an unequal reaction. The fact it has not, so far, means that the III does not have inertia as evidenced that "Patcon" attendees, or "trainees" at III schools are not rolled for low level crimes, disappeared, or destroyed by the IRS.

      But inertia of the masses is coming. III may be a more "professional" and more deadly part of it, but a small one. Jade Helm snatch and grab and SF training with my local LEO is a good tell.

      When it matters, the Bundy deal will not be allowed. It cannot be allowed. Victory will only come in blood, again and again, until there is nothing left.

    3. Beg pardon, Anon, but there are several patriots whom I know personally who *ARE* being rolled for fictitious crimes by their local/state Commissariat, and/or "tax crimes" by the IRS. And if I know a few such, then there are likely droves of others, suffering in isolation or abject silence.

  4. On a national scale I say no way in hell but on a county level up to maybe the state level we have a pretty good chance of succeeding...This will definitely be a discussion for the PatCon because I believe it will give us the best chance of surviving if we have it in place before it all falls apart around us...

    1. Agreed - this would have to begin at the county-level in most places. Since the office of Sheriff is so important to making real, tangible changes that affect lives, that's an important electoral goal. Places that are fortunate enough to already have a good Sheriff, can vote a few people into office to give him some political back-up.

    2. You hit the nail on the head with the sheriff thought...Think of the possibilities with a sheriff that shares our thoughts on liberty and understands that we would back him no matter the cost to protect and defend liberty...I think that might wake the populace up if the feds were firing on a whole county of people not just random individuals that the media could villify...It would either show that they were Tyrants or just Bullies...

  5. not trying to be a nit-picker here nor be contrary but county level strength can only be had if the precincts within each are secured and unified... further, i'll share what happened to the Maine GOP national delegation(many of whom were Tea-Partiers or at least sympathetic to them)... i am acquainted with some of them as a few years ago i had Tea Party ties... precincts were won, counties followed, state GOP voted and Ron Paul was clearly the people's choice(a moot point att)... National caught wind of the decision and told - yes, told - the Maine delegation to stay home because if they showed, they would not be allowed into the convention and if they got in, the Maine vote would be ignored... why? you may ask... because Mitt Romney was going to get the national nomination... no one else was even being considered as a candidate by National... those few who went, were not allowed into the Convention... it's my personal summation that had Maine gotten in, Ron Paul had a viable chance of being elected by the Convention but tptb within the GNC were pulling the political strings and we all know that big $$$$ does that....

    just food for thought as politics is being broached...

    my thoughts are these: as we declare local, local, local in tribe, so too we must follow suit in the political arena... and we will need 2 other things: the money it takes to make our politics known, locally and beyond, and the Hand of God Almighty to do for us what we haven't the ability to do for ourselves in whatever vein we need the help in...

  6. I think there are a lot of possible paths, however one must be aware of the timing. Over the last few years we have often been bombarded with people telling us that the end is nigh, only for the decent to continue in its slow spiraling path. Something has changed recently. I don't know what but something feels different about right now. We seem to be closing in on the climax. As if a lot of threads are beginning to come together and the bigger picture is starting to emerge. I dont think we have time for a "political" party solution to take hold.
    There is one other problem with a "political" party solution. It is moving into their realm. It will corrupt the movement just a sure as any infiltration will do. We would become the thing we oppose. I have been thinking hard about this over the last few days. The drive to the PATCON was a long one for me and I had a lot of thinking time. The PATCON was a success but I was very discouraged by the amount of control that rumor had on the participants. I heard a number of things that are accepted as true, that are just flat out wrong. It demonstrated the persistence of OPFOR conditioning. I think the path that Sparks outlines is a valid path but its flawed in the sense that it gives in to OPFOR. It accepts the rumors of OPFOR capability and power and contributes to the positioning of FREEFOR on a field not of our choosing. It is accepting that their rules are the only rules that apply and that to beat them we must enter into their game. Its saying we cant beat them so we must join them.
    If you doubt what I am saying I offer the NRA as exhibit A.
    Do we need a "political" wing? Yes we do because we have to offer an alternative. We have to have a public face. We have to raise funds as Sparks says. Our Political wing however has two goals

    1. De-legitimize the current government
    2. Provide a better means of securing rightful liberty.

    Everything it does has to promote that. I think what OP says is spot on that this has to start at the local level.
    Again however it all takes time. I think the only real option we have right now is focus on things we can achieve and influence the outcomes. We can train, raise money to equip and expand our ability to offer real resistance.

  7. I would think the only sensible plan would be to start at the local. We are all already building local Tribe. It seems local politics is a natural and fundamental piece of your local security.

    The seeds of the platform are planted locally, and then tended for as long as we have enough "civilization" left to do so.

    In many states, especially in the Redoubt, it is a relatively easy task to get a "new" party on the national ballot. Being on the state ballot would permit you to even run a candidate for US House or Senate, if you were to set your goals on those seats. But certainly within the realm of the possible is to send a few of your new party to your state capitol in the legislature.

    Local, local, local - until you meet the borders of the next Patriot's lair.

  8. I've heard more times than I can count in the last 6 months " something feels different " yet noone can really put their finger on exactly what feels different. I feel it too, a sense that something is right around the corner. I hate that shit. I like tangible stuff.

    1. Agreed. Bracken mentioned it recently, and I think many of us are feeling it. I predicted just after the 2012 election we'd see tempo rising to some sort of climax leading up to November 2016.

      I still have no idea what that climax may entail - from just a tighter noose to an iron fist - but we should continue doing our thing and react according to whatever the enemy chooses to do in the meantime.

    2. http://constitutionalmilitia.org/
      We The People have more power than most people realize.

  9. "Every man on the Green in Lexington was deeply involved in 'politics' before they resorted to their arms."

    False. Important. Timely.

    No, they weren't. They were too busy living their own lives--very productively, very beneficially--to bother with other people's lives. And they understood that someone was trying to take that away from them, and they wouldn't stand for it. So they said, "No."

    That's the power that did it and it's the only power that ever could. All the rest is detail.

    SOME were in love with politics; the vast majority were not.

    1. JK: More history, fewer gratuitous dismissals, and much less twisting my words should be on your agenda if you intend to continue discussions here. I never said they "...were in love with politics..." - I said they were involved, which is evidenced by their presence on the Green, by historical archives from Massachusetts and elsewhere.

      CoS and SoL were well-represented on the Green that morning, and no man standing there stood apart from politics - or they wouldn't have been there at all. It was politics that led them to their rifles, and it was politics while they used their rifles, and it was politics after they returned those rifles to the mantle.

      'Politics' is far more than "Party Politics" and voting and waving signs.

    2. Jim, unless I misread, no one has suggested that the men on the green were "in love with" politics - only that they were active in politics. "Active", as in "they kept themselves abreast of events, and were cognizant of the political implications." And they *were* active at the local level, else they would not have been on the green in the first place.

      So same with the hundreds of militia who came out in support and drove Lt. Col Smith's troops all the way back to Boston under constant harassing fire.

      If that doesn't fit your definition of "politically active", then I'm not sure how to converse further with you on the topic...

    3. Alright, so I overstated it..."love." That's not the point, and the point stands. Fact is, the men who gathered on the Green were NOT the one who took an active interest in politics. Sure, "understood"...but that goes along with thinking, period.

      The reason it's timely, and you both damn well know this, is that any and all action comes down to an individual decision...and NOTHING can make a man choose Rightful Liberty except his own desire to value it. And further, nothing can cause him to choose it except a defense of what he otherwise values...in general terms, his life.

      THAT'S pragmatics that works, because it's consistent with the principles.

    4. "if you intend"

      K, I directly quoted the sentence to which I was responding. You can spend whatever time you wish analyzing and judging the intents of others---duh, that's just another choice. Personally I think there are better things to do, but that's me.

    5. JK: That you responded to sentence X is not the point, because you chose to mischaracterize the meaning of sentence X to mean Y. You chose to misrepresent "deeply involved" as "love" and it is yet another example of your deliberate twisting of plain words into other meanings to try and suit whatever argument you are making.

      Stop doing that with me.

    6. The 'politics' of the 1770s was a lot more honest, and certainly much more raw than what we are familiar with today. Men still brawled and challenged each other to duels back then. But at the same time, politics was *not* a profession in the colonies... it was a past time. Damn near everyone was involved in local politics. It was simply part of being involved in the community - politics was the talk you had at the general store, or the stock yard, or the lumber mill. Politics was part of choosing what church your family attended. Certainly, it was part of who you chose to do business with.
      In short, politics wasn't a separate activity to the colonists... it was integral to everything they did (and didn't do).

      Absent that perspective, we are hard pressed to understand the dynamics of how our revolutionary generation operated in the "political" sphere. Restoring that perspective is essential to restoring rightful liberty... because like it or not, *everything* is political, the moment it obtains the capacity to infringe someone's rights... and that covers just about everything.

    7. Right LT, that's why there's the awareness...because it invades so much of one's life. Yes, just like then. I didn't say they were unaware idiots; I said they had their own lives and didn't take an active part in politics. Yeah, they took an "active interest" when it choked them sufficiently, and it was very active...and noisy to boot. It doesn't affect a whit of my point, that it was THEIR lives that they were defending, and not ANY grand political system.

      You may call that obvious, but I find it critical and always worthy of note. Highly relevant today, for reasons noted earlier. Hell...even if it were wrong about the Green, and they were each political activists, it's still an important point!

      K, IMO the first thing to understand above all else is that no person has the power to do anything "with" you, without your consent. What I do is mine; what you do is yours. When those intersect to the good, then it's a wise deal.

      So let's choose to concern ourselves with our own intents and make fewer accusations about the intents of others. I'm agreeable with that; it's a good idea generally anyway. Or, as always, you can request that I no longer comment here. It's not like I don't respect property, eh?

      And of course, if you wish to deny what I was saying--that the men on the Green (and afterwards, for that matter) were not politically active and were there to defend their free lives outside of politics--then I'm very interested.

    8. JK: You are being obtuse.

      And of course, if you wish to deny what I was saying--that the men on the Green (and afterwards, for that matter) were not politically active and were there to defend their free lives outside of politics--then I'm very interested.

      Why must the men on the Green have been doing either/or - and not both? Political motivations and personal motivations can't coincide? I say they are essentially inseparable. Your assertion that they were not politically active prior to April 19, 1775 is simply, demonstrably, false.

      You do this often, and it detracts from the conversation. If you choose not to contribute to the constructive purpose of a post, perhaps it is best if you limit your comments to the philosophical posts I offer once in a while, or the nattering of Anarchists at Pete's place - he is a more evolved Human Being than am I and has far more patience than do I.

  10. given how things in the "political" realm have developed since, say 1900 give or take, the term "politics" itself has a negative connotation in my mind... as with many other redefined words, I know what the word is supposed to mean and I see how it is being defined by behavior today... what we need is a return to real, valid, truthful representation by those who would be selected to do so by us...

    why do we need representatives...?? because that's how a Constitutional Republic operates... sorry, I'm not much for anarchy...

    1. But representatives...to do what? The classic functions make so much sense--defense, criminal prosecution, arbitration--but there's the reality of it too. How much sense is THAT making?

      Reality's gotta trump, at least here on Earth...right? Seems to me this IS anarchy by what you mean--largest gangs rule and law is out the window. I'm not much for it either.

      Some argue, "So let's get back to the law." I say better get rid of the gangs first, especially when the largest one is what they call the law! More pragmatics again, consistent with principles.

      You and I both know that decency rules the lives of nearly everyone, and it's only a matter of time until they choose to live it and defend it.

    2. i agree with the vacating of all 535 offices for other, more decent persons... but the "gangs" you speak of weren't gangs until a certain criminality became a commonality... the "when" of that is also open to debate but such debate will not alter the "reality" we have... suffice it to say that "decency" will have to be set aside, in a sense, in order for issues to be righted... i think we're agreed in that....

    3. Yes... a little bit of indecency is now required to restore the greater decency.

      If it can be restored in this generation at all. And that is one hell of a big "if". I would dare to suppose that there are more nacisists living at this time than in the 15h through 19h centuries, combined. So same for the narcisits big brother, the sociopath.
      Liberty is unachievable when you are surrounded by such as those... so killing the majoriy of them off is a functional prerequisite to restoring liberty.

      There. Its been said. Liberty is unobtainable without killing a substantial percentage of the present population.

      Still in all, I don't consider it too high a bar, in light of the alternatives.

  11. Mmm... I'd like to recommend a book to all of you guys.

    "American Tempest - How the Boston Tea Party Sparked a Revolution" by Harlow Giles Unger.

    Sometimes you think you know. Sometimes you're positive it just had to be a certain way. Sometimes you just take someone's word for it.

    It's not necessarily a pretty story. Certainly nothing like what the vast majority of us were spoon fed. But it is "the" American story.

    Sometimes in order to know where you should go, it might be important to know from whence you came.

    And, it's a great read. Easy and entertaining as long as you don't run down all the footnotes (there are a bunch). I read it straight through the first time without putting it down. It's that good.

    Let me give you a little preview. It doesn't take a whole bunch of people to get started. One or two sufficiently motivated individuals is all it takes. Throw in a unique culture, a little grace from Providence and viola you got yourself a gig. :-)


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