The 3 percenter non-sense.

Posted by Mostly Genius – November 6, 2008

Vanderboegh:Resolve

Vanderboegh remains a blowhard agitating for a whole lot of nothing. He wants his believers to train, organize, and wait. This he believes will form some sort of ‘deterrence.’ I would point out that MS13, the Bloods, the Crips, and the Latin Kings are better organized, funded, have more numbers, and are already conducting a low intensity conflict within our borders and the government doesn’t seem to be particularly interested. Certainly not to the level of changing national policy. He needs to read a little more recent history if he is going to be credible. The state of the art for insurgency has advanced since the Minutemen, and counter-insurgency has made some strides as well.

The government does not fear or respect the modern militia movement in any of it’s forms. It is impotent because it does not have a wide ideological base of support. Should a militia take or threaten any sort of violent action they will immediately be vilified in the media and in the minds of most of the populace. Ultimately they will hurt the very cause they are championing, because they do not have a base of popular support.

Vanderboegh and his ilk freely paint anyone who doesn’t support their armed insurgency as “cowards” and anyone who thinks about a political or media centric approach to reversing the slide into totalitarian socialism is some kind of ineffectual pansy. I would point out that the hard-line, “3%” crowd has yet to do anything except bark and alienate those with a less extreme view of what we need to do to accomplish our shared aims. Meanwhile the mainstream NRA continues to educate new shooters, fund political causes, and fight the battle in the courts. Using the system – kind of like the framers intended. The “pragmatists” don’t win all the fights and they don’t convince all the doubters, but at least they actually do something and they occasionally produce positive results.

The militia movement isn’t larger because most people do not agree with it. The small number of true believers that will actually take action are not significant in any real terms, and will never be until they have popular support on the level of a political party. It is at that point that they can cross over from being “domestic terrorists” in the eyes of the populace and start being perceived as “freedom fighters.”

Update: All of my posts on this topic:
The 3 percenter Nonsense
More 3 percenter Nonsense
The latest round of the 3 percenter Nonsense
Questions for the 3 percent

  • Gettalent

    Geez... Im not extreme and I support the 3%ers. These folks are merely exercising their rights and beliefs. Maybe they are proud of American heritage and the American revolution. I had heard that 3% of the colonialists defeated the British and created America. Im proud of that. Doesnt mean I have a stock pile of weapons or think the govt is out to get me. I do find it kind of extreme that supporting the Constitution is radical these days. Kind of a smack in the face to anybody that has defended our country.

  • Well, the 3%ers claim to be extremists that stockpile weapons and think the government is out to get them.  What does it mean to be a non-extremist supporter of an extremist organization? By the way, they are 'extremist' in rhetoric - not in action. They don't do action, save for a little bit of vandalism.

  • Plymouthian

    Wow. Just stumbled on this. Exhibit A for "Epistemic closure".
    Just checking, but has anyone had jackbooted stormtroopers bust in their doors since this kerfluffle began? What planet do you folks live on?

  • Donald

    Howdy, Reading these comments, it would seem that the Genius is making a name and or career for themselves by going at it with a group of three per centers. If the group of merry three percenters is such a big joke, why do you devote so much of your time and energy to them. You have thrown yourself into the pot with all of this disorganized "riff-raff" and become exactly what you decry in your tirades. You become a product of your enviornment. You mock,cajole,ridicule and generally believe these people are idiots. What is a person who gives idiots notice and publicity? An idiot. Knuck.

  • Do you have some kind of a point? Because if you do I wish that you would make it.

  • Solzhenitsyn

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

  • Tim

    MG says, "The fact is that I can’t hold you accountable for Vanderboegh’s bombast. Why you would choose to defend it escapes me."

    I would because Mike Vanderbough Understands what reality is.
    He also has a very aquite & good working sense of history, and Government.
    And what true rights are.

    Imagine Me coming to your home everyday. Staying with you and telling you what you could do all day long?
    Making more and more demands onto you that made you more & more angrier by the day. BUT NO! You cannot do anything about it, because it's the Law. Stay Law abiding MG.
    Every second. Making demands that upset you.
    Now I'm kicking you out of your own home...because I like it.
    Wouldn't last long would it? Would it MG?
    Even if I had a badge on.

    Come on MG?
    Give me 1/4 of your home? I'll get it anyway. Give me 1/2?
    Give me 3/4's of your wages, MG?
    You're going to give it to Me anyway.
    I'm the gov't, MG!
    Give me Your children MG. It's the Law. And I'll turn them into nice little tyrannts to force you into a camp, so i can Kill you.
    Can't happen MG?
    It did in China............
    Like I said MG? You're some what intellectual. But it is a false logic you see and live by.
    It's not 1, real people would react under.
    Like I said though? keep trying. We can hope for You.

  • Tim

    MG? What is Now, And what comes about from actions upon? Are............2 very different situations.
    Watch Charles Bronsons , "Death Wish" And The Sequels.

    This is a very good example of How Good people of sound moral principle react when pressured. It's Human nature.
    In my line of thought and beliefs it is Our Creators nature to survive, buildt in.
    Noone in the Militia is going Out looking for fights.

    Image for yourself if you will MG?

    They come to your door? Youhear a dog bark. It wakes You. All of a sudden you hear your door being smashed down in the middle of the night? Your childs room is just a few feet from the front door?
    You don't know who it is. You hear your child scream, DADDY!
    You run to their defense with you firearm. You see shadows of strangers ransacking your home.

    YOU FIRE on them to save your Family!
    Because............You cannot answer the definitive questions that you are presented with.
    All you will know at the time is...........What is my responsibility. What is My purpose in life? Who needs me the most at this time? What will I Do to protect the ones that will carry on My Line?

    Keep trying. You'll get it sooner or later. God Bless.

  • you guys have staked out a position that none of you will actually act upon

    If you say so.

  • Oldsmoblogger:

    If "killing people for exercising their rights is the government’s game" then please parse the "kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty" statement for me. That really doesn't sound like 'defending the doorstep' to me.

    Regarding "lets you and him fight", I guess it wouldn't be so tempting if your side wasn't so bold about talking a good killing and comparing yourselves to the glorious warriors of old.

    The fact is that I can't hold you accountable for Vanderboegh's bombast. Why you would choose to defend it escapes me.

    Update: I just caught your remarks over at SnowFlakes. I don't wonder why you folks aren't killing the anti-gunners: you guys have staked out a position that none of you will actually act upon. There is no mystery there. It's ok though, I thought it was a bad position from the start and I am glad it isn't going anywhere.

  • MostlyGenius, as odious as the Brady Campaign is, they are exercising their First Amendment rights. See, killing people for exercising their rights is the government's game, not mine.

    Frankly, you and BC are both engaging in the time-honored game of "let's you and him fight." Shall I give you advance notice og when and where too, so you can grab the popcorn concession? Might as well make it worth your while.

  • Tim:
    I don't think many people are happy with the government of any political stripe. The government represents a consensus (on some level), and that consensus in practice keeps pretty much everyone from getting everything they want.

    Heck if you can leverage 70% of Americans you don't even need them to fight, just get them to quit paying their taxes until things change.

    I cannot recall a single act of armed resistance (along the lines of this discussion) in recent memory that has ever gotten any massive popular support. Please correct me if I am missing something.

    My question is how bad does that repression have to get, before the government loses it's base? Can the base be shifted before the repression occurs?

    (I am not a government apologist so I don't really have any reason to defend the actions of the government against the Bonus Army.)

  • Tim

    MG says. " Should a militia take or threaten any sort of violent action they will immediately be vilified in the media and in the minds of most of the populace."

    Tims says, >>>> Oh you mean that populace of around 70% OF AMERICANS THAT ARE SO FEAD UP WITH GOV'T IN THEIR LIVES. THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO VOTE ANYMORE ?
    Because they already know where times are going?
    You mean The Ones I talk too that say EVERYTIME.........That they are so Sick & F'n tired of Lying Politicians and gov't theft?
    What I THINK you maY FAIL TO REALISE?
    Is that if the Gov't repression becomes So Bad? The Gov't is going to lose much of it's base.
    Drive it away, except for those who feel it is some kind of safety benefit.(But that will not last long)

    State to state fracturing. US armed forces fracturing.
    Once these people let the Cat out of the bag, so too speak?
    People are going to become encouraged in their Own Principles, as others begin to defend theirs.
    Because of their own deep seeded, Repression & Apprehension.

    Hey? I'm 45 years Old.
    You know what My Great Grandpa told me about Gov't?

    Don't expect to much good to come from it as You grow older my son.
    And expect to someday have to fight for your freedom here in the USA.
    He served in WW1!
    He was in DC when they shot VETS9! was his Best friend) for protesting the Gov/t lying to them about getting Paid for their service to their country. A PROMISE that Gov't made to our VETS and Broke!
    That's how far back this all goes and then some.

  • BC

    Christ, Mike, if you're going to reference something I said, at least have the integrity to quote me accurately.

    I never said that I wanted you and David Codrea dead in a ditch.

    What I said was that I'll believe you have the courage of your convictions when I see you dead in a ditch.

    Sure, you're all a fine bunch of Henry Bowmans on the Internet. But the grievance-mongering is long on goalpost-moving and short on actual gunfire. You gotta earn the Heroic Martyr Standing Up For Liberty cred, because the talk and the attitude is indistinguishable from garden-variety online gasbaggery.

  • Oldsmoblogger:

    The thing that seems to escape the "insurrectionists" is that they are fixated on process, rather than outcome. It is absolutely a popularity contest because without the population none of the end goals are achievable. If the aim is to restore the founder's republic there is nothing in the plan for doing so.

    As to the evidence of spoiling for a fight, or talking out your hats:
    "There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty."

    I am not hearing any gunfire, but MBV's barking becomes fodder for the Brady Campaign: http://www.bradycampaign.org/b... (As an aside: does the Brady Campaign not count as "trying to further restrict?" or does it have to be a politician or a federal agent?)

    Am I to believe now that this "trying to further restrict" is a reference to a federal agent kicking in the door of your home and not the politicians passing more laws? That sounds like the line in the sand is moving.

  • illspirit

    Just stopped in from Mr. V's blog, started to write a reply, and it got a bit long so I posted my $0.02 here. Sorry for not using a normal trackback thingy, but my home-brew scripts don't support it yet..

  • Cyborg Bill:

    Charming, I am sure the rest of your mensa group is lucky to have you.

  • Cyborg Bill

    MG, while I am hunkered down, I will be completely prepared to defend my property from all enemies - to coin a phrase - foreign and domestic. If the "authorities" in the area around our "compound" try to take any of our property I will respond with deadly force if necessary. Mike and the others aren't saying they will join in an armed insurrection. What they - hell WE - are saying is that we will defend our liberty and property with all levels of force - up to and including deadly force. I cannot speak for others but if you think I am bluffing consider this: in one week I pulled the plug on my baby brother, arranged disposition of his body, told my MOTHER she was terminal and filled in the blanks on a DNR, then on the following day I told my dieing Mother that her youngest son was already dead and 48 hours lafter THAT I pulled the nasal cannula out of my dead Mother's lifeless nostrils whereupon, having made initial arrangements for HER remains I got in my vehicle and drove home with my baby brother in a baggie in a box in the floorboard behind my seat! If I can do all that in 4 1/2 days, would you expect me to have trouble stopping ANYone who dares threaten my family!? Right now the government is part of "us". If it makes itself into "them" I will have no compunctions about defending my family and property from its agents.

    And I am not alone in my resolve. None of us are looking/spoiling for a fight. But if His Magnificent (that's what "Hussein means BTW) Obamaness (remember, he tacitly agreed that he would rule us) pushes things too far a fight is what he will get.

    Mark me. If the left goes too far it will start with demonstrations. Those demonstrations will escalate and sooner or later troops will be dispatched to settle things down. There may be multiple incidents - some making Kent State look like a picnic - but eventually a Governor will refuse to allow his state Guard to be nationalized and state Guard troops will face federal troops who only a few months before had been comrads in arms and the mutiny will start. Then AND ONLY THEN will the union be sundered.

    BTW, your link to what you characterize as "more 3 percenter nonsense" is invalid as published. You should either publish a correction or a retraction.

    What sort of egotistical asshole styles himself a "mostly" genius anyhow? I have yet to see any evidence of any sort of genius level mentation on MG's part.

  • Oldsmoblogger:

    I don't have time at this moment to give you an answer, but I will try to do so later today.

  • Mr. Vanderboegh:

    I am typing as fast as my little fingers will allow. I addressed your comment in a full, separate post:
    http://brillianter.com/2008/12...

  • Very well...but had the Virginia legislature been indifferent -- or worse, in connivance with Crown and Parliament -- what then would be your counsel?

    Particularly when "Turn 'em in" is followed by, "By the way, you owe my constituent over there a living now, so get digging."

    I read enough of your other work to know you are not a cheerleader for the State. But what is your evidence for the claim that we are either spoiling for a fight or talking through our hats? I (and better men and women than me simply state), for the record and under my right name, "this far and no farther."

    As for public support, certainly it's desirable. But if it's unavailable...well, I knew back when I started that I was entering the animating contest of our time, not a popularity contest.

    Ken
    III

  • Mike Vanderboegh

    O MG, I notice you've answered other's posts but not mine. From your comments to them I gather you've still not looked deeply into that mirror. What say you?

  • Oldsmoblogger:

    Yes, the political speech that caused the legislature to order military action against the British.

    I would point out that mustering that level of political support today would make a clash of arms irrelevant.

  • Cyborg Bill:

    The argument about federal troops resisting orders for gun confiscation is very accurate based upon my personal observations. I will say that the quickest way to change their minds is to shoot one of them.

    I would point out that "hunkering down" isn't really part of the argument. Assembling a survivalist group and retreating to the woods doesn't have much impact on government tyranny. Unless you are operating against the government you could "hunker down" in your house.

  • I will sum up the principle of "three percent," as I understand it, for you in 42 simple plain English (beautifully assembled, but plain English nonetheless) words.

    Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

    What exactly is your objection?

    Kenneth David Hall
    III

  • Jon:
    I am sorry I didn't follow much of your comment. I am not sure how thinking this theoretical armed insurrection is silly makes me a statist.

    If we believe that the "government engineering of public opinion" is possible (I believe they can shape it, but I don't think they can control it.) then wouldn't changing public opinion be a better place to start?

  • Cyborg Bill

    I consider myself a 3%er and I have no desire to die at this time. Neither will I meekly surrender my weapons. I will not fight - not alone. I already have the plans in place to get to a well watered, defensable position and hunker down. I am collecting containers in which to store non-perishable items such as flour, seed, cornmeal and such.

    If the SHTF, I plan to move in with a man I KNOW will not give up any of his guns. And he is a dead shot with a pistol at 30 yds easily. MUCH further than that with a long gun. I have already invited a retired Navy medic to be our doc. Got somebody else recruited to be our plant expert (I have a major yellow thumb). I am a pretty d*** good shadetree engineer so I will be the gadget guy.

    When things start to go to hell in a handbasket, it will not be over night. It will take time to develop and while it does I will stockpile supplies and move them to the compound. I am not into hand loading right now but I am looking at the basic equipment to do that. There's a WalMart nearby that sells ammo cheap. A flat nosed target round won't do as much internal damage as a Speer Gold Dot but it will hurt. WinClean target ammo is dirt cheap at WalMart. Lots of other stuff is, too.

    I don't know where you live, Mr. MostlyGenius (BTW, I outscored 80% of Mensa members on their own tests) but I suspect it is somewhere east and in a city. Out here in the west there may be more resistance than you think. Plus, just how sure are you that when the SHTF, all the feds will actually OBEY the order to confiscate the guns? Also, if Federal troops called out to "restore order" faced a line of National Guardsmen - whom many of them would have served with in the sandbox, the rockpile or both - how sure are you that the on site commander wouldn't say "F*** this! I ain't gonna do it!"?

  • jon

    "Every vote, lawsuit, and demonstration counts towards that restraint."

    where, exactly, does MBV fail to demonstrate the necessity of restraint on the behalf of antigunners? i'd have thought the point was painfully clear. "if you try to take our guns, we will kill who you send. that might get us killed. gee. shucks." quite frankly, it's simply god's honest truth. they're just words, you know. they're not going to bite you or anyone else. this is not a "tactic" per se.

    "In the case of the 3% they are self-isolating."

    no, they are isolated specifically by government engineering of public opinion. all governments learn that public opinion dictates the boundaries of their stretching room. hey, what happened to catering to minorities, anyways? and, hey, remember those kooky cultists, the branch davidians? i heard they were molesting children!

    as usual, government is the blind spot. "we owe it to ourselves," "they got what they had coming," "shouldn't have said that to such-and-such a person," "in the wrong place at the wrong time," "no affirmative duty to protect." you might not be a statist through and through, but you've certainly got some vestigial leviathan plugged into the back of your skull.

    excuse me while i try to work within some quicksand to breathe freely.

  • Mike Vanderboegh

    "This is as far as the bastards are getting."

    It is risky, I know, disputing someone with the humble title of "MostlyGenius," but I will chance it.

    Let us start the ball with your last statement:

    "My argument is not that the 3% doesn’t have the right goals, it is rather that the tactics they espouse will not improve the rights of citizens or achieve their aims."

    Our aims are:

    a. to defend ourselves and our liberty and property at our front door steps. We will not back up any more. It is the feds who will bring the war to us, first.

    b. to warn anyone who desires further encroachments upon our liberty and property that there will be consequences for their actions, thus, hopefully, to reduce the threat becoming reality.

    c. to make it plain to every one, prags included, that the time is fast approaching -- thanks to the "authorities" -- when they will have to choose, so they'd better get ready to shoot, shit, or hit the fence.

    Our tactics are defined by those aims.

    The Founders would be entirely at peace with those aims, and our tactics. If the defense of liberty is not YOUR aim, then I suggest you look in the mirror and quit pretending to the rest of us. How else, other than resistance, will you defend our traditional liberties in the coming period? The possibility of further predations of liberty like an "upgraded" AWB, or the seizure of control over the private sale of all firearms ("Loophole") is upon us. What will you do when they pass and begin to be enforced?

    Will you just roll over -- again?

    We are done rolling over. We are finished backing up. You will have to decide what YOU will do when the feds come to enforce compliance on ME at the point of a gun. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will resist, also at the point of a gun. If the Olofson case proved anything it proved that you can no longer even count on a fair trial in the federal courts. So, if I refuse to go to federal prison for the crime of being innocent, my only rational response is to sell myself as dearly as possible to prevent others from suffering my fate.

    I will die, at least, a free man. And if you do nothing, you will live . . . as nothing. Your choice.

    It is our enemies who are in the driver's seat. It is the enemies of the Founders' Republic who will be on the offensive. We Three Percenters are merely in the position of the 82nd Airborne trooper up on the Elsenborn Ridge in December, 1944. As he dug his fighting position, some refugees from the 106th Infantry Division were streaming past him and his buddies, fleeing the destruction of their division at the hands of the Germans. One of them, overcome by curiousity at the sight of somebody who wasn't running, called out, "Who are you guys?" The paratrooper answered, "I'm 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are getting."

    Mike Vanderboegh
    GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

  • Not one of the groups on your list represents the situation that the 3% will find themselves in: A scattered group of individuals acting independently without the external support of another nation and without the support of the local populace.

    Asymmetric warfare also includes a difference in tactics and the use of political and media assets as well as a difference in the size or capabilities of the belligerents.

    While fighting the agents the of the government might seem glorious and moral, the downside is that you have to get the neighbors silence and convince them that either you are acting in their best interest and/or that they have more to fear from you than they do your foes.

    My argument is not that the 3% doesn't have the right goals, it is rather that the tactics they espouse will not improve the rights of citizens or achieve their aims.

  • Asymmetric warfare from everything I have read is basically a drastic difference in the size of the participating forces, not morale or support of the community. It is a situation that requires a differnce in tactics that can be employed by each side due to their individual pros/cons. (e.g. force size, technology, community support, ability to travel)
    Times it has been on the "winning side"
    -BC Greece
    -BC Eqypt
    -American Revolution
    -Irish Revolution
    -Bolshevic Revolt(not truly winning, but I still puy it in)
    -Boer War (1st and 2nd)
    -Ottoman Empire has a few
    -Vietnam (a win for the "weaker" foe)
    -Soviet-Afghan War
    -Star Wars(sorry, I am a ture geek also)
    As I said I do not, and believe it is the general feeling, that now is NOT the time for aggression. No one i know of is trying to goat the country into a civil war, the statement is that we are heading down a path of despotism that MAY lead to an armed revolt, and if that time comes we will fight our own government(s). Depending on the actions of the "approved government agents" support from the general public could change to our side or it could not. Neither you or I "knows" what the future may bring, we can only guess and plan our lives accordingly. Beleive me, most days I admit I am on the "extreme side" and I hope I am wrong in my estimates of where we are going. I just cannot change my "gut feelings" of resistance.

  • The direct response (in as much there is one) is essentially a crackdown. The government gains the popular support to reduce our liberties. If it is simply change for the sake of change rather than improvement then the 3% can probably accomplish more that.

    I don't think you do greatly understand the theories for asymmetric warfare, because it can't go either way. Please tell me about an insurgency that won unsupported? A core principle of counter insurgency is to isolate the insurgents from the population. In the case of the 3% they are self-isolating.
    -MG

  • I believe I didn't communicate my point(s) well. I agree with a large percentage of your post and comments. I think it is a difference in perspective of what the 3% is. It is not, in my opinion, a political action committee; it is a vocalization of an attitude (hot air if you insist) and a warning to those who want to go against the original intent of the Constitution. The warning is that I, even maybe we, am/are willing to kill and/or die if the line is pushed. It is not a "one stop shop" fix it group, but a begining of an evolving group of potential plans. While I agree the government has not backed off the pre mentioned groups, the government has changed its polices, practices and laws as a DIRECT response to the actions of the groups. That was my point, one which a small group can, for better or worse, change the direction of politics.
    My claim and attachment to being a member of the 3%, does not define the other acts I take. I am active in defense of my home and neighborhood(personally and professionally). I do act in ways that I believe constitute a good citizen. I am not looking to be a vigilante or a terrorist. I am not a violent man, but I am stubborn and truly believe in the deepest reaches of my soul that I am right. I try daily to encourage others to learn and teach what is responsible. Life is a journey, I am trying to muddle my way through, but I need to stay true to my beliefs. For the record I will defend any group (NRA, GOA, even ACLU) that champions Liberty and fights for it. I just beleive that a time may come where talking and voting may be completely worthless, I hope not but it may be. I greatly understand the theories on both sides of asymmetric warfare, and history has shown that it can go either way. Just like any other war.
    Just trying to clairify MY points, I felt my original comments were not taken as they were meant.
    Jason
    III

  • "Changed perspective" how? Yes we are still fighting a 'war' on drugs, gangs, and violent crime. None of these groups (or Oswald) made the government decide to leave them alone, or back off on their efforts to kill, arrest, or imprison these groups. McVeigh didn't make the federal government rethink it's actions or policies.

    To a greater or lesser extent all of these groups lack a broad base of popular support. That is the part that is critical. If any of the 3% new a little more about asymmetric warfare you would recognize that very little can be accomplished by shooting a politician or two. Unless that politicians successor is going to do your bidding you are wasting your time.

    This is why I find the 3% position to be so much hot air. "Not provoking and not submitting" is actually less action than the NRA "pragmatists" are doing and they aren't pretending it's 'tactics.'

    Want to make a difference? Go be an armed neighborhood watch. Drop the crime rate in an area and build some popular support. Convince others to do likewise. Model what you believe to be good citizenship, preferably in a headline catching manner. Trying being called "vigilante" on for size (some people like them) before you start getting called terrorist (nobody likes them.)
    -MG

  • " I would point out that MS13, the Bloods, the Crips, and the Latin Kings are better organized, funded, have more numbers, and are already conducting a low intensity conflict within our borders and the government doesn’t seem to be particularly interested."
    Question, when have the above named targeted "national policy." If they had an open policy against the Mayors, Seators, Council Members etc.. that would shift quickly. The national policy is not threatened but justified by their presence. They have all affected their local governments greatly. Oswald changed the political spectrum forever. None of these groups or individuals should be looked at as a benfit to society, but they have changed the perspective. We of the 3% do NOT want to fight, do NOT want to die. But, we cannot submit to subjection. I do not consider someone who says today "I will not fight" is a coward, there is no immediate threat. If your perspective does not change if/when the feds are kicking in your neighbors door then I will have choice words for you. I just openly admit that I am willing to die and kill if that happens today, as a wrning to those who will do the kicking. I will not provoke, but I will not submit.
    Jason
    III

  • MostlyGenius

    Chris:
    You are welcome for the link (though I expect you get more traffic than I do.)

    "So while the rest of you figure out how to move forward and what to do next,the 3 percenters will still be here,unchanged and vigilant."

    Your comments don't offer any support for your assertions.

    I contend that the 3%'s have done nothing and will continue to do nothing. Based on your remarks if I do nothing I am a coward, but if you do nothing it is tactics?

    Dustin:
    Thank you for your comment.

    Mr. Vanderboegh:
    Still waiting.

  • Dustin

    "you espouse an untenable position: open insurrection without popular support"

    The crux indeed. I too enjoy MV's writings, but the above is the naked truth. Open insurrection is just not a strategically sound position at this juncture - almost entirely due to the media climate. We all know what picture would be painted, and that trumps the underlying truth every time. For proof see the election results.

  • Thanks for the link.

    I think the 3 percenters haven't had to change much over the years,regardless of what "political party" was in charge.

    It's quite obvious the GOP is dead. And that the Dems. are forever morphing into something different,and never anything good for the Citizens of this country.

    We've all got our ways of getting involved,one isn't better than the other. However,lawsuits are a big part of the problem in society as a whole. And certainly no solution.

    And honestly,saying that the "true believers" (3%ers?) are insignificant is just crap. Political "affiliation" obviously isn't working anymore. And Liberty to one person,might be different to the next.

    As Vanderboegh has said many times,no Fort Sumpters,so asking us to start this or asking why we haven't is Moot.

    So while the rest of you figure out how to move forward and what to do next,the 3 percenters will still be here,unchanged and vigilant.

    Where's your line,and how much more will you accept?

    Thanks again for the link.

  • MostlyGenius

    A sitting government can certainly wipe out our freedom, regardless of if that freedom was won at the ballot box or on the battlefield. This is why it is important to restrain that government. Every vote, lawsuit, and demonstration counts towards that restraint.

    So I am guessing all this 'kill or die' defense of the 2A must be fairly recent, since I don't recall your armed insurrection taking place during the last AWB. I guess that the line was still far enough front of you, so you 'acquiesced' to your oppressors. Was that cowardice or cognitive dissonance?

    And here we arrive at the crux of the matter, you espouse an untenable position: open insurrection without popular support. We have already seen massive infringements upon our rights and that 3% doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. In fact they seem to be doing less about it than those "prags" you speak so dismissively of. Those that you are calling 'cowards' are executing what they said they were going to do. What is it again that the hard-liners have actually done?

  • Mike Vanderboegh

    Ah, well you must not be the same "B.C" who wanted David Codrea and me shot dead in a ditch.

    Sez you: "My 'boggle' is just simply that the “3%” concept is inherently flawed.

    Sez me: And what do you understand that concept to be?

    Sez you: "Normally I would simply shrug and ignore it, except this centers around an issue that I consider near and dear. I believe that threats of armed insurgency do more harm than good in the long run. Declaring people are 'cowards' because they don’t believe in your rhetoric is simply divisive at time when we really need to be unified."

    Sez me: If some one claims to hold the Second Amendment inviolate, then in the next breath denounces someone who will die for it (and kill for it) on his doorstep, then it can be explained either by cowardice or cognitive dissonance. Which are you?

    Then sez you: "The 'pragmatic' approach might not have the same glory and tradition as armed rebellion, but does seem to occasionally get something done. In short I would say that giving $100 to the NRA or 2AF is doing more for our rights than buying ammo would."

    Sez me: "occasionally get something done." Hmm. No doubt you are referring to Heller perhaps? Is there anything about your "gains" that cannot be overturned under the new regime? Supreme Court? Assault Weapons Ban sunset? What will you "prags" do when the proscription of the private sales of arms without fedgov permission goes into effect. Ammo import interferences? A new more comprehensive AWB? What will you do when politics fails and they move the line behind where you now stand? That is the question. Will you refuse to back up? Or will you again acquiesce to your oppressor's plans?

    Then sez you: "I find your posts to be well written and I enjoy the historical excerpts, though truthfully I think that many of your parallels are a bit of a reach."

    Sez me: Keep reaching bro. One day you'll get there, boosted no doubt by the jack booted thug you never imagined would come to your door.

    Mike Vanderboegh
    III

  • MostlyGenius

    I am not sure what you are inferring with the police reference (I suggest you take a look at the post-columbine, 'active-shooter' theory/doctrine.) I guess you convinced Mr. Knox then.

    My "boggle" is just simply that the "3%" concept is inherently flawed. Normally I would simply shrug and ignore it, except this centers around an issue that I consider near and dear. I believe that threats of armed insurgency do more harm than good in the long run. Declaring people are "cowards" because they don't believe in your rhetoric is simply divisive at time when we really need to be unified.

    The "pragmatic" approach might not have the same glory and tradition as armed rebellion, but does seem to occasionally get something done. In short I would say that giving $100 to the NRA or 2AF is doing more for our rights than buying ammo would.

    I find your posts to be well written and I enjoy the historical excerpts, though truthfully I think that many of your parallels are a bit of a reach.

  • Mike Vanderboegh

    Ya gotta love cops. They're so risk averse they show up at a mass killing and throw up a perimeter until they can assess the situation. Shots, meanwhile, sound inside the building.

    Jeff Knox, a man with whom I recently crossed swords over the three percent concept just posted Resolve with approval. So what's your real boggle?

    Mike Vanderboegh

blog comments powered by Disqus