The Problem with Win First

fbwThis will be the last defense of secession I post for a while.  I hope many of you are coming around to the idea, especially those of you who live in the American Redoubt.  Secession provides a legal framework and entity (the state government, if we can elect representatives with the cajones), and then we provide the muscle to defend our state.

As the debate between the planners and the ‘doers’ forges right ahead, we’ve seen plenty of win first statements.  ‘Win first’ specifically refers to winning the revolution before planning for the needed governance to follow; revolting before they even plan how resistance or revolution is executed after the first month. I admire that camp’s enthusiasm and vigor in wanting to re-introduce Constitutional principles back into Constitutional government; however, it’s not one that I can support right now.  Simple revolt produces second- and third-order effects for which they need to plan.

Lincoln had a favorable and lenient approach to the Reconstruction of the Old South until he was assassinated.  What followed was a ‘second-order effect’ that produced a less desirable, unforeseen, and down right vindictive outcome.   The Federal government under Johnson and Grant punished the South instead of simply allowing the States to be readmitted into the Union.  What are the likely second- and third-order effects produced by the ‘Just Do It’ crowd?  Probably not too great for the Liberty movement.  In fact, I’d argue that it would bring more regime surveillance and action over those who espouse Liberty as their quasi-religion.

I see several critical shortcomings in their strategy, if you can call it that.  To restate that strategy, it’s two fold:  leave our country, or get killed.

More…

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Problem with Win First

  1. David says:

    I emailed Sam concerning the efforts of President Johnson to protect the Constitution.

  2. impeachment charade, while these “laws” are selectively enforced against whom they choose -- usually God-fearing, honest people who (not knowing any better) are “just trying to get along” within the system, but especially against those who are doing their best to stay out of “Babylon” entirely and not play the world’s games. The people at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Sand Point, and others, had not broken ANY of God’s Laws, which are the ONLY valid laws on this planet. When those honest “victims” don’t cave-in and give the Hidden Hand what they want under their legislation, then military force is used, which often creates a well-publicized stand-off or siege situation, and the media presents the criminal government people as benevolent protectors of both: the children in those situations, and of the country. It doesn’t matter to them that, in reality, those children were in no danger until the government itself created that dangerous situation. The disinformation from these types of incidents are promoted by the media to make examples of the real victims, in order to discourage the marginally resistant percentage of the “sheeple” from fighting the system.

    • roger u says:

      On Waco, I thought Koresh claimed to be Jesus, if true, that would seem to violate God’s law. That said, the government’s response was obviously over kill.

      I don’t know enough about Ruby Rudge or Sand Point to comment on them.

Comments are closed.