Such a meeting has obvious advantages and risks. As you all know, and I have made clear, I'm a loner. When I step off the porch, I step alone. That doesn't mean I would not benefit from meeting many of you and shaking your hands, be better for it and proud to have done it. Maybe a formal Constitutional Convention-style meeting is the best way, maybe not.
I've posted a simple Yes/No poll to the right, please weigh in.
Location could be anywhere. Topics could be benign or...not so much. We could have a podium for speakers, or not.
You should expect a LEO presence...that aspect doesn't bother me much, especially if the III Patriots in attendance use basic OpSec & Common Sense. Personally, I assume that some in our midst are LEO and some have alliances with LEO...and then there are those who will roll over and lick LEO on command. F'em.
But the ultimate question: Is it a net plus or minus to get together and meet one another?
Logistics: Many Patriots don't have the resources to get to a location somewhere in the country and cover the expenses. We can work that out among us, so don't let that be the reason you vote No.
As you can see, I have a bullet-list in this series of posts that I am working through. I'm fed up with watching the Enemies of Liberty take every advantage. They're kicking our arses, and frankly, I don't like taking an unnecessary arse-whoopin'.
Consider Curtis' thoughts on the broader issues, here.
Kerodin
III
Just some thoughts here...
ReplyDeleteIt's always a plus to put faces with names and get a sense of the man/men you're communicating with. Without identifying some of the folks I've come to know in the last several years, I can say my own network is stronger because I was able to meet a few really good men face to face and have long, serious discussions with the end result being a foundation of trust being poured in concrete, so to speak.
Conversely, as I'm sure you know, it's really operationally risky -- a huge 'minus' -- not to communicate/meet in a secure environment/media until you know who is actually who and what their agenda, goals and objectives are, and if they're in line with yours.
I agree that the patriotic men and women are fractured and isolated. I also agree that if we are to move forward and take any ground in the 'soft war' we have to take a chance.
From my perspectdive, I'm not quite convinced a 'national summit' is the way to go initially because of OPFOR LEO presence either overt or covert (but we face that risk here and at other blogs as well).
Primary reason: Many bloggers and commenters on this and other blogs are adamant that they are 'not leaders'. OPFOR will rightly surmise that the opposite is the case, because the 'non-leaders' are the catalyst for the movement. Especially a 'non leader' or 'non leaders' that organize the speakers (if any) or construct a draft of a strategy. How much do you think King George would have liked to know where Franklin, Jefferson and Adams were, discussing the unanimous Declaration? If they could have been 'bagged' before the draft, there probably would never have been a war....So, if follows that it would be very tempting to have a good number or most of the 'non-leaders' in one place and come up with a premise to take everyone downtown under the auspices of the "Patriot Act"....
An alternative might be to talk amongst the bloggers that know each other, and compare, contrast, and review a list of all of your commenters that are consistently in line with the ideals and principles of the Founders. Then, through secure means, discuss the possibility of that group meeting to 'get on the same page'. I'm confident that you'd have enough serious men to take the message back to regional AO's and get things moving.
Think about it: The original Sons of Liberty weren't the only group out there during the pre-revolutionary years, and they sure didn't just open a 'colonial summit' and allow everyone and their brother to attend and then introduce themselves to a bunch of strangers that had a guarantee of "king's agents" in their midst to take notes (and these days, to take cell phone pictures of the participants for later use in targeting dossiers). They met in secret, and only admitted new members who they knew as best they could were trustworthy and not of divided loyalty or flat-out 'loyalists.'
And it follows, neither should patriots who identify themselves as "the III."
I would suggest the liberal use of discretion on this topic.
Trainer: Thanks for weighing-in. I can't fault a single point you raise. In particular, folks will remember that while the British marched for the armory they were also out to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock.
ReplyDeleteOn this topic I am afraid I can't offer any advice to the average Patriot, because my situation is unique: I'm already on every list the bad guys have. I know I have a seat reserved on the very first bus they intend to fill (or a body bag with my name on it, ready to be filled).
I'd also suggest most blog operators, columnists and even commentors are on such lists, at various levels of priority. So for some of us, a meeting holds no more risk than any other day.
But then there is the Silent Majority out there, who are not (yet) living in the spotlight, and they have an entirely different and legitimate set of OpSec considerations that would factor into any decision to meet at a central point, indeed, to even participate "quietly" in so-called "secure" darknet ops.
This one is for others to decide. If the answer is to opt for more discretion, I simply encourage everyone to be cautious. I know from first-hand experience that snitches are everywhere and FedGov loves snitches, and most human beings will roll on you for an extra bread chit.
Ben Franklin's caution about the ability to keep a secret should be branded and seared into every Patriots mind.
That said: If you folks want a summit of sorts, I will volunteer to take point if you wish, because I risk nothing.
Another point: Several of you have reached out to include me in more discrete discussions. Thank you, but please remember your OpSec. I am compromised because of my past engagements.
While I would never utter a word, you would HAVE TO ASSUME I AM BEING WATCHED/TAILED/UNSECURE.
That is the primary reason I will stand alone - it is safer for Patriots not to stand at my shoulder until the real SHTF.
You folks decide what you want to do in this regard, and if I can help, let me know.
Kerodin
III