As some of you know, we tried to explore the idea of having a National EFFORT in order to unite the militias in a set of common objectives and goals. Unfortunately, the server of the board never responded to customer service questions. Sooo...
What we learned is that most of the clique groups adamantly oppose a national effort because they have the equivalent of several national militias - though they will not call them that. They would accuse us of trying to start a national militia with national leaders, etc. while, in reality, they were already maintaining a national effort.
In my mind there is a difference between a national effort and a national militia. An effort only says that we can sign a document that outlines what we consider to be issues which we would defend one another over. A national militia is one that has a leadership and jurisdiction over a national body.
Well, I've come to some personal observations. The first one is that America is no longer being governed by the Constitution. The second observation is that we don't need a Second Amendment in order to have a militia for the RIGHT to keep and bear arms - the Second Amendment only means the government acknowledges and guarantees the RIGHTS we already have. The final observation is that there are people who genuinely want to organize at a national level.
I started a rough draft of a document that needs your attention:
Beyond that, we learned that the people who want a national militia (they went from the effort directly to a national organization) think that the Gadsden is still the best choice for a militia flag.
Well, with little time left, I've not abandoned the hope for something bigger than these mickey mouse discussion boards. So, let's forget about a unified effort, do any of you support the idea of having a militia which can reach a national audience? If so, let's discuss it and see if we can't put something together. But, please, let's start talking about what we hope to do and what we want to accomplish BEFORE we start talking about who we are going to put in charge.
Unless I missed my cue, the people have spoken about the militia in general. In this case, they have shouted.
We got a number of inquiries about helping to establish militia groups in each state with an interest in a national militia. We had all kinds of support via e mails and PMs, not to mention the occasional support on a thread here.
When we started the national board, suddenly silence fell. And I was left alone to be kicked around by rank amateurs who have absolutely NO EXPERIENCE in operating major militias, political campaigns and / or fighting actual court cases.
Sooo... it leaves me wondering what the militia is about to become and how my outdated hind end can benefit the militia and the cause of liberty. From my perspective, it appears that most of the people have rolled over and decided to play dead.
Some questions and thoughts on your original post and your July 4 post (Happy Independence Day!):
Enforcer wrote:
What we learned is that most of the clique groups adamantly oppose a national effort because they have the equivalent of several national militias - though they will not call them that.
Wow, that's news to me! While I was aware of several very large groups with "chapters" nationwide, I did not know they oppose a national alliance.
Enforcer wrote:
They would accuse us of trying to start a national militia with national leaders, etc. while, in reality, they were already maintaining a national effort.
So, if my understanding of what you're saying here is that there already is a national effort in existence, the goal of getting that effort is already achieved; all that would be necessary is getting people on board with the existing effort, right?
Enforcer wrote:
In my mind there is a difference between a national effort and a national militia. An effort only says that we can sign a document that outlines what we consider to be issues which we would defend one another over. A national militia is one that has a leadership and jurisdiction over a national body.
I agree with this concept totally: An alliance (effort) does precisely what you suggest and would be the best thing for all militia groups. An alliance doesn't reduce autonomy; it provides strength.
Enforcer wrote:
...The final observation is that there are people who genuinely want to organize at a national level.
If that's the case, would it not make sense to see if some sort of common ground could be reached with those groups already having a 'national effort'? It would move us forward by leaps and bounds, would it not?
Enforcer wrote:
Beyond that, we learned that the people who want a national militia (they went from the effort directly to a national organization) think that the Gadsden is still the best choice for a militia flag.
Well, with little time left, I've not abandoned the hope for something bigger than these mickey mouse discussion boards. So, let's forget about a unified effort, do any of you support the idea of having a militia which can reach a national audience? If so, let's discuss it and see if we can't put something together. But, please, let's start talking about what we hope to do and what we want to accomplish BEFORE we start talking about who we are going to put in charge.
You're right--this does needdiscussion. Simply because at the beginning of this post/string, you said that several "national efforts" already exist. This has been one of your goals (at least that's what I thought). So now, based upon what you've said, you've decided that the effort initiative is not a good one and you wish to test the waters to go to a national organization?
Let's say for a moment that we come up with laudable tasks and goals BEFORE putting someone in charge and everything is working well. Does that not put us in competition with other "national" organizations? While competition is what makes a free market grow, I don't know if that's what would be best for any militia. The bottom line is that all those other "national" groups would still be, in fact, militia, they'd just be "factions". Factional differences can be exploited and have the groups turn agains each other.
I would be behind an effort to get all the groups known (from one to several hundred members) to agree on what we would come to the aid of the others for (when and why). From that "alliance" other things could grow that you've spoken about before. The national alliance would allow the different existing perspectives to be placed in a national "spotlight" among the members and the alliance's "personality" (if you will) would evolve. From that personality would come the alliance's stance on standard operations, political involvement, and so on. The various disciplines necessary for the groups (legal, economic, martial, etc) would be dealt with by expertise in the groups.
The major advantage of a national effort over a national organization, even formed in the manner which you propose, is that the effort does away with direct competition, because it's unnecessary. Sure, others could attempt other "national efforts", but if the effort we espouse makes sense and appeals to the others based upon commonality of purpose, this effort will be embraced and "other efforts" will fall by the way side.
One more thing...while I understand that this is a "special" forum that folks can only reply to, is it possible to at least allow editing for typos, spelling, etc?
MPA, I feel like I'm about to get baited into a no - win argument with you since we've had this discussion before. Let me be very clear:
There is a group touting their "national standards" and then denying that they are a national militia. They created a "Commanders Forum" and then proceeded to kick members out without the benefit of a hearing, a basic inquiry into the facts, etc. Many others were given this royal treatment... and some people went on to start other organizations from the crappy treatment received.
Actually, there is no point covering that ground. We've been there too many times as it is. And those who feel they are in power think that they are too good to debate an issue. It would result in a threat to their power base. And that's always been my downfall - I don't give two hoots in hell about being popular. I simply want to get America started back on the right track.
We can blow smoke up each other's hind quarters all day long, but the bottom line is that the so - called patriot movement is never frequented until the controlled news and entertainment media focus on some issue like Y2K or maybe the need to get prepared just in case the SHTF (as in post 9 / 11 worries.) The balance of the time, we find the militia groups all jockeying for a spot among those who are consummate groupies. We're all fighting over the same piece of pie... which is extremely small.
I got tired of all of it and just pointed out a few facts: A) I helped build the largest and longest lasting militia in the modern era of citizens militias B) NOBODY in the patriot movement (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) has won more patriot related issues in the court system than I have and C) NO other organization can boast of having turned an entire community represented by liberal demonrats to conservatives who are retardicans. AND along those same lines, my former U.S. Congressman (who helped me challenge the so - called "Patriot Act") is now running for United States President... Bob Barr.
We can pontificate all day long about what will work and what won't. But, if I say something will work, I'll go out and prove it. My problem is, once it's been done, I tend to get mad when others waste their time trying to be armchair generals and criticizing me when their back yards are full of scatalogical waste (i.e. liberals running every part of their community as examples.)
So, my failsafe is that we tried to get all the militias on the same page with respect to a national effort. The old nationalmilitiaforum became quite the joke when everybody was worrying about who was going to lead the charge, what kind of patches we would wear, what kind of flag we should be represented by, etc. Well, if there is any interest in a genuine militia - and if you don't like my use of the term, then a well regulated resistance effort can take its place.
Bottom line: I was a part of the militia when the rest of America had never even given it a thought. It was my friends and fellow militia members who built the modern era citizens militias. And it was the internet which tore them down. Today, all we hear is what will and what will not work - mostly what will NOT work, and ALL OF IT by people who have no intention of jumping in and helping me by sweating, bleeding, sacrificing and working for no pay, no glory and not even the possibility of a mention in the history books.
For so long as but a hundred of us remain alive, we will in no way yield ourselves to the dominion of the English. For it is not for glory, nor riches, nor honour that we fight, but for Freedom, which no good man lays down but with his life. From the Declaration of Arbroath, 1302. The Times Book of Quotations
MPA, I feel like I'm about to get baited into a no - win argument with you since we've had this discussion before.
Today, all we hear is what will and what will not work - mostly what will NOT work, and ALL OF IT by people who have no intention of jumping in and helping me by sweating, bleeding, sacrificing and working for no pay, no glory and not even the possibility of a mention in the history books.
For so long as but a hundred of us remain alive, we will in no way yield ourselves to the dominion of the English. For it is not for glory, nor riches, nor honour that we fight, but for Freedom, which no good man lays down but with his life. From the Declaration of Arbroath, 1302. The Times Book of Quotations
Nope...not trying to bait you into anything. Not at all. I see the real need for a national effort. My questions are simply a search for what you, or any other poster, think the best way to achieve that goal.
And as an aside, the rewards you mention that others require before doing 'grunt work' is not an issue here. What matters to me personally is that the job gets done. I understand your position and frustration with other so-called groups/boards that are no more Constitutional militia groups than Aunt Millie's cat. I also respect your long term consistency in service to your own State as a proponent of Constitutionality and militia service.
My questions ares honest and still stand:
Enforcer, I would honestly like to know your ideas on how we should effectively persuade other groups in all states to come together and ally themselves in a national effort. Isn't identifying and communicating with those groups the first step?
Then, if we find that other "national efforts" are already in progress, how do we find out if they are legitimately an effort to unite all the groups in cause or if they're just a sham?
Subsequently, if other legitimate efforts are on-going, would it not make sense to open dialogue with those groups to bring all under the same stated cause, which would then lay the foundation for a national alliance of all groups, ie, document those things that we would all come to each other's aid over?
I'm in deadly earnest over this and would appreciate direct answers.
In the good old days, it was easier to recruit and network. The for real people would drive to the next state to meet with you face to face. Today they substitute the internet and between infiltrators, trolls, and the people who are militia / patriot hobbyists, I simply don't have an honest and easy answer for your questions.
The people who are supposedly already active are easily found after a few dedicated hours of looking at other militia / patriot related sites. There are only about twelve states which have anything which could pass for a militia. The scores of two or three people here and there are little more than local defensive units, too small to take on the cub scouts in their AO, much less an Obama led effort to disarm America.
And here's the bigger challenge: Most of the militia organizations out there are poseurs. Between the fed fronts, clique groups and extremists using the militia to recruit for the Ku Klux Klan (and other related organizations), we don't have a lot of dedicated people out there.
And of those, there is a lack of trust. Just because some fed front told their friends that I was (fill in the blanks or let the Inc. version of the militia or Patti fill 'em in), there are a lot of people who simply do not want to associate with each other - and especially the likes of me.
In all honesty, here is what I think is going to have to happen in theory: We have to build a MESSAGE first that most American people can relate to. Once you have the idea, then a person with some leadership qualities can step in and actually lead those who, by that time, KNOW where they are going.
I simply do not think it is possible for anyone to start an organization, appoint a leadership from a skeleton crew and get any real support. The people respond to raw numbers AND they respond to the controlled news and entertainment media. I know this because we used to hold monthly public recruitment drives. Most of the time the numbers were a dozen to twenty per month (and eight of those people were out of my unit.)
Then, the media would cover us and the next meeting would have anywhere from forty to 65 or so people in attendance.
I can go out and hold those public recruitment drives in different cities and get a couple of hundred people. But, I've been reluctant to do so because at a LOCAL level, you cannot find people with leadership skills who will manage the people you bring into the doors. So, here's the rub: In order for any organization to get the numbers necessary to bring in those who have a history of supporting militias and patriot causes, it has to reach a national audience. And then the people who think we can vote ourselves back into power will worry and fret over the constitutionality of a national effort.
Because of the mistrust, the divisiveness within the militia organizations and some organizations trying to maintain their status quo, I don't see us winning over the other militia organizations until we build something which is more consistent and impressive (in terms of perception) than what exists today.
What is really whizzing me off about all of this is the fact that we are about to enter a period where an ultra liberal will be president and the legislators will be predominantly left wing. In theoretical terms, it should be easier to recruit now, but so long as the masses have it easy, they will stay in the mainstream. And the other militia organizations which have been invited here do not want to support something they have no direct control over. So, the real question is, are those groups attempting to build a legitimate militia OR are they simply trying to make themselves happy by seeking immediate gratification?
I would go to their organizations, but some don't welcome me. I've had pending requests to join three boards now that I've never been on. Some of those requests (where you register on a board) are approaching two years old. They can openly post on Liberty Forum. Why can I not post on their boards? And even if they don't allow me in their back yard, they are most certainly welcome here. So, who exactly is trying to build a bridge toward unity?
We have to be free to disagree. We have to be committed to the cause, even when we cannot stand the guy fighting alongside of us. When the SHTF and some of those guys who have shunned me need that extra man, all I can say is that if they kept my number, they will damn sure being calling it... and I will go running to do what I can.
For what little my opinion has been worth, you have it. If I had any real answers, we'd have a militia today.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
