I’m not a fan of Presidential politics, so I pretty much ignore the so-called debates for both parties. Last weekend they had a debate on Saturday night. We were out of town and stayed at a hotel that had very limited channel choices. When that happens, I end up roaming up and down the channels to try and find anything that might be interesting. I stumbled across the debates.
The moderator quoted former defense secretary Gates, who said that the presidential candidates all were ignoring the threats to our national security and needed to come up with defense strategies for the various countries, regimes and forces that were real and potential threats to the US.
The moderator then went down the row of candidates and asked them to address Gates’ comments. Each of them proceeded to talk about how they would employ our military in a myriad of different ways.
Now, I really don’t like any of the GOP candidates, but with that said, I was incredibly disappointed that none of them addressed the notion that the defense department is not and shouldn’t be the first choice for foreign affairs activities. Once you decide that you need the defense department, all other options are done. Diplomacy is best done with the threat of military action. You can’t use military action as a threat to use diplomacy.
I realized as I was watching this, that we in the liberty movement are kind of the same. We see armed resistance as the ONLY method to achieve our goals.
Some of the reasoning for this is because of our own history.
Many of us are veterans and like most folks, we’re comfortable with what we know.
Many of us came to the movement because of the very real threats to the 2nd Amendment.
Guns are the common denominator for most of us.
The problem is that just like in foreign affairs, once you make the decision to solve your issues with force, it’s hard to de-escalate.
It becomes complete victory or total loss.
How do we accomplish change?
Change on the level of an entire country like ours requires some sort of rebellion; members of our society against its leaders.
Rebellion runs the gamut of something like the Tea Party movement or the 1% movement, all the way up to subversion and armed conflict.
For example, the rebellion may intend to extract limited political concessions unattainable through less violent means.
On the other extreme, the rebellion may intend to break away a portion of the nation from government control and establish an autonomous state within traditional ethnic or religious territorial bounds.
None of these has any guaranty of success.
Rebellions arise when the government is unable or unwilling to redress the demands of important social groups. Our government is very good at keeping social groups separate. These groups are “pigeon-holed” into their particular needs, descriptions, beliefs, etc. There is a reason why the media talks about black lives matter, white racists, gun owning subversives, left wingers, right wingers, evangelicals, atheists, etc. It’s to cause us to focus on each other instead of the evil pervasiveness of our government.
Liberty is more than just the 2nd Amendment. While we concentrate on the 2nd, our enemies are totally destroying the 1st through 9th Amendments. The 10th has been ignored for well over a century.
In part 2, we’ll discuss how we can try to accomplish change, short of the bullet box.
9 thoughts on “What We Learned At the Debates”
The only way to effect change without violence is if you have greater numbers than those you oppose…That’s what it all boils down too…All the rest of it is just pissing in the wind…Until we start forming Patriot Community’s so that our voices will be heard and acted upon all the rest is null and void…I have a whole list of possibilities of what we could accomplish if we had that and they would once accomplished be a beacon to those who hadn’t moved yet…But for that to happen they would have to actually do something rather than just banging on a keyboard…I just don’t see it happening so that leaves us with only violence when it gets to that point…Sad That…
Lineman: You are on the right path! Numbers are important. Stay tuned for part two of this one. Guns though aren’t enough…… yet.
Has nothing to do with guns unless they won’t leave us in peace…I’m talking about Community’s that can once established start weaning ourselves away from all things fed gov…I’m talking about the freedom to do what you want on your own property as long as it’s not harming your neighbors…So many things that could be accomplished if people would just start valuing Liberty more…
I am afraid that history would have to disagree with you Lineman. I am sure that you are aware of the roots of the III% group and where the term came from, but if not, the name if from the fact that only 3 % of the colonists were actively in support of the rebellion against the King. So numbers alone are not always the chief factor in the struggle to achieve a goal. Tactics, leadership, skill, patience, etc. all play huge factors as well, and that is just beginning to list some of the things which can tilt the scale to the side with smaller numbers, but with a more just cause. Look at the war in Vietnam against the U.S. and the tactics used and the outcome. It is the same thing. A much smaller nation defeated a larger one with tactics and patience. Numbers are great, of course, if you have them, but if you don’t, you can still affect change, you simply must be smarter than your opponent.
Did you read what I said Brother… You missed the part about without violence…
I believe you missed the part about “without violence”; there, Pigpen. We all know that the 3% were the ones who took up arms and supported the revolution, and we also know that the Vietnamese – using guerilla tactics – were able to achieve some success during the war there, but I believe what Lineman is saying is that without violence; you need to have the numbers – the “population in agreement” must be significant enough to make themselves heard, without resorting to gunfire. Based on what I read here, and elsewhere; if we want to go to the bullet box, there should already be enough of us angry and fed up guys to take care of business. For what it’s worth, the communities Lineman speaks of, are one way to keep what’s coming up a bit cooler, than an outright hot civil war. We may get the hot version anyway, since it surely seems that is what TPTB (in their ignorance, and madness) desire. But, if there were groups of ‘us’; in communities (and in communication) around the nation; things might be different…
I know I’m moving…
Sorry Brother should of kept reading before I commented;)
Is it really that complicated this idea of mine or is it so simple that people don’t think it will work because things have to be complicated in their minds…
I’m pretty sure I know what George Washington would say….Just sayin.