01 November 2012

How much Organization?

In any communication there is a level of encoding, transmission, and decoding. In language there is the point I tried to make, the words I actually wrote, and then the message that was actually received.  It seems that the words "We don't need a FreeFor War Department and Staff" have been bantered about, as well as "we don't need a 5 Paragraph OPORD with all annexes and appendixes."  I never wrote about creating a General Staff or a formalized operations order, so I will try again to get my point across.

One man alone with a rifle is less effective than 4 men trained to work together.  Every successful insurgency or revolution has had some level of organization.  Call it a "skeleton" at the beginning, but by the end it is a fully fleshed out organization.

The reason that 20 Million Deer Hunters exemplify the "Fetish of Marksmanship" is that they do not represent a credible threat to anyone.  Argue all you want about "potential" but right now no one fears the Fudds.  Except possibly the Violence Policy Center, which is convinced that anyone with a scope on their rifle is a skilled sniper just waiting for an excuse to snap and assassinate someone.  That is to be expected from a Liberal organization like the VPC, because they see violence as a legitimate political tool, a tool they don't want their opposition to have.

So the question remains, what is the appropriate level of organization for right now?  My gut answer is "teams and squads."  Anything more than that gets complicated quickly, and anything less than that is no better off than we are right now.

4 or 8 people can get together for a game of paintball or airsoft and not raise eyebrows.  They can conduct land navigation training while geocaching.  Individual skills are great to hone, but it is at the team and squad level that are the building blocks to success.

Think about it this way, it takes 8 teams to make a platoon.  Easier to organize 8 teams than 32 individuals.  It takes three Platoons to make a Company, easier to organize 24 teams instead of 96 individuals.  It is easier to organize 4 Companies into a Battalion than it is to organize 400 individuals.  A team structure can be "cellular" in nature, which is good for opsec.

400 hundred individuals, each isolated, unsupported, uninformed verses 96 teams ready to react verses 48 squads to task organize as needed.  Did I make my point?


Ironwill III said...

1 man and his rifle CAN have and effect against a regular army.

Let's not forget good ol' Jack Hinson

Michael Breneman said...

I am not as good a you in history or current military affairs. I have studied both. I think most of the problems you are having in this area are that most people cannot come to grips with the evaluation of the forces and the complexity of the endeavor. Take no offense from the questioners, none was really ment.

Show them HOW the "20" become the "force" and they will be still and carry on. Continue just telling them they are wrong, and they will fester like an infected sore and kill the body.

Move to the next level.

Oh, I am a huge fan.

Arctic Patriot said...

I agree. Teams and squads. Personal and local. Solitary if necessary, but teams and squads where possible/prudent.

Another aspect to the Fudds' powerlessness is will. Guns are useless without will.

It is going to take a pretty dramatic nudge to convince Joe America to get off his duff and leave everything to fight and die in a long-chance fight.

In all likelihood, this isn't happening soon.

Why? The answer is simple.

It's not time.

When it is time, nothing in the world will stop it.


Badger said...

Keep developing it. If organization even at basic f/t level wasn't important then I guess SF, who have been putting together operational collections of little brown guys in their bread & butter UW mission for quite awhile, and doing it better than BigArmy ever thought of, must have it all wrong. OK, tongue out of cheek now. ;)

AM said...

Ironwill III,

Jack Hinson sure was an effective rifleman. So was Simo Haya, Carlos Hathcock, Alvin York, and a bunch of other famous marksmen.

It is truly a pity that there aren't 20 Million riflemen like that. The South Lost, Finland lost, America lost in Vietnam, and America contributed to victory in WWI. The outcome of the war was not decided by a single rifleman.

Do not confuse tactical effectiveness with a substitute for victory and achieving the the political goal for which fighting is worthwhile.

Mt Top Patriot said...

Mr. Am Merc,

Have a question for you.

If you had at your beck and call lets say 35 Mr. Fudds, self equipped with an array of gear and weapons, what would you do?

Mt Top Patriot said...

You know something you guys, I think the heart of the matter is not so much organization, nor training, politics, or fealty, these thing count for a lot, but maybe it is a question of leadership.

Who, where, are the Leaders?

AM said...

Mt. Top Patriot,

First off, get them all together and figure out what they are fighting for and come up with a rules of engagement, alert roster, and propose a schedule for training. Organize them into fire teams and squads. Find out which have skills to be Designated Marksmen, medics, or have demolitions experience.

Train on Fire and Maneuver, specifically recon, ambush and raid. Train on tactical movement, tactical communication, land navigation, and sabotage.

Then we would volunteer in our respective communities, fundraising, charities, doing things to improve the lives of the people we would live amongst. Win the hearts and minds of those who would be your allies.

An emergency is the worst time to meet for the first time.

Anonymous said...


My questions regarding the "FreeFor War Department" or lack thereof weren't directed at you out of misunderstanding, but towards another poster who explicitly stated that a Pentagon full of officers was a complete luxury.

I *did* respond re: the 5 Paragraph Order, because I think you reach for the Army's planning matrices by Pavlovian reflex. They have their place, but they aren't omnipotent.

But you've been more than indulgent to prodigious loads of skepticism, so do please have this your way as far as I'm concerned.

So, by your own admissions elsewhere, there is no strategic objective to fight for shared by any 20, let alone 20M or 100M like minded individuals.

Form that strategic vision, and show your work.

I think, based on direct observations on a handful of blogs, that no two correspondents have the same notion of what the Trigger Event looks like, what the Threat Objective is, or what their own overall objective is or ought to be, just for starters.

Without that, you only reduce the problem of orientation from a compass with 20M points to one with 1M, still pointing in all directions, *if* everyone "groups up". (I think the word I'm looking for is either Bosnia or Beirut...)

So, in patriot shorthand:
Who's King George?
What does he want, strategically and tactically? Where and when does Lexington occur?
How long before it gets here?
How does a Continental Congress get selected?
Who's George Washington?
How should the Declaration of Independence read?

All that casting and backstory has to be fleshed out pretty thoroughly before anyone is going to feel the necessity of Baron von Steuben.

And if you (the royal you, "y'all", and not just AM) can't come up with just all of that, then what? Charge off in all directions? Give up? Double or treble your organizational efforts? (This last goes by the title "Throttle Increases Under Whiteout Conditions". Spoiler Alert: This ends poorly for vehicle occupants.)

And by the by, I'm not making pitches for counter-offers, nor being deliberately difficult. I'm riding your horse, as issued here, until he drops or breaks a leg.
So, how does this all come together?

Best Regards,

Anonymous said...

Forgive the ALLCAPS...it's the fastest way to do this.

Who's King George?


What does he want, strategically and tactically?



Where and when does Lexington occur?


How long before it gets here?


How does a Continental Congress get selected?


Who's George Washington?


How should the Declaration of Independence read?




Anonymous said...

Bravely attempted, CA.

Okay, so that's answers to 1, 2, and 7, and four "I Don't Know" answers to 3, 4, 5, and 6.
(The attempt to filibuster 5 was bold, but futile. The Continental Congress, or whatever the national political leadership gets called, is crucial. Deciding to decide to decide is not the same thing at all as actually picking the decision makers.)
They're all critical questions, so the Go/No Go criteria is effectively 100%. You can't ride to war on 80% of a horse. Once we get 100% of a horse, *then* we can judge whether it's a war horse, or a sway-backed glue factory nag.

Bearing in mind this still has to play in Peoria, and sell a workable number of likeminded individuals, let's say I fully agree with the answers given.

So, at the schools anyone attended, what letter grade is assigned for a 42% score...?

That's where we are.

Best Regards,

Anonymous said...

Aesop, just curious, do you have any kind of background in these things? Military, police, armed security? Or maybe ran a successful business?

Anonymous said...

This tells me that(1)The petagon is Terrified of leaderless resistance(2) They are working overtime to interdict what they see as a probable mass upriseing(3)The intel. comunity is still as clumsey and awkward as ever.(4) The "patriot", or FREE-FORs are sill the same gassbags they were in the 90s(5)Short of a "black swan" all that will come of this is hot air.

Anonymous said...


Asserting a proposition is not the same as proving it.

1) Please explain, in detail, why you believe a "Congress" without authority or funds is important.

An information/propaganda operation as an element of any successful Resistance?

You bet.

But a bunch of folks -- especially those from outside my AO -- tossing about rhetoric and presuming to tell us what to do in our home turf?

Eff that.

Now, there will be citizen's committees in the states, I would imagine, and I would assume that the civil affairs dude or dudette from each resistance org would be the liaison to those state-level groups, if for no other reason than to keep an eye on the SOBs.

But a "national" or "Continental" talking-without-resources shop?

[insert rapid hand gesture signifying onanism]

2) Re "when", you seem to think that anyone in '72, '73, '74, or even early '75 knew that Lexington/Concord was going to happen in 4/75. Asserted but not proven. Authority for that proposition?

3) Re George Washington, same issue. In April '75, he was a former British colonial militia leader, like loads of others. In marketing terms, the brand of "George Washington" had not been created.

Fact is -- an awful lot of conflicts have started without the structure implied by "You can't ride to war on 80% of a horse."

Not opposed to value-adding organization, but the key is "value adding".

Establishment and continuity of individual freedom (ECIF) ops in one's immediate AO do not require a Continental Congress. Instead, what is needed is intelligence (in all aspects), some skills, some logistics, and solid allies via networking in meatspace, plus will.

And everyone involved will be deemed a rebel whose life will be forfeit.

Just like '75.



AM said...

Lest we forget, it was the presence of a well organized and armed citizens militia that prompted the British to march on Lexington and Concord in the first place.

Being ready for rebellion in essence made rebellion inevitable if the Empire refused to recognize the rights and freedoms of individuals. Had King George decided to support freedom we would not be having this conversation right now. King George decided to assert his authority because he saw a credible threat.

Going back to Clausewitz's continuum of politics, King George recognized a legitimate threat but was not convinced that it would be easier to capitulate than crank down. Obviously there is a difference in the level of organization needed to respond to tyranny verses that needed to prevent tyranny. The Founders couldn't prevent tyranny with their level of organization prior to the opening of hostilities.

Anonymous said...

If you're trying to get me to go against the proposition that organization is necessary, I remind you I promised to ride the horse that was issued.

So moving on, the answer to your first Q. is
"Without a national authority, representing all regions and groups fairly, no one can set national objectives. Even *with* such a Congress, consensus is a bitch. Read the squabbling that preceded the Declaration of Independence.
You can't even now try to run things by direct democracy. That takes you right back to a compass where North is in 20M directions.
And you can't do it by loose "states rights" confederation. The last time a group tried that here was 1863, and their capitol was Richmond. I trust you remember the result of that experiment.
Also, they wouldn't lack authority. Goverment derives its authority from the just consent of the governed. You have to elect them because you need the direction and strategy they will bring. If you can't decide on political leadership when the wolf is at the door because of parochial concerns, you'll deserve the tyranny you'll get. Unfortunately, I'll get it to, which makes you part of the poblem.
If you try to go it alone, those states who show up will decide things *for* you, without your input. And are you really so strong you can take on Leviathan and the Patriot Army we're building?
Which brings us to the next reason: No Congress, no Geo. Washington. You can run a leaderless cell, maybe even a squadron of them, but you cannot run a leaderless revolution, or any army without a Commander. Don't believe me: ask Ho, Fidel, Mao, Lenin, Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Napoleon, or David.
So you need to have representatives of every state, to select a leader for the army you'll need to become a State.
As for funds, if the oppressed won't cough them up, you won't have to worry about gaining freedom - because you won't. And if you ain't on the fron lines, having to pay taxes *twice* gives you "skin in the game", so you aren't likely to not give a damn who wins. Damn sure you'll root for someone, if only to cut your taxes!
As to "when?"
The colonists clearly knew well before that something was going to happen, or they wouldn't have been stockpiling arms, cannon, and powder, nor setting up intel networks to hang lanterns in Old North Church. They knew George III didn't send boatloads of regulars all the way to Boston just to sample their chowder.
When is important to us, because it'd be foolish to undertake a 10 year plan if the evidence is you've only got 6 months. Ask the garrison at Wake Island in 1941 how that pans out.
And the bigger question, by far, is what constitues "Lexington" this time around. (For the record, most of the Congress wouldn't agree for over a year after Lexington that they were in fact a nation, and actually all in revolt.)
Do you figure we'll have 15 months to chew the fat next time?
And do you think it'd be useful for the 99.9% of the country who feels no sense of urgency, to have some representative body and patriotic group solidly behind a unified notion of what constitues "fighting words", or should we just leave that to some cammie-clad tinfoil hat-wearing nutjob launching YouTube videos from his mom's basement?
If you're going with "A", meet your new best friend: Continental Congress 2.0.

Arctic Patriot said...

I have some thoughts to add.

Any "organization" or group that is not organic to the population, and/or places its highest loyalty somewhere outside of the community (even to itself), just might find itself in a bad way.

People will more likely tolerate a known group if it has some benefit/is working in their favor.

An outside group, with no demonstrated loyalty to the community, working autonomously and loyal to / answering to nothing higher than itself will likely ultimately fail.

That is not to say that groups cannot work outside of/independently of their area, but I am saying that Che's corpse speaks volumes.

First though, there has to be will. Most of the nation has not come to the conclusion that there is something to be defied and resisted.

It will be, my detractors' unsubstantiated claims nonwithstanding, a very long war.

It won't start until the time comes, and once it begins, it will not stop until it is finished.


Arctic Patriot said...

I said this: "First though, there has to be will. Most of the nation has not come to the conclusion that there is something to be defied and resisted."

Che's failures in Africa tell us this much.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 5:32

I did a tour and change with Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, 5 years armed security and consulting on the southern border catching 2-legged coyotes and cartel drug runners, most of my degree work is in political history and international affairs, got 200 feet of bookshelves (that I've read) incl. everything military from the U.S. Army TO&E of 1936 to the Colonial Army Manual of Arms to the Lessons Learned in Vietnam ca. 1969 and in the Indian War ca. 1869. And most everything in between.
I've shot documentaries, worked on 100+ feature films and network shows,written published articles and shot photos of the Border War currently occuring to the south, run shelters in major disasters, trained Navy docs, nurses, and corpsman for gunshot trauma before they went into Iraq in 2002, racked up almost 20 years of emergency medical work, the last 12 exclusively in the busiest ERs on the planet, zipping up enough body bags and strapping down enough crazy people to last me a lifetime. I've resurrected the dead, cared for the sick, tended the injured, started the breathing and stopped the bleeding, and been punched, kicked, puked on, pissed on, spat upon, promoted, commended, fired, nearly arrested, and occasionally even thanked for my efforts. I've petted mountain lions, stolen dogs, juggled kittens, and wrangled pigeons and seagulls, with the the scars to prove it. I also have a decent number of small arms (around this group I'm probably sub-par), have shot semi-competitively, sold guns retail and wholesale, crossed 3 international borders on foot -1 of them legally, speak better Spanish than most of the hispanics I work with, which isn't bad for a white guy, and I am a successful business, as the IRS reminds me every year. I've broken rules, laws, bones, and hearts. I've seen The Exorcist 27 times and it keeps getting funnier every time I watch it. I'm a Virgo, my turn-ons are cowboy guns, automatic weapons, and hot blondes in leather skirts, and I have a cat. In my spare time I log onto internet blogs, and regularly get my @$$ handed to me by 7-year olds on X-Box Live Call of Duty.

That and $1, gets me 3 glazed donuts at Krispy Kreme.

So yeah, I've done stuff.

Pretty much, I figure, like everyone else here has.
Hope that answers your question.


Jim Klein said...

Aesop, your comments in these threads have been kickin' ass and I agree with all of them...till now. Now I admittedly suck at pragmatics and you clearly don't, but I don't think that's going to get you to where you want.

Here's the existential problem with CC2.0---ain't gonna happen, and that's that.

Really, that's sufficient "proof," but here are the reasons. That's yesterday's war, not tomorrow's. People are DONE with representation, or at least the thinking people are. They'll go along with agency of course, but they WON'T go along with "majority rule." Nor should they.

There comes a time when men have to stand up and say, "Stick a fork in it; it's over." Then, whether to just stay alive or build the communities they wish, they'll just DO it. We've been hoodwinked by Democracy exactly one generation too many. Hell, one day we may thank Barack Obama for finally making it so clear.

AM answered his own riddle in his reply to MTP---"First off, get them all together and figure out what they are fighting for..."

That's exactly right and why none of this means anything until the fighters--whoever they may be--know what the hell they're fighting for.

Until the EXPLICIT answer is "for me and mine," it's just going to be a replay over and over again. That's why nothing has changed, and that's why the same issues keep coming up century after century after forsaken century.

Nobody can represent you except you, and that's a wonderful thing. But contradictions don't exist and as long as anyone believes that it can be otherwise, this is going nowhere at all. The logic tells us that, and the evidence demonstrates it.

The Information Age may save us yet, or it may not. Just as an armed society is a polite society, so a transparent society will be a civil society. But as long as some men are fighting for this, and some are fighting for that, nothing can ever possibly change. It's Rule of the Gang, for this or for that. The Founders understood this, which is why the Articles of Necessity, the DofI, the AofC and even the Constitution tried to put it all into words...it's about the INDIVIDUAL'S life and his right to it. That, plus everything that goes along with it.

Well, we don't need any of that any more, because we understand the IDEAS. Or we can, if we wish. It's an either-or: either we instantiate those ideas, or we don't. It's an individual decision, one mind at a time, and we'll know in a couple of decades what everyone decided. I can hardly wait to find out myself.

Now everyone can carry on, figuring out which collective they're fighting for. Good luck representing my fed-up ass, cuz that ain't gonna happen. Others may cage me or kill me, but nobody else is gonna BE me.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Jim, but the company answer to that is going to be that if we can't or won't replace the leadership that doesn't represent us with one that will, and unite to form a common strategy and support a united army, we'll be stepped on one by one.

The majority always rules, one way or the other.
Ask the Neanderthals, Carthage, or Custer.

Most people's idea of independence is fireworks. The vast majority, by actual tally, thinks the Bill of Rights guarantees them a living courtesy of your paycheck and mine, free health care forever, 40 acres of medical marijuana, and a drug mule.

Now, just like 1775, the vast majority doesn't care crap-all about your and my concept of liberty. The battle to be will once again pit today's Tory minority, wishful to keep everyone happily toiling on the King's plantation, against our minority wanting to live free.

You won't get there without us, and we won't get there without you. So we can't spare you.


AM said...

Jim Klein,

No riddle involved here. If you want an organization to stand through adversity people need to be agreeing on where it is going. Whether that be a ship at sea or a commando troop in the bush. At some point there has to be some level of recognized authority, and some level of "mission buy in" from all participants in order to be effective.

Aesop is right that most people with constructive comments have "gone somewhere and done something" in their lives. We aren't disagreeing that there is a threat to liberty, we are disagreeing about how to prevent that loss.

Half the comments seem to think that the moral and political authority for violence can spontaneously arise in a population. This is the fiction of "The Turner Diaries" that caused Tim McVeigh to murder kids. The patriot movement suffered how many setbacks because he was convinced that America was ready to revolt against the chains of tyranny?

People are talking about triggers and timing, what is necessary for success when that happens, and what the endstate should look like. That we don't always agree is a good sign of independent thought. You want to see a community that agrees with each other, look to the liberals, they do not tolerate dissent.

Anonymous said...


No one wants to be John Brown.

And while I think the ovewhelmingly unorganized response after Concord snatched victory from what would have been at best a draw, upon reflection I wholeheartedly agree that it was Captain Parker and 76 Minutemen, who stood and took fire, that unleashed the moral authority for farmers to unload on the retiring British troops the rest of the day.

And clearly he and his men were there with the tacit approval of the entire state; why else the lanterns in the church, Paul Revere's ride, and all the other support from Boston?

I even dare to expect it was a redcoat who fired first that day. We'll never know, but I don't think Parker nor any of his men could have lived with the shame of sparking an entire revolution, and shudder at the though some backwoods stable hand might have been the one to do so.


Jim Klein said...

I don't disagree with you AM, but (as you've noted) there's a difference between the practical tactics and the philosophical (political, if you must) strategy. The former can be built from the ground up when necessary, but the latter is a matter of principle, and so must be top-down. McVeigh has nothing to do with this, because he totally missed on both.

Aesop, I still think there's not enough thinking outside of the box, at least on the strategy end. We're stuck with yesterday's axioms and I think it's leading many good people astray. Always has.

Sure the majority rules, but that's only when the members of the majority decide they want to rule others. You can say that's how it's always been, but I'm saying that's not how it has to be.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I know sure as shit that Rule of the Gang ain't it. If there's not consent, and that means explicit consent, then it's not legitimate and nothing can ever, ever change that. Begin at the beginning.

Jimmy the Saint said...

@Ironwill III: "1 man and his rifle CAN have and effect against a regular army.

Let's not forget good ol' Jack Hinson"

Or Simo Hayha. Or Lee Harvey Oswald, for that matter. One of the few times that one man's vote for president ever counted.

Lone wolves can be very effective, but most of the time they are going to be wiped out pretty quickly, too. By way of example, Nidal Hassan did a lot of damage at Ft. Hood, but he won't be causing any more carnage.

Anonymous said...


Well, I tried. But the horse, he no work.

After 9 innings, not only is there no consensus, we've gone *backward*: representative democracy is apparently off the table, and any political component or strategic focus is evidently just a wankfest.

Everybody isn't just going to go their own way, they *want* to. In fact, it's worse than 1775: no one even wants to join the militia.

So your first task in making a wool overcoat isn't finding a pattern, it's finding a sheep.

I would counsel a focus on preparation of the individual soldier, and occasional team and squad tactics.
There'll be no major headaches over intel other than checking with the other mice about where the cat is, and logistics will be of the "Heartbreak Ridge" variety:
Well, you can walk into battle..."
Personnel matters will largely be solved in the morning shaving mirror, and ops decisions will generally revolve around "What mischief will I make myself do today, Self?"

Some hardy souls will find a small group of LMIs, perhaps enough for a scratch squad, so long as no one tries to be the sergeant.

They won't trust the group one neighborhood or ridgeline over ("propably infiltrated by government spies!"), and they won't even know the one on the ridge or neighborhood beyond that.
The vast majority of folks will in fact be an Army Of One.

And these are the *best* equipped and trained you'll ever see. Pity what shows up after the Black Swan appears. They'll be showing up for the prom en masse, in shorts and t-shirts, and dancing lessons will be short, if they get any at all.

You see teams and squads as the least we can do; I see them as the most you'll ever get.

And if I can lean on Clint once more, even counting what's in your ruck, the two most critical - which is to say enhacing the odds of anyone's survival -skills will be
how far you can hump with that ruck on your back, and
how well you can hit targets with your rifle, from just as far away and concealed as you can get.
That's why I favored focusing on self-directed, -supplied, and -deployed individuals from the outset (and it doesn't matter whether they're rodeo clowns or deer hunters, but the shooting criteria kind of gives Elmer the edge).
Because to quote no less an authority than Captain Jack Sparrow, "There's what you can do, mate, and what you can't."

Best Regards,

AM said...


You wrote:
"You see teams and squads as the least we can do; I see them as the most you'll ever get."

Seems like we've reached middle ground. At least in terms of deciding on "what right looks like" for now.

Anonymous said...

Yup. (With the proviso that at times, more than a pair will be too much, and that at *very* rare times, as much as a platoon may be temporarily justifiable.)

Which is going to make for a lonely and brutal first phase. I think it's going to be an insurgency fought by corporals and buck sargeants.

So along with boots and a rifle, youthfulness will be a major factor. Forget deer hunters; start recruiting 20M paintballers. Now.
FC7 may need to become a comic book series.

(I can see the response from other quarters already:
"The Mis-Directed Fetish of Facial Camo").

Best Regards,
- Aesop

Jim Klein said...

Damn you're good, Aesop! My only retort is, "It's just too late, that's all." That doesn't mean it's too late for victory, or for civilization, or any of that. It means, what else do you expect when generations of people have been taught not to think? It's less that the horse no work, than that the horse can't do logic.

I'm pretty sure I'm typical in some ways. I spent my life consenting, even when it bugged me. I spent my life working my ass off, watching huge chunks of production go down unbelievable sinkholes...and to the very worst among us yet.

You know what I mean, I'm sure, and so you know why I can't ever consent to the same sort of bullshit again. So either we're going to get back to the actual principles of this country--by CHOICE, not marching orders--else we old farts will just leave the picture one by one until nobody's left but collectivists.

We all know what's a-comin' and we all know its nature. I wouldn't want you to think that I don't understand that, or that I don't understand what tactical success means and what it takes. But I still go back to AM's line, that none of it matters unless the team understands what the hell it's fighting for.

Life is for living, and living is about winning. That doesn't mean OVER other people; it means WITH other people. None of that is the issue to me---the issue is, "What for?" When the answer from the so-called freedom fighters is, "For our own damn lives, you nitwit," then and only then will the team be strong enough to win.

That's the ONLY strategy that will win, period. Tactics, y'all can figure out.

Mt Top Patriot said...

Dear AM,
You have a good head on your shoulders and a heart full of goodwill.

What you said,

"Then we would volunteer in our respective communities, fundraising, charities, doing things to improve the lives of the people we would live amongst. Win the hearts and minds of those who would be your allies."

That is community organizing I can believe in.

In a way I never thought of, just that alone what you wrote above is profound in it's own right. You know that is the heart of the matter, because if your not preparing and then possibly fighting for your community, your neighbors, your friends, even people you don't know, what are you fighting for? Liberty is one of the great human endeavors, but without tribe, what have you?

Thanks kindly and warm regards for helping me understand a lot of things AM.

PS, miss your little quick analogy stories. Those are well done and wonderful learning tools. I know they get me thinking. Might be if you do one with the theme of what you wrote above, you could go far to getting your point across about deer hunters.