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

Friday, August 5, 2016

Local, Local, Local...

Bill Nye created the PatCon concept and hosted the first event.

TL Davis followed-on with events in DC and Mercer.  I attended both.  The DC event consisted of TL, Pete from WRSA, and me.  That's it - no one else showed.  They went into the House Office Building to discuss events with Congressmen.  I took my leave.  In Mercer Lewis Wetzel helped and the crowd was more substantial - this is where many of us met Jim Miller for the first time.  This is also where Tom Baugh revealed his shenanigans wherein bloggers in the 'Liberty Movement' would determine which readers were herded into 'chutes' and guided to specific blogs. 

Far too many people in the 'Liberty Movement' try to control you, whether you know it or not.

Brock's PatCon events have become the Gold Standard on the east coast.  I have attended several.  Holly and I were given the guest room in his home whenever we attended.  We've held two PatCons here in the Redoubt.  Both ranked as the largest scheduled turn-out events I have attended in the Patriot community.  Our events to date have been open to Patriots from around the country - and we've had cross-country guests at both events.  This year we have modified our events, focusing on serious training at a much deeper level and specifically for local Patriots.

After all, the III Percent is fundamentally a network of local, local, local entities.  National networking, coordination and information sharing are all good practices - but action is realistically limited to the local.  If you are considering some action that is a hundred miles from your doorstep, you should seriously reconsider trying to operate so far from home and so far removed from your logistics infrastructure, on ground you probably don't know well.

We often read 'Patriots' faulting each other for a failure to act on some event that is happening in their state, even if hundreds of miles away.  Why?  If we agree the III is essentially a local, local, local group of entities, why on Earth would someone in Pennsylvania goad someone in Spokane about a baker in Portland?  Let Portland take care of business in Portland.  And if Portland has no Patriots who are willing to stand and be counted - well, then it sucks to be Portland.

What is a III Percent Patriot?  This is a fundamental question that is too often defined for you by some self-anointed 'Leader'.  

Consider this as the starting point for how 'you' define 'III Percent' for 'you'.

The original III Percent Patriots (the ONLY III Percent Patriots in our history to date) were those men and women who took arms into the field during the Revolution against the King's Men. That's it.  That's the end of the discussion regarding the definition of a 'III Percenter'.  

They are all dead.

The first serious III Percent Patriots in our History are John Parker and the men who stood with him, and the men who followed-on over the next long hours after Lexington.

What does it mean to be a 'modern' III Percent Patriot?  At the core of the concept is this: You are willing to take the field and physically fight against Tyrants in America to protect Liberty for yourself and your posterity.  

Hint: If you have ever run a zip-tie through the chamber of your weapon while protesting Tyrants, you really, really need to reconsider that III patch on your gear.  I'm relatively certain John Parker & Company would spit at any such 'American'. 

If you have ever been turned away from an unguarded wooden door with a 100 year-old lock while armed - with a group of other armed people - reconsider using the III moniker.

If you have ever applied for a permit to protest Tyrants...

If you work for the King's coin in any unconstitutional capacity...

If you accept welfare...

If you work in a job - public or private sector - in which you infringe or violate the Natural and Constitutional Rights of your neighbors...

...you are going to have to go through some significant intellectual gymnastics to reconcile your actions with your claim to being III.  And while you might convince yourself that you are III - you won't convince me or other serious Americans - or History.

24 comments:

  1. I'd have to say I agree completely. Nice piece. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nailed it.

    The problem is the III Establishment 'leaders' are nothing more than asshats with a blog. How does that qualify them as 'leaders'?

    Sorry, but I never voted for them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tsk...Tsk TL, Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider this: Why does TL insist on trying to organize PatCons in AOs that are not his own? DC, Mercer, SouthWest CONUS - ?

      Delete
  4. I hate to break it you, Kerodin, but the very notion of "Three Percenters" is based on a myth, which I have debunked at length, because John Adams was referring to the proportion of the American population who supported the French Revolution: http://tiny.cc/skepticism

    Perhaps you might be inspired by the concept of "freedom cells," which sounds more like what you want to do: https://youtu.be/MwTBq9y3nFI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, yer killin' me. You are going to make me defend the Commie piece of garbage. F' me. But, if I didn't, I'd fail my own Intellectual Honesty Standard. ;)

      MBV's core premise is that: 'During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists.' That is simple arithmetic supported by historical record. There were never more than 3 percent in the field, under arms, killing King's Men.

      Now, for every other claim Red Mikey asserts, I am with you. His gratuitous assertions regarding the '10%' support of the population, blah, blah, are unknowable.

      Gads, now I feel dirty.

      Delete
  5. This right here is why I'll never set foot in Louisiana...

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/sheriff-raids-house-find-anonymous-blogger-who-called-him-corrupt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really have no problem with the concept. I'm not speaking to the case linked because I don't know all the details. But the concept is sound:

      If you are accused of a crime, your accuser should be obligated to prove the assertion or pay a price. 17 States have made it a criminal offense to defame someone. Every other State has some civil recourse. Making accusations is fine - but then prove them, or pay dearly for the lie.

      I'm not talking about the pedestrian 'Your ugly and your momma dresses you funny' garbage - I'm talking about the serious stuff, like accusations of crimes.

      And the 'public concern' argument has been held to be a very limited defense in court - there comes a time to prove your case, or pay.

      Delete
  6. K,
    As far as "local, local, local...", what do you have to say about those who traveled from Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and other parts of Massachusetts in the direction of Lexington, Concord, and Boston?
    This doesn't count the thousands that coma from Virginia and other states within the next few weeks.
    Where does "local" end and "country" begin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem - at all - with any Patriot moving toward the sound of gunfire.

      I only take issue with provocateurs who insist on trying to shame Patriot X for choosing to stay close to home & hearth.

      Delete
  7. I can understand that the circumstances should warrant a response. And, if it doesn't strike you as significant, then it is for you to wait until that right event comes into play.
    My grievance is with those who went to Burns, claiming to be III%ers, and when when their bodies were needed, they chose not to "play".
    Then, there were those who claim to be III%ers that chose, instead, to condemn the actions of those at the Refuge, staying safely away from any harm.
    The former were more a problem than anything else. The latter seem to think that they should decide what, and when, others should act.
    Then, we have the third sort who stood and watched, trying to decide if the circumstances warranted their involvement, and to what degree. Some of them were more than willing to support those at the Refuge with contributions to the effort, by personal delivery, or by shipping needed supplies. These are III%ers, at least in heat and spirit, waiting for their time to act. They deserve respect for their attention, support, and lack of negative intervention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abso-f'n'lutely.

      In the former you are talking about Brandon Curtiss and the group called 'Idaho 3%'. Curtiss did a good thing in walking up to the FBI at the airport. I think you and I agree - more could have been done. I'll take the position (since I was not there) that the Commander on the ground (Curtiss) did the best he could with what he had.

      The latter - those who chose to condemn the occupation - punks and pussies who should never, ever again be allowed to invoke the title 'Patriot' without scorn and ridicule, and possibly trial for Treason against Liberty. At the top of that list is the group of people who condemned the action, then screamed 'LaVoy' in outrage during the aftermath. Every last one of them is the iconic 'Fair Weather Patriot' - repugnant Souls who should forever be loathed.

      It is the 'Third Sort' you reference I can speak to directly with direct knowledge. I personally (and with sole responsibility on behalf of the III Percent Society) took the position that the Patriots on the ground deserved respect for their decisions - but that a call to muster was not prudent. We (the Society and members) were not a part of the action, we had no idea of the plan or the exit strategy. I could not - would not - ask Patriots to go to Malheur without such knowledge.

      Our very first Founding Member of the Society recommended a mission of material support, and I agreed he was correct - so we underwrote the mission. That was honorable, prudent and successful.

      Many of us are 'waiting for our shot' - as it were. For some, it was Bundy. For others it was Malheur. For others, the time has not yet come - but we wait...

      You have been there, and we all respect you for every single act of courage you have taken for Liberty.

      Delete
  8. I, respectfully agree, with the sole exception that I respectfully disagree about Brandon Curtiss and Idaho III%.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You think they completely and entirely punked out? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here are a number of articles that were written because of, and immediately after, LaVoy being murdered
    Burns Chronicles No 7 - What is Brandon Curtiss?
    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1349
    Burns Chronicles No 8 - Active Patriots v Passive Patriots
    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1360
    Burns Chronicles No 9 - Civil Defiance or Submission?
    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1364
    Burns Chronicles No 10 - Is There a Peaceful Solution? - Redux
    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1373
    Burns Chronicles No 11 - What are the III%?
    http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1378

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gary,

    I agree that Curtis's behavior and that of his henchmen at the motel was uncalled for. Do you suppose it was an attempt to silence you regarding their failure to provide security to the convoy resulting in the murder of LaVoy?

    How much intelligence did the Feds gleen from Oathkeepers-PPN-Culper in the days before the ambush?
    I recall that you had anumber of questions in Burns 22 regarding these groups/individuals that were unanswered. Have you been able to get responses from them to satisfy you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Curtiss' behavior when I first spoke to him (all militia come under my command) was reprehensible. His failure to respond for the safety (no more Wacos) of those who remained in the Refuge was reprehensible. He came to the parking lot because, as he said, I called him a coward. I explained to him that he had shown himself to be a coward.
    Oathkeepers and Curtiss will not speak with me. I guess I earned that honor. He did, on Santilli's webpage (now run by Deb Jordan) attempt to redeem himself. But it was a weak as everything that he did.
    He should have had is people scout the travel route. They amounted to far more people in Burns than were at the Refuge. And, they had nothing better to do. My personal feeling is he was there simply to obtained contributions to support his lifestyle.
    In #7, in the comments, you will find some links that will show what his true character is. He is a scam artist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They are doing bail recovery now...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bail recovery for whom? Those that are out are OR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, wasn't clear - they started a bail recovery company.

      Delete
    2. So he want's to be a bounty hunter?

      Long hours and no contracts unless you are in with a number of Bails/Bondmen.

      Delete
    3. So he wants to be a Fugie Agent, huh? I bet he'll do really well with that.
      /sarc
      All the bondsmen know each other... when you burn one in a state, they *ALL* hear about it, right quick... and he'll be outta business faster than he got into business.

      Whatever. Glory-seekers all have the same flaw - they all want the uniform and the respect, the jump wings and the CIB, but they're too chickenshit to ever do half of what it takes to earn them. Fuggem.

      Meanwhile, most of the guys who have earned that shit, don't even talk about it. They don't have to. They KNOW they're the shit.

      Delete
  15. Based upon the rental management operations, I'm going to guess that some people will get hurt by this.

    ReplyDelete

Please post anonymously and include your recognized online handle in the body of the comment.