I know, this is supposed to be a leaderless resistance.
But in American history there never really has been such a thing.
John Parker took point.
The Sons of Liberty took point.
George Washington took point.
Are we simply waiting for a III Patriot to take point and then we'll all muster and kick butt?
Or, are you of the notion that we are too few and too far separated that any meaningful group and leader can be formed?
Or, are you of the notion that Collapse, Secession, Balkanization or other decentralization is imminent and therefore a Leader isn't practical?
Consider: If a III Patriot somewhere in the midwest left the porch tomorrow and took out an entire force of Enemies of Liberty all by himself (with no collateral damage) would you all gear up and meet him on his next Green?
Or...do you think we are all going to be those rugged individuals Curtis discusses and we'll manage to kick butt without any real leader on point...
Kerodin
III
Bump
Our movement does need a leader. But I'm afraid that if one steps forward we will tear him apart.
ReplyDeleteLook at what happened with the Spooner debate. Perhaps we need multiple leaders, as it seems Freefor has multiple factions within it.
I am not suggesting what we should do here; rather, I am stating what I believe the 'patriot community' is missing.
ReplyDeleteThe initial problem the 'patriot community' is wrestling with is not so much not needing or needing leaders; rather, it is cohesion based. Simply, it is not cohesive. It eats its own. It is ego driven in many cases. It does not 'walk the talk' when it comes to those very principles it says it will defend with the 'lives, fortuntes, and sacred honor' of those who call themselves members of it.
There is no willingness to trust, let alone sacrifice for other patriots, than say, a check if the man is persuaded well or the immediate cause seems to warrant fiscal support.
The so-called 'patriot community' is missing a cornerstone that all effective groups have: commonality of purpose and a thing that makes them beholden to each other.
Example: The US military has an Oath of Enlistment that everyone takes. Period. Then, violations of the Oath (theoretically) are dealt with severely. The so-called 'Mafia' of old had a rule when bringing new people into 'the family'. If the new member turned out to be a rat (CI), the member and the man who sponsored him were dealt with....permanently. They also had a ceremony of sorts with admittance and categories of membership and authorty (rank).
On those reading this who are rankling about the word 'rank', face it, rank is everywhere in society from the clergy to the board room to the court room to the family room. Do not confuse rank with ceremony or perks or ass-kissing. Rank is simply a level of correlated responsibility and authority to get to a particular objective or outcome. The best leaders never remind their people they are 'in charge' and the best group members never make them have to do so.
When considering authority, we must first recognize that the only authority that anyone in any leadership position in any group that is voluntarily entered into is moral. Most men will follow that leader so long as he does not ask them to do anything that A: violates their consciences and B: Demonstrates he can or has done or is willing to do.
Continued...
Continuation...
ReplyDeleteThe best leader is the one who always looks to 'feed and water' his charges before himself. He will also try to surround himself with advisers who are truly expert in the fields in which they advise. The only thing he can 'demand' is adherance to that cause which caused the group to form in the first place.
We must then accept that those who would lead or are chosen to be leaders do so with the knowledge that they are more responsible than anyone else for those who follow them and the outcomes or objectives they are leading the group towards. Take the Founders: The men listed in the history books were the ones who were directly responsible for the outcome of the Revolution, before and after the shots were fired.
To those who say leadership is not necessary or that alliance is impossible or unnecessary, I would remind you that one of the reasons the 'unorganized militia' is left alone is precisely because they are unorganized and therefore, largely ineffective save for making youtube videos of how they train, which teaches an enemy how to kill them, but I digress.
Leadership gives direction. Direction provides purpose. Purpose leads to resolve. Resolve leads to action. Action leads to Restoration.
It's time to accept that without leadership, either from an allied network or something like that, nothing will ever be agreed upon and nothing will ever be done against tyranny, save in small gestures like flying planes into IRS buildings, etc. I would suggest a thorough reading of "Resistance to Tyranny" by Dr. J. P. Martino on how an alliance is organized and how to do it. He is much more eloquent and well-versed than I am on this subject.
Gathering to find concensus usually ends with one or more group members leaving and working against the consensus, usually due to bruised egos. That, in itself, is one of the reasons concensus does not work except very, very rarely, and usually, when there's a group working behind the scenes orchestrating that concensus. Oh...and the group behind the scenes? It will have an effective leader.
Guaranteed.
My .02
Thanks Jim & Trainer. This is one of the topics Alan and I discussed last night. I think Alan is going to write a piece, and I am looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteOur community certainly eats its own, violently and quickly. But Alan made the point and I think he is correct - we need Leaders.
The recent Spooner thread at WRSA reveals to me that we are a community of cats with big egos and divergent goals. I am not certain unity is possible, even for accomplishing short-term goals.
But perhaps my argument is circular - a good leader could weave those differences into cohesion and build morale...but could he do it without making an example of at least one bad actor?
So, where do we go? How do we get an effective set of Leaders, especially when so many of our "most prominent" in the community firmly believe that success is A, B, C, or anything but D, and so many actions are criticized as "stupid", "foolish" or a "waste of time"?
I have my theories about the matter, and perhaps an open forum is not the proper place to discuss such details. But one thing is a fact: The Ego factor is a raging impediment to success.
Kerodin
III
"... - a good leader could weave those differences into cohesion and build morale...but could he do it without making an example of at least one bad actor?
ReplyDeleteA good leader would allow the dynamics of the group deal with the 'bad actor.' If the leader's actions are within the scope of the group's objective, and all things being equal, the decisions of the leader are being accepted and supported by the rest of the group in question, the 'problem child' would give impetus to the group members to talk with the unhappy or divisive person privately, and lay in much more significant sanctions if problems persist: Isolation from the group itself.
Group dynamics and self-discipline are wonderful things. :-)
WE need a POint man in all 10 regions of the country, to counter HLS 10 designated regions, amen.
ReplyDeleteThis is the most constructive conversation I have heard within the community so far, and there has been much good. I believe this topic and organizational issues should be our focus as thing move forward. Without leadership and infrastructure the impact will be minimal.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the awesome thought provoking comments gentlemen.
A question: Our "Patriot Community" consists of anarchists, secessionists, Constitutionalists, and more.
ReplyDeleteThe very concept of a Leader is that he or she leads in a direction...
...toward a destination.
Where do you want to go? Where would you follow a "Leader"?
For instance: My goal is to see the Constitution restored, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI & BoR. I do not intend to permit the Enemies of Liberty to have one square inch of CONUS, even in the face of those folks who will argue I am violating their Natural Rights.
That's the path I am walking, and will continue to walk. I have made it clear I believe that the blueprint for victory (of these goals) was written by our Founders, in great detail, especially when one looks to the Sons of Liberty.
But guys like Russ Longcore want Liberty, too. He sees secession as the route...a path I will not walk.
Others want Liberty just as much as do I, but consider that only some form of anarchy will get them to their goal, and they will walk that path.
We all want Liberty, but we differ in what I consider to be minor details, and some not-so-minor methodology.
Think about what you want. Think about the paths you are willing - and not willing - to walk to get there.
How do we find a way to work together, even knowing that at the end of the day we differ on details of Liberty, so that we have a larger force with a greater potential for success?
Kerodin
III
I think one factor that should unite all the various factions of Freefor, if we don't join, we die. We are all on the menu, that is for sure. At some point we must recognize that our differences of opinion regarding Liberty or our Founding Documents pale in comparison to the real problems that face us.
ReplyDeletePerhaps our desires for self-preservation will compel us to form the necessary alliances. I think this is happening, but slowly. Perhaps TL's summit will speed this along. Perhaps leadership can be selected there.
It is possible intimidation has entered the plot.
ReplyDeleteMass media is a two edged sword, great to counter fed's over reaching power. Not so good when grasping the odds at the table.
Sobering comes to mind. The stakes at hand are inline with the founders, the odds of overcoming are not.
It feel's like freefor is rightfully so feeling the pressure. Anyone who think's, simply taking up arms will work is dilusional.
This is a mind game, a battle of wits. I read the posts, the reply's, it is discouraging. As it should be. This is serious shit. This is our country, our heritage at stake. Pull off the blinder's, give it another 20+ years no one will know this country for what we did.
Even you characterized it as " like herding a bunch of feral cats."
You're correct. I'm pissed off, you are pissed off we are all f'n pissed off. Where it ends, no one know's. I got a gut feeling push comes to shove, we will step up.
This is not the Parker moment, with all the evidence that fed is worried about "terrorism", (the internet) we all need to settle down, take a breath and keep on it.
It is obvious our frustration. Fighting from within and becoming so impatient as to implode what you and others have fostered would seem a pity. Not of the same cloth of those before us.
I got nothing more than
Steady
Patience
Don't shoot til you see the white's of their eyes.
Mozart
"How do we find a way to work together, even knowing that at the end of the day we differ on details of Liberty, so that we have a larger force with a greater potential for success?"
ReplyDeleteKeep the issues separate. Secession is different than Restoration of Constitutionally Limited Governmen; we all know this. As a separate issue, it must first be dealt with by the People of a Sovereign State, who may, or may not, wish to remain as part of the Union.
Paring the objective narrowly as possible keeps people on point.
The great objective is to Restore the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Period.
If, during or after the process, the People of a sovereign State, such as Wyoming or Montana (as examples), choose to exercise their inalienable rights to abolish or reform their forms of government from a member State in the union, that is something constitutionalists not residing in that State have no voice in, save for attempting to pursuade those that might listen to adopt a different view.
Constitutionalists, true to the founding principles, cannot force (even though it was done by the North (who demonstrably were not Constitutionalists) once before) sovereign poltical entities to adopt something the People of a State refuse, discard, or wish to change, if they are true to the Founding Principles.
So, while these are bitter pills to consider, the fact of the matter is that these issues need to be dealt with later, after the Constitution has been restored as the Supreme Law of the Land.
In the mean time, we remind our allies that Constitutional Restoration, and strict adherence to it once restored, is our last, best chance for Liberty for ourselves and our children.
And that's the prime objective: Restore the Constitution.
...and those who do not wish to have the Constitution restored are wasting my time...
ReplyDeleteKerodin
III
And mine.
ReplyDeleteTrainer: I only offer this in your direction, not asking for a response. I mention you by name only because it was you who said: A good leader would allow the dynamics of the group deal with the 'bad actor.' If the leader's actions are within the scope of the group's objective, and all things being equal, the decisions of the leader are being accepted and supported by the rest of the group in question, the 'problem child' would give impetus to the group members to talk with the unhappy or divisive person privately, and lay in much more significant sanctions if problems persist: Isolation from the group itself.
ReplyDeleteGroup dynamics and self-discipline are wonderful things. :-)
The issue between myself and Vanderboegh is no secret, and I think it was widely noticed that he chose to gratuitously disrupt the Community again by declaring that he would not participate in TL's event were I present.
It was, I think, also noted that your principle of the Group taking self-discipline/self-policing seriously - as he was instantly rebuked by Bill Nye (thanks Bill) and several others called for remaining on-topic and out of our emotions.
I have not responded to Mike, beyond this discussion thread, because it is the principle I wish to discuss.
Mike has called me most names in the book - but this is the first time he has likened me to a White Supremacist. Mike is very good at smearing people, and this one was subtle, but deliberate. He works the long game. He was chastised, by some members of the group...
Now, to my point and making an example of a bad actor: Calling me a racist or snitch to my face will earn anyone the most embarrassing 3 seconds of their life - and I don't care if he is a crippled old Communist on a cane.
I may even get my arse whoop'd - it happens.
But what I saw in that thread is Bill Nye (the only blogger of the bunch) taking the disruption of the discussion head-on. I saw a few readers/commenters scold to stay on-topic.
And I saw not one of our bigger bloggers, our "Leaders", if you will permit the term for this discussion, or our more prolific commenters, weigh-in.
Perhaps many thought the situation had been handled. Fair enough.
But from where I sit, my choices are limited to accepting the public smear (because the "Leaders" of our Community chose to sit out the smear, publicly), or once again butting heads with Vanderboegh in public, and thus derailing any serious momentum for TL's event...which, personally, I think was MBV's true goal.
I will not rise to the bait, even if Mike dares to come here and comment(he won't, he likes to use false screen names when attacking, usually). TL's event is too important. Our end-goal, Restoration, is too important.
We in this Community throw the old quote ...when good men do nothing... around often, and in this case it happened again.
This is not a whine. I am more than capable of defending myself.
But, I hope we do a better job of publicly self-policing (from the top down when warranted) in the future...lest the attacked feel the need to defend himself and the ensuing distraction satisfies to goal of the provocateur.
And one personal note on the topic: Mike, please beg someone for a ride or gas money to the event. I look forward to giving you the opportunity to run your mouth at arms length.
Kerodin
III