General Mattis on Reading

Hello Patriots,

We normally try not to just dump links on the blog and prefer to offer commentary with it, but I’ll keep it brief so you can get to the meat of things.  I’ve been trying to catch up on Mattis since his legend has been rising to that of Chuck Norris jokes in the military communities I cross now and again.  Plus, as our upcoming SECDEF, the memes are coming fast and furious.  Who is this man?

I’ll let you do your own research, but this email from him is certainly telling: http://www.strifeblog.org/2013/05/07/with-rifle-and-bibliography-general-mattis-on-professional-reading/.

….The problem with being too busy to read is that you learn by experience (or by your men’s
experience), i.e. the hard way. By reading, you learn through others’ experiences, generally a
better way to do business, especially in our line of work where the consequences of
incompetence are so final for young men.

Mattis goes into more depth.  Make sure you read the whole thing.

Patriots – we hear this same thing in our community all the time – “I don’t have time to read/study.”  John Lovell has an excellent video that digs into Mattis’ philosophy and the foolishness of not studying.  If you’re not subscribed to his channel you’re missing out.

This week, go to the library and get a relevant non-fiction book, or grab one of the ones from your bookshelf that you haven’t gotten around to.  Do it for the wellbeing of your family and friends.  There’s a reason that EDUCATE is at the beginning of our tagline.

Do you have a must read book for the Patriot?  Post it in the comments here or on Facebook.

EDUCATE. EMPOWER. RESIST.

The Myth of the National Three Percent Organization

A lot of people claim to be part of the Three Percent. A lot of people claim to know what the Three Percent stands for…but do they? There are quite a few myths out there about who we are and what we believe, and sadly, even some of the folks who claim to be in the Three Percent believe those myths. Truth is important; we’ll be dispelling one of the biggest myths today, and we’ll do it by going back to the source of the III% founder himself. Why is it important? Because of this: “there are apparently many people who have adopted the moniker of Three Percenter, for whatever reason, but who wouldn’t recognize these principles if they came up and bit them in the ass.”

Let’s get started.

The Three Percent is a National Organization: False.

All over social media, you can find groups claiming to be III%. They post the symbols, use the lingo (or try to), and talk about things like unity and their “national affiliation.” Some of these groups pattern themselves after the military, and wear self-assigned rank (usually an O-3 or above; no one wants to be the butterbar, apparently). They call themselves every variation of Three Percent you can think of, and many of them claim national legitimacy.

The following statement needs to be very clear:

There is no national Three Percent organization, and there was never intended to be one. In fact, the idea of a national Three Percent organization goes directly against what the III% was designed to be. The III% is a local concept, meaning that its entire purpose was to foster cooperation and small groups locally for the purpose of active resistance, defiance, and preparation. Your neighbors, your church, your family and friends. Mike Vanderboegh, the founder of the III%, wrote the following:

I deliberately formulated the Three Percent idea as a movement, an idea, a philosophy and a discipline BUT NOT AN ORGANIZATION. Attempts at large regional, state or national organizations, anything beyond local formations, are subject to infiltration, dysfunction, discredit and collapse. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

There is a huge push, especially by groups on Facebook and other social media, to bring in as many people as possible. They want unity, they want a huge crowd of people. Some militia groups attach III% to their names, and call each other Colonel and Captain and Major and even General. They claim to be networking and ‘working intel,’ but all of this effort goes in direct opposition to what the entire point of the III% concept is–and ruins its potential and efficiency. The strength of the III% concept is its small-group, locally-focused resistance model.

By insisting on a pyramid, top-down, crowd leadership structure, folks claiming to be part of a III% national organization miss some very basic points that Mike outlined above. There’s a reason why the III% was designed NOT to be a national organization. Let’s take a closer look at why.

Infiltration

The bigger the group, the more vulnerable it is. There are many who may feel as though they need the comfort of a large group. Part of that comes from a need to share responsibility. People claim to want to fight, or resist, or claim to be ready to do “violent things,” but they want to make sure they have a crowd behind them. This is why you see so many people say things such as “How much longer are we going to stand for X?” What they’re actually saying is, “I want to go and do something but I don’t want to do it by myself, I want to follow someone else who is going to do it.” This is incredibly exploitable because all someone needs to do is hone in on that need. Those are the folks who can be manipulated, who can be talked into taking actions that are immoral—and also against the III% catechism and values. The sheer math of  group dynamics means that the more people you have, the more chance you have of being compromised. It’s that simple.

This is one of the many reasons that the III% was set up as a local concept. Your group is not your four states’ worth of guys who get together every few weeks or months, put on some face paint, and run around in the woods with you. Your group is your family, your close friends who understand what’s going on and would show up at 3 am no questions asked if you needed it. A group of five people, who have known each other for years and know each other’s secrets and weaknesses and strengths, is a lot harder to infiltrate than a Facebook group of 250+ people who have never met but call each other “brother,” or even a real-life unit of 50 people who get together to shoot their rifles or go to rallies. Infiltration is happening all the time, all over the movement–and nowhere more obviously than in these huge groups who insist on needing a following.

If you are strong enough in your beliefs, you don’t need a crowd to stand for them with you. A III% member following the catechism, following the principles and values, will probably not be part of a large group because they understand that the III% was not ever designed to BE a large group, but a network of local groups and local resistance. As Mike wrote:

The Three Percent idea, being an idea, is internalized and finds expression in action when required without any top-down organization issuing orders.

Dysfunction

If there’s anything in the patriot movement, it’s dysfunction. Groups run by ego-driven individuals who insist on total obedience from their “troops,” people running around calling themselves “General” and complaining that someone took action without “proper protocol,” people spreading gossip and rumors while calling it “intel.” The level of drama in many patriot groups right now calling themselves III% is staggering. They use words like “opsec” as a catch-all phrase, throw around terms like “deploy,” and try very hard to copy the military in many of their endeavors, completely missing the point that the III% was never intended to be an organization at all, let alone one structured after the military.

Discredit

When a group chooses to deviate from a small group mentality, instead choosing to chase after numbers, they run the risk of their members eventually discrediting them and what they stand for. As has been written elsewhere, by bringing someone into your group and allowing them to be a part of your activities, you are saying that you identify with their belief system, and you are willing to let their actions help define your group culture. Unless every single member that you bring in shares your group culture and values, they will end up discrediting you. By default, this means you need to keep your groups small; this ensures that your group has a shared cultural value (much like John Mosby’s concept of tribalism) that will be enhanced and carried on by its members instead of morphed and changed or even discredited. If you say, “No, we aren’t defined by our members and they don’t all speak for us,” then why are they in your group? Just for the numbers? Would you allow a member of ISIS in your group? How about a neo-Nazi? Why not? Because they do not share your values.

In any large, top-down organization (which you seem determined to have out of whatever motive that can only be guessed at — failure to understand the nature of your enemy in a 4th Generation Warfare world; lack of imagination as to the probable negatives of such a move; misplaced enthusiasm at spreading an idea you apparently have failed to properly grasp; or, the simplest explanation, plain ego), personnel, my friend, is policy.

What does this mean to you? It means that your members are who YOU are, as a group. The loudmouth in your group who consistently says inflammatory things and derides others for not being ready to “rise up and fight” reflects on you and your group. The guy who insists on being a security risk because he’s “not doing anything illegal” reflects on you as a group. Whoever you take in must share your values. It’s not about being an echo chamber; you don’t all need to be Mormons or atheists or Presbyterians or Christians or home schoolers or whatever else. You do, however, need to be very clear on what your group goals are, and what you as a group believe or want to accomplish. Regardless of whatever else you believe, you MUST share the values and the catechism of the III% itself.

Collapse

The natural end result of large groups with infiltration, dysfunction, ego and problems, who operate outside the established framework of what the III% was designed to be and to do, is a collapse. This is why groups fail, over and over. Someone will rise to prominence as head of a group, will call themselves by some self-appointed rank and issue “orders,” and eventually the problems happen. Members ‘go rogue’ and do things to embarrass the greater group, seek more power or publicity, turn on their fellow members or leadership. Leaders themselves let the power go to their head, and find themselves acting like they are kings and tyrants themselves. Their groups implode, or split, and the various members form more groups, where they incorporate the same top-down model, the same poor vetting practices, the same refusal to study and understand the original concept of the III% and what it stands for. What happens to these new groups? The same things, over and over.

The Three Percent is a Local Concept

After 1500 words or so explaining what the III% is not, it’s time to explain what it is. We’re all familiar with the story of the colonists and their stand against the British. But while many who claim the title of III% know that story, they forget—or simply don’t know—that it is only a part of what the III% purpose is. The person best equipped to explain what the III% means is the person who designed the concept, who founded the very movement we claim to be a part of. In short, “Any stupid ass can call himself a Three Percenter, the proof is in the practice of principle.” It’s that simple. It’s not enough to claim the title. You must also live the life–a life of training, of self-discipline and discernment. A life spent forging relationships and networks that are close, solid, and trustworthy.

We have our enemy’s promises that they will negate any possibility of our using the standard methods of politics against them. They have won the “majority vote” decision. Fine. But if we are to avoid conflict, we must convince them of how little this actually buys them in the way of power. We do that by building up the armed citizenry, one three-man buddy team, one six-man fire team and one squad at a time. Don’t advertise. Friends and neighbors will do nicely. And remember, you’re doing this in case the deterrence doesn’t work. This is as real as it gets, folks. Act like it.

The III% has values and principles. Those who claim to be part of the Three Percent either must follow those values and principles, or they are not a Three Percenter. Those who commit actions that go against the catechism are not Three Percenters. Those who seek violence while claiming to be part of the Three Percent are not part of us. Those who set aside the small group, locally-focused concept of the III% in favor of vast bands of people only marginally held together by false ranks and fantasy are not Three Percenters. As Mike wrote:

These four principles — moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents — are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders’ Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a “Three Percenter.”

Anyone can wear the patch or claim the name. What matters, as always, are their actions.

 

Holding the Standard in the Three Percent

[Editor’s Note: Jeff Roberts, VP of the Oregon III%, co-wrote the below article. — KP]

One look at the headlines in any given week will lead the average liberty loving, constitution carrying patriot to believe that really tumultuous times are just around the corner. The fact is, they’re already here.  Our own government has been selling our nation’s sovereignty and our constitutional rights down the road at a reckless pace for years now,and as the effects of those acts pile up, patriots are becoming restless.

All of us have run into “that guy” in our group; the one who’s always just a little too eager to start the Second American Revolution, and “take our country back” and “get back to the Constitution,” etc. Don’t we all wish it were that easy?  Then there’s the guy who loudly announces to anyone–online OR off–who will listen that “it’s too late, y’all can vote with your ballot box and soap box, I’m voting with my ammo box.” And we can’t forget the guy who seems to live on Facebook, posting inflammatory memes and making vaguely worded statements that could easily be taken as veiled threats if you didn’t know the guy…and maybe even if you do know the guy.

Are these people crazy? Federal provocateurs? Too lazy to take effective action prior to “shots fired?”  Hormone imbalance? Or just fed up Americans? It’s hard to know, and maybe even impossible. These are difficult questions…and they’re the wrong questions to even ask. The right questions, however, are possibly even more difficult–and more necessary.

Our goal in this article isn’t to create division for the sake of drama or dissent, or even to cause sincere patriots to become outcasts.  We do, however, want to stress the importance of maximizing effectiveness while mitigating liability and failure. We must succeed in this endeavor; therefore, we must act and speak and train–at all times–in a way that not only furthers the cause of liberty, but brings credit to its name.  As previous TOWR articles point out, a decentralized partisan/guerrilla movement needs public support. That’s a precious commodity that we are doing far too much to damage lately, and we should be working to gain it.

As it becomes more and more commonplace for patriots to find themselves present during tense confrontations in close proximity between American constitutionalists, out of control government, and other less savory entities such as the BLM (both groups), so-called refugees, Daesh operatives, inner city gangs and just about every other disruptive group a sick imagination can concoct, we must be vigilant for ways that we can help garner that public support. Perhaps even more importantly, we should be vigilant about the ways that we are hurting that effort.

These days the role of an American patriot isn’t limited to a group of guys training in the woods twice a month and reading the New American Magazine.  Patriots are increasingly taking active stands against tyranny and civil unrest in very public ways, ranging from rallies to providing security against looters in Ferguson and Baltimore, or standing guard in places like the Bundy Ranch, Sugar Pine Mine, and Operation Big Sky, where miners and ranchers were being threatened with seizure of property without due process. In other arenas, patriots are standing up and becoming involved with local, county, state, and even national government–a long overdue but extremely critical step.

Heinlein wrote that “specialization is for insects;” indeed, patriots of today must be able to perform far more tasks than simply firing a weapon. Everything from medical skills to communications, history, philosophy, law, religion, prepping, security, computer literacy, intelligence and a host of other skills and tasks are necessary for today’s patriot to have a working knowledge of. We never know when those skills will be needed; some patriots fulfilled one job at Sugar Pine, another in Montana, and hold still another position within their groups at home. We can be called upon at any time for a variety of potential situations, and some patriots who remain”gray” may be performing other functions in the underground resistance. As Mike Vanderboegh, the founder of this Three Percent movement, wrote, “that is what a citizen does — he fights on every battlefield to best of his ability and resources.”

With this ever evolving role that we as patriots are finding ourselves in, can we afford the loose cannons, impulsive individuals, hot tempered patriots or borderline sociopaths within our ranks? Can we afford to allow these folks to be part of our networks, our supply chains, our inner circles, our training groups?

And what about those who are publicly advocating or supporting violence, such as the calling for (however sly and oblique) the deaths of various elected officials and/or law enforcement on social media? Should they have a place in our networks and our groups?

The federal government’s new obsession is the charge of “conspiracy,” and one of their biggest evidence collection avenues is social media. That means when you’re scrolling through your feed and see your fellow group member Big Mouth Larry putting up yet another meme or rant advocating the slaughter of cops or the assassination of elected officials, you shouldn’t just roll your eyes and scroll on by, or click like, or even just ignore it. You should ask yourself, “Do I really identify with what’s being proposed here? Is this what I want to publicly advocate?”

When Big Mouth Larry comes to your meetings and rants about how “everyone wants to be a patriot until it’s time to do patriot stuff,” note what Larry considers “patriot stuff” and ask yourself if those actions are things you support. If Larry thinks blowing things up is possibly a good use of his time, you need to have a very long talk with yourself.

“Is this how I want to represent the Three Percent and the American Patriot?”

Before you answer that, let us quote the Three Percenter Catechism:

These four principles — moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents — are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders’ Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a ‘Three Percenter.’

Take a look at how prosecutors rely on social media as evidence, and keep in mind how the spiderweb of networks and contacts and ‘friends’ (the Facebook kind) connects you to people. Do you agree with what people are saying in your networks on social media? Are you willing to face investigation, arrest, or even charges of conspiracy for being “associated with” someone who uses social media to spout things you may not even agree with?

Look at how many people have taken deals in recent months, selling out their so-called “allies” to the federal government in order to get reduced sentences. Are they all informants or agents? No, but the result is the same, isn’t it? Before you chime in with, “But I know my group is solid,” consider this: Are you willing to go to prison, to spend the rest of your life in general population with murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals, to back up that statement? Not to downplay the toll that incarceration takes on the soul of a free man, and how tempting the “deal” may be. If it’s at the expense of your allies and the resolve of other patriots, however, then that becomes a losing strategy.

Are you that certain that your allies will not sell you out, truthfully or otherwise? Are you that sure that their big mouth is just talk? Are you that certain that they’re not going to pin their own actions on you? Are you that positive that Big Mouth Larry is just blowing off steam, or that the other person in the group who’s now hanging out with Larry and encouraging his fantasies is not on another side?

Can you afford to have a guy on your front line that may start a fire fight with police or leftist protesters over a verbal confrontation?

Are you willing to have your cause and organization be represented to media and the rest of the world through the words, appearance, actions, and attire of that one guy? If you decide to keep him in your group, you better hope that you are, because experienced left leaning, sensationalism driven media reporters will instinctively hone in on “that guy” and plaster his face, extreme views, and socially repugnant behavior all over the public airwaves, further causing loss of credibility to our movement towards constitutional liberty.

Then there’s the most obvious of all. Has it ever crossed your mind that the guy who’s always proposing extreme, unlawful, ill-conceived plans that seem highly unlikely for success might not be on your side? Ever consider that the one who’s always offering to help with or set up acts or events that are generally coupled with a high probability of of serious blowback to the movement with little tangible value as a tactical objective, might be setting your group up for arrest or worse? Not every zealous group member is playing for the other side, but his battle for our republic, however, requires cooler heads, and a lot more critical analysis of our objectives to effectively win. We don’t need rash, anger-driven actions, performed by people with little discipline or regard for consequences at this critical time in our nation’s history. We need to be moving forward in a bold, resolute, clearly defined and well-planned moral fashion.

We aren’t here to answer these questions for you. They need to be answered at a group and individual level. If you’re a leader of some kind, you owe it to your group to keep them effective, and out of unnecessary risk. Having the types of people in your group that are described above is unnecessary risk. If you’re a member or individual, the decision is still there for you to make. What will you allow yourself to be associated with? Make the call, and make the necessary changes.

If you’re the guy we’re writing about, consider the following. Make sure that your plan of action is going to help ensure victory and liberty, not just start a fight that will alienate us all from the critical component of public support. We all may differ on the best way to go about securing our liberty, but we should all be able to agree that the best course of action is one that is moral, honorable, and holds to the precepts we believe. From Mike’s Valediction:

If any of our traditional liberties are to be saved it will be on a local basis of community, county and church, secured by your own efforts, your own organization, with your own friends and neighbors according to the principles enunciated by the Founders. I envisioned the Three Percent movement with that local focus in mind, as a philosophy, a discipline, of the armed citizenry.

Be disciplined, be focused.
Long live Freedom!
Jeff Roberts

Vice President, Oregon Three Percent

Kit Perez
Order of the White Rose

Jeff Roberts is an evangelical Christian, husband and father of 6, patriot, liberty activist who witnessed Ruby Ridge first hand, was active in the Ron Paul campaign, and current vice president of Oregon III%.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

There’s a saying when it comes to programming: “Garbage in, garbage out.” This refers to the results of executing a program; if you intend for your program to add two numbers, but provide it a letter and a punctuation mark as input, what comes out, if anything, will be nonsensical.

It’s almost routine these days to look at the commenters on a blog post or a news article and roll your eyes at the stupidity of it. “How do these people survive the day without choking on a fistful of paste?” you might ask yourself. We all know other largely intelligent people who either buy into certain conspiracy theories, or buy into everything that Brian Williams tells them, when the truth is likely somewhere in between.

It is absolutely imperative as a representative of liberty that you have wisdom as you take in all of the information that is fed to you. It is only with good information that you can draw good conclusions. This can be anything from knowing that an individual is telling the truth to knowing when to bug out.

Ronald Reagan is famous for his line, “Trust, but verify.” This is applicable not just for relationships with friendly nations, but also when processing news from a trusted source. There are only one or two people from whom I would accept shocking news (“There’s an alien incursion in Portland”) at face value. For everyone else, I’m Missouri: “Show me.”

Let’s look at some places where you can get information and news and consider their trustworthiness.

Domestic Mainstream Media (ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN/USA Today/Your Local Fishwrap/Etc):

Usually basic facts from the MSM are reliable: “There was a shooting on Main Street,” “The president is in town today,” “The Dow dropped 1200 points,” and so on. Once they start getting into the details, that’s where things get shady.

When we think about the MSM, the first word that comes to many minds is, “bias.” Usually there’s a leftist/progressive bias, sometimes it’s a rightist/nationalist bias. For example, this link.

Most people have looked through a peephole in their door at one time or another. The image through it is a distorted view of the world outside. If you search online you can find a device called a “peephole reverser”. As the name states it reverses the effect of the peephole, allowing one to see a clear picture of what’s happening inside.

When we’re aware of the reporter and editors’ bias, it’s like being armed with a peephole reverser. We can read between the lines and extract facts from their reporting that they didn’t necessarily intend to reveal.

Look also in the comments section. Often folks will claim to be witnesses to the event being reported on or will have additional information. These sources will need to be viewed with a critical eye, but can be valuable.

Foreign News Networks (BBC, RT):

Often you’ll find that although the foreign networks have their own biases (RT is a Russian propaganda site, for instance), their reporting is a little heavier on substance and lower on fluff. In addition, it’s important to get a global view when considering foreign threats.

Aggregators (Google News, newsnow.co.uk), Search Engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing) and Social Media (Facebook, Yahoo):

In the case of aggregators, search engines, and social media, you’re at the mercy of the curators when it comes to what information and news articles you are provided with. For example, this article from Wired.com.

Also in the “really bad” camp: Facebook censored news all the time. Did you ever wonder why certain events aren’t picked up in trending topics on Facebook? There you go.

We are approaching a time where the minds of the general public are able to be molded like never before.

“Alternative” media (Infowars, Blogs, etc):

Ninety-five percent of the “Alternative” media is garbage; they sell shock and awe like the tabloids of old. Their sole job is to drum up subscriptions and advertising dollars. While there are some nuggets to be pulled out of them, you’re wiser to look elsewhere. For those who scream that Alex Jones is always right…remember: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Bloggers are hit or miss; for every Mike Vanderboegh out there doing solid journalistic work (such as Fast and Furious), there’s a million numbskulls putting out drivel from their mothers’ basements.

At the end of the day, just like what you eat and put into your body, only you can control what you read and put into your mind. What you put into your mind drives what your mouth and your hands do, and ultimately will determine how effective you are in your mission. Take the time to read, but verify your information. Don’t assume that it’s true because you read it on the Internet.

Two Things You Need to Know About “Division”

We’ve seen it a thousand times. The words used may vary but the sentiment is the same. You’ve probably seen these. Maybe you’ve said them. Maybe you’ve been the target of someone’s accusations. What are they accusing you of? Division.

“You’re dividing the movement!”

There are two things you need to understand about division. We’ll explain both of them, but first, you need to understand a concept that is fairly controversial: There is a movement, and there is a resistance—and they are not the same thing.

How can you tell the difference between the two? Well, one way is that the movement cares about division and ostracizes anyone they believe is causing it. The resistance, on the other hand, in many cases thrives on it.

Why the Movement Hates Division

The movement worries about division because they believe that if we all just come together, things will be better. Many of them want to unite under a national leader. They want the perceived security of a hierarchy, a chain of command. When it comes down to it, a lot of people who consider themselves rebels or revolutionaries are really just a different kind of follower. More than once, someone has complained to me in private that “If we just had someone to lead us.” Others have named their favorite ‘big name’ in the movement and said, “I’ll go wherever that guy says we should.” Still others exhibit a seemingly worshipful attitude toward one man or group. Many of these people find pride in their own affiliations and/or relationships; they are fulfilled through their associations. The bigger the group they’re in, the more well-known they are as leaders, the more publicity their group gets through various exploits, the more fulfilled they feel. That sense of belonging is important to many. It’s part of who we are as humans. Even those who say they don’t care what anyone thinks, they are Bad To The Bone and Not Going To Take It Anymore and Ready To Fight…well, let’s face it. They’re looking for others who share their view. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be sitting on Facebook carping about it, they’d be out doing whatever it is they are So Ready To Go Do Right Now. Humans are social.

Meanwhile, the movement is also no different than the rest of society in that it is a microcosm of humanity. Within the movement there are people we don’t agree with, people who are corrupt, people who are driven by ego, opportunists and power grabbers and perverts and white supremacists and every other kind of person there is, right along with the moral, ethical, solid freedom-lovers who desperately just want liberty. There are those who claim the III% moniker while engaging in behavior we all know is wrong. I’m not talking about a difference in candidate choice, either. It’s a sad truth, but it needs to be said. We must self-police our ranks; if we are not willing to purge those who are dangerous, who discredit the cause, who bring dishonor to liberty through their actions, then we risk being found guilty by association—and our cause suffers. For a perfect case in point, think back to the couple who were kicked out of the Bundy Ranch action and later went on a shooting spree. How fast did the media link them to the Bundy Ranch? How many times did you have to see someone say “Hey they got turned away! They weren’t with us!” Just think: Those two pieces of trash did get sent away. Imagine how you’d explain it if they had been allowed to stay and be part of the group for a while?

The Exploitation

So here we have a juxtaposition. People want to be accepted, they want to be part of the The Big Patriot Movement(tm), but we also know that there are those among us who bring dishonor to everything we are trying to accomplish. All of us have seen things go on in the movement that should not have.

The next logical question is how can that be exploited? How can someone—an infiltrator or agitator, for instance—use that to derail operations and render members ineffective? How can someone ensure that those who are dishonoring the ideals we are fighting so hard to uphold get to stay right where they are, and keep doing it? It’s so simple, and it’s the first thing you need to know about division: Accusations of division can be used by bad actors to manipulate members and render them useless while allowing misconduct or disruption to continue.

When someone who is emotionally fulfilled by being in a group is accused of “dividing the movement,” it causes guilt, which is, by the way, a very effective way of controlling many different kinds of people. Truly dedicated people can often be convinced that any issues are their own fault, that by bringing up problems in the group, they are actually causing problems themselves by “creating drama.” People can be manipulated rather easily in this way.

The Resistance Loves Division

The resistance, on the other hand, is made up of people who are already divided by choice. They are compartmentalized by design, separated and segregated into cells that operate independently. They do not need or want a leader, they do not care about drama or the dynamics of a large group because they avoid large groups like the plague. You won’t see them on Facebook complaining about division because they’re too busy acting outside of it. They are harder to infiltrate, harder to approach, harder to find. Their unity is only within their cell, and their loyalty is only to the cause and the people within their cell—five to seven people who they train with, work with, and operate with. They are not part of a greater hierarchy. They plan, train, and act outside of the “movement.”

Which brings us to the second thing you need to know about division: it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

What is more effective: 2500 people in a Facebook group, or 10 cells of 5 people each who cannot be tracked, cannot be found, and can’t even be confirmed to exist? It takes very little time to confirm pretty much anything there is to know about a group on Facebook. We already know that during the Malheur standoff, FBI agents and other federal agencies were camped out on social media, collecting every scrap of information, every name, every location, every photo, everything. How many arrests have occurred since Malheur? It’s much harder to arrest a group when you don’t know its members, don’t know where they live, or even if a group exists at all. And as we’ve written before, you can only die once for liberty. Better to stay out of jail, better to stay alive, and do more for longer—even if (ESPECIALLY IF) no one knows you’re doing it.

No, Not Everyone Preaching About Division is a Plant

Now, does this mean that every time you hear the word “division” it’s coming from a plant or manipulator? No, of course not. Often it comes from well-meaning people who need a leader in order to be effective. It comes from people who truly believe that we all need to unite under one banner in order to achieve anything, we all need to show up to Big Events and Multi-Unit Exercises. There are good things about that belief system, and the people who believe it are not somehow horrible or stupid. The thing is, that sense of altruism, that depth of emotion that we bring to the cause, is one of the very things that can be used against us. The fact that we love liberty so much means, far too often, that we desperately want to believe that everyone around us, in our groups and our circles, loves it too. And so we make excuses for bad behavior, we keep quiet about security problems, we set aside that gnawing feeling in our gut about someone, all for the sake of unity…and we wait for a leader to tell us what to do.

The movement doesn’t need leaders. It needs doers. It needs people who are willing to set themselves aside, learn the skills they don’t have, and teach the skills they do. It needs computer geeks who can help set up secure comms for others. It needs gunsmiths who can teach others how to maintain their weapons, and radio guys who help ensure we can talk to each other no matter what’s going on, and medical personnel who can teach us how to handle the carnage that is almost certainly to come at some point.

You don’t need unity to learn. You don’t need unity to get things done. And if you need a leader…be one.