Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Friday, April 1, 2011

From The Trainer


Commenting on this post:

I'm betting we'd have a lot better luck if each of us looked to our own egos and put them in check.

Every rift can be traced to one thing: Ego.

Every ad hominem attack, every demonization, everything negative about everyone in the 'patriot' movement with very few exceptions. I'm not referring to facts or public records about individuals, either.

I regularly see a tactic used called projection in this movement: If I can make you look bad, I'll look that much better.

Especially when supported by a Transactional Analysis game called, "Now I Got You, Son of a Bitch!"

We better pull our collective heads out of our assses and get on board with the common goal we all agree on: Restoration of Constitutional government.

We must move in the same direction or we will lose, and then we can kiss freedom goodbye for generations.

We must satisfy the 'commander's intent', which in this case, our "commander" is the Constitution. Our opinions of what is 'better' is only important within our own reach, because we cannot control that which is outside of our own AO.

So, you folks who are out front in the 'blogosphere', take notice:

People tend to be influenced by what you put out there, because you're either gifted enough or disciplined enough to put coherent thoughts out to the citizenry. That puts you in a defacto position of influence, if not leadership.

And if you're tye type of person that says, "I'm no leader", fine. But then you owe it to the 'patriot movement' to at least support those you know who are leaders, whether out in the blogosphere or on the ground in the AO's. That way we are at least providing support to each other during the 'soft war' for restoration.

Those of us on the ground should being doing everything we can to ensure we train our 'merry little bands' under the principles the US was founded upon, namely, the Judeo-Christian ethic, which encompasses sociological, economic, and military (or paramilitary) activity. No, that doesn't mean each person is required or even encouraged to be a 'Christian'. What that means is that we aspire to higher principles than OPFOR by adhering to the same principles the Founders did, which was demonstrably Judeo-Christian. That also means there are, in fact, things we will not do or tolerate. We do not become that which we oppose.

If we achieve that, then there is a chance, once it starts, that we have a chance to survive.

Remember, Lenin said, "A small organized minority will defeat a large unorganized majority every time." (paraphrased) That maxim has been used vigorously against free Americans for many decades now.

We're seeing the results of that in tactics used against us right now with the ever-increasing speed with which our culture is being destroyed socially, economically and militarily.

We also need leaders. In every AO. They surface from time to time. We need them in the blogosphere, too. We need the public faces and the anonymous troop leaders. Leadership, effective leadership, the muddy boots kind, is what gets things done.

We also need people who know they're not leaders, but who are willing to support and follow those leaders so long as they subscribe to Constitutional principles and do not fall into cult-like mind sets. That means the followers must be extremely discerning. How was it Reagan put it? "Trust, but verify."

And while I'm at it, knock off the disparagement of others when they have different perspectives or don't agree with your particular way of engaging in the soft war or training. The endless debates rising from 'mine is better than yours' gets old quickly and turns people away.

We don't have to have 'rent fabrics'. 

It's really all up to us.

22 Comments:

Blogger Brock Townsend said...

Excellent. Seems like I've seen him, before.

April 1, 2011 at 3:02 AM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

This is making me wish I read all these comment threads in more detail. I normally don't, but it looks like I have missed out on some drama. (Unless I contributed to it? I have expressed negative opinions of certain people in the past. But it's not like I have a following)

Actually this is maybe a good test. As long as people have energy to put into drama rather than survival, they're not feeling the pinch, and the situation's not critical.

April 1, 2011 at 6:12 AM  
Blogger GunRights4US said...

Here Here!

April 1, 2011 at 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That whole post is on target.

Everyone, including CA, should take all of his advice, but especially this:

"Those of us on the ground should being doing everything we can to ensure we train our 'merry little bands' under the principles the US was founded upon, namely, the Judeo-Christian ethic, which encompasses sociological, economic, and military (or paramilitary) activity. No, that doesn't mean each person is required or even encouraged to be a 'Christian'. What that means is that we aspire to higher principles than OPFOR by adhering to the same principles the Founders did, which was demonstrably Judeo-Christian. That also means there are, in fact, things we will not do or tolerate. We do not become that which we oppose."

Except that is not just something "those of us on the ground" should adhere to, but also, and especially, the leaders (or the public bloggers even if they deny leadership).

Nihilistic, become-your-enemy-to- defeat-your-enemy, "ethics" won't get it done. Moral, ethical, principled ROEs matter. And they matter not just because they are morally right, and a manifestation of who we are (Team Freedom, not Team Amoral or Team Nihilism) but also because they are a winning strategy.

And that is the real issue, not someone's background or past mistakes. What they say and do NOW, and especially what they are advocating that others do, is what's important.

And debate on those critical issues of ethics in advance of when/if it comes to blows, in a professional and civil matter, is necessary and is not trolling.

But when ANYONE runs around labeling others -individuals or orgs - "false patriots" in personal attacks because they are supposedly not hard-core enough, because they have a different perspective on strategy in their chosen AO and mission, that is classic ego driven troll behavior.

April 1, 2011 at 10:32 AM  
Blogger Rider said...

Together we stand divided we FAIL!
Get organized, or we shall surely perish!

April 1, 2011 at 2:02 PM  
Blogger Sean said...

Trainer sounds like some of the wise old heads who turned me into a soldier. Thanks Trainer, I'm glad you said it, and Wilco. III.

April 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Moral, ethical, principled ROEs matter. And they matter not just because they are morally right, and a manifestation of who we are (Team Freedom, not Team Amoral or Team Nihilism) but also because they are a winning strategy.

Re "winning strategy", have you any data to support that claim?

April 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM  
Anonymous GardenSERF said...

Those of us who can write, write. But, it takes other people re-posting links, commenting, and spreading the message elsewhere, to carry those words across the land.

April 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Brass said...

I, for one, do not want a Constitutional Republic. Or any other "system" which operates on the principle that some men have a right to initiate aggression against others, whether it be in the form of robbery (taxation) or other restrictions on moral behavior.

I, for one, want freedom.

April 1, 2011 at 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do I got this right? Y'all think you're fighting for a higher cause than your own Ego???

Good luck with that. Lemme guess...your higher cause is the realest, truest highest cause. Is that it? Fresh idea, that one.

Do you mind some high-level philosophy? I'll try to keep it simple: "Collectivism is collectivism. Individualism is individualism." Any questions?

April 1, 2011 at 11:50 PM  
Anonymous Witchwood said...

We better pull our collective heads out of our assses and get on board with the common goal we all agree on: Restoration of Constitutional government.

This is a hugely important statement. We must define (and agree upon) exactly what it is we'll be fighting for when the bullets start flying. The restoration of Constitutional government is a good start. Not smaller government, and not no government. Constitutional government.

I'm a secessionist. I think it's far more likely that the country will simply fracture into a handful of smaller sovereign nations, and that saving the United States in its present form is not only impossible but probably undesirable in the long run. Even so, the principle elucidated by The Trainer still holds. I'll share a trench with anyone who earnestly feels the same.

April 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Witchwood, emotionally I share your sentiments. What real American wouldn't? The thing is, this ain't the time for emotionalism. Why is the restoration of the Constitutional Republic a good thing...so that we can go through this again? We know what it is, we know what happens and we even know why it happens. It happens because words don't stop bullets and Law simply can't rule, no matter how badly we wished it could.

Men rule, and that's that. The only question is what they rule and how they rule. This is why the Ego issue is so important. When a man places something outside of himself higher than himself, he can then be persuaded to rule over other men in pursuit of some imaginary higher cause. After all...if he himself isn't worth more than the cause, then obviously neither are they!

"Battle lines bein' drawn. Nobody's right if everyone is wrong." How many trenches have to be filled with how many people fighting for how many causes, until people realize that there never was a higher cause except their own lives?

A few too many, apparently. Fill those trenches with people who are fighting for their own lives, knowing that they always were the highest cause on Earth, and maybe something different will happen. Otherwise, all this freedom jazz will be but a trivial footnote in the story of how a species goes extinct.

April 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM  
Anonymous aughtsix said...

And, right here in these very comments, are prime examples of the problems of which Trainer writes.

Let me ask those who are of the, "My personal, indivisible, unfettered freedom above all other considerations," persuasion:

Do you think that Utter Chaos enables your vision of personal freedom better than some sort of cooperation agreed upon under the Rule of Law?

More to the immediate point, were your egos checked at the door prior to these comments?

No man is an island and few, if any can stand completely apart from their culture and society.
Rigid ideologues of left or right, who insist upon their narrow view uber alles, are the very ones Trainer is addressing in that post. They are also the bane of human existence.

The Intent of the Founding of the Republic was to let us all live together, to provide the greatest possible latitude for individual variance in attitude, religion or lack thereof, individual comprehension and achievement and Freedom of Association!

Don't lecture me on the failures of the Ideal... they are OUR failures. Think on how to realize those ideals:

After we have secured the General Liberty of our progeny, without which, all debate over doctrine is passing MOOT!

Trainer is pointing out that the best way to achieve that end is not to waste time, energy and our natural and mutual interests and alliances on futile and self defeating doctrinal fratricide.

The cult of personality is what were AGAINST!

Jon

III

April 3, 2011 at 3:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not arguing against Trainer. I am arguing about the ideas that I read.

Anonymous aughtsix said...

> And, right here in these very comments, are prime examples of the problems of which Trainer writes.

> Let me ask those who are of the, "My personal, indivisible, unfettered freedom above all other considerations," persuasion:

> Do you think that Utter Chaos enables your vision of personal freedom better than some sort of cooperation agreed upon under the Rule of Law?

What in the world are you talking about? If it's "agreed upon," then it's something other than Rule of Law, which is clearly intended to be imposed upon those who don't agree. Otherwise, why would you need it?

But even still, that's not what I'm arguing. I was arguing what I said I was arguing, the high-level philosophy which manages to recognize that collectivism is collectivism and individualism is individualism.

From what I'm reading, your response appears to be, "Well yeah, and some collectivism is justifiable." Never mind the irony that this was precisely what the USA was intended to avoid, I'll just ask if I understand you correctly. Do I?


> More to the immediate point, were your egos checked at the door prior to these comments?

Are you implying that yours was? If so, neat trick.


> No man is an island and few, if any can stand completely apart from their culture and society.

Hardly the point. What is "my culture" and "my society"? Is it what you write down somewhere or is it what I choose?


> Rigid ideologues of left or right, who insist upon their narrow view uber alles, are the very ones Trainer is addressing in that post. They are also the bane of human existence.

Another man is the "bane of human existence"??? Could you please inform exactly what makes this man so bad IYO?


> The Intent of the Founding of the Republic was to let us all live together,

That's what I thought. So why would you live together with those who you believed are the bane of existence?

FWIW, the underlying error here is the fantasy that the behavior in which we engage--which is ultimately GOOD--is "let" by anything, other than the individual himself. This is a simple fact and is the objective basis for any sort of rational individualism.


> to provide the greatest possible latitude for individual variance in attitude, religion or lack thereof, individual comprehension and achievement and Freedom of Association!

Hey, that's what I thought too!


> Don't lecture me on the failures of the Ideal... they are OUR failures.

I thought you checked your ego at the door. So doesn't this translate to, "They're YOUR failures." If not, how not? Did they check their egos too, and so it reduces to being nobody's failures?


> Think on how to realize those ideals:

> After we have secured the General Liberty of our progeny, without which, all debate over doctrine is passing MOOT!

> Trainer is pointing out that the best way to achieve that end is not to waste time, energy and our natural and mutual interests and alliances on futile and self defeating doctrinal fratricide.

> The cult of personality is what were AGAINST!

What shall you replace it with...the cult of the Sheeple or something?

And besides, who's "we" here, kimo sabe? Is that every person who puts a III after their name? Is it every patriot, every freedom fighter, every honest man that owns a gun, every Great American, every Right Thinking Guy... Exactly for whom are you speaking?

If you think about it, that's precisely all I'm trying to say!

Reiterating, I am arguing neither Trainer nor you; I know nothing about either of you. I am arguing the ideas that I am reading. Now you can explain exactly whose views you're offering and make my point for me.

April 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Witchwood said...

Did you hear the one about the anarchist who accidentally vivisected himself?

Turns out his liver was hopelessly bound to the rest of his body and was therefore collectivist, so he cut it out. Then he realized his kidneys were collectivist, and his heart was collectivist, and his lungs were collectivist...

April 4, 2011 at 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Witchwood said...

In the "high philosophy" of collectivism is collectivism and individualism is individualism, those of us who want to restore or create anew some form of constitutional government are collectivists, with no substantive difference from other collectivists. Why, then, do the resident "individualists" wish to engage us? Do they go to the Daily Kos and HuffPo and engage the collectivists there? What do they expect to gain by posting at collectivist websites like this one?

April 4, 2011 at 2:34 AM  
Anonymous aughtsix said...

Witchwood:

Thank you.

Jon III

April 4, 2011 at 4:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny stuff; must be funny times. Who's "us," anyway?

What happened to that Declaration of Independence? Lemme guess...those "inalienable rights" were only intended for those who went along when the Articles were snookered out 13 years later...is that it? Or don't the principles in the DofI count any more?

Look, I'm not speaking of tactical strategy here; I'm speaking of principles and goals. There's nothing wrong with a team and in the context of what the team does, the team comes first.

That hardly implies that each individual is something other than an individual, and it certainly doesn't imply that there's a higher cause than each individual. What do you think those founders were fighting for anyway? Clue...it wasn't a Constitution. I mean, sheesh, they wrote down what they were fighting for!

So what, do you think because someone says they "check the ego at the door," that they actually do it? As I said, that would be a neat trick. You can play whatever fantasies you wish, but it'll be no fantasy when the blood starts running.

And where do you get the idea that I think this is a "collectivist website"? I wouldn't waste a second on a collectivist site, let alone comment in it. CA doesn't strike me as any sort of collectivist, but then I've only been reading him for a couple of years. Is there something you didn't understand about, "I am arguing the ideas that I am reading," or was repeating it twice not sufficient?

A gang is a gang is a gang. If you wanna have a gang fight, then you're going to lose when you come up against the bigger gang. And in case you didn't notice, there's a mighty big gang in town. But if you're trying to defend actual principles, then set 'em out and we'll see how they stack up against reality. I can look around and see how the Constitution worked out, and I long ago understood how gangs work out. How 'bout you?

Meanwhile, I've heard everything but the answer to my question..."Do I got this right? Y'all think you're fighting for a higher cause than your own Ego???"

Maybe if someone had the guts to answer the question directly, I could set him straight. You don't mind moving forward, do you?

April 4, 2011 at 5:02 AM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

Regarding this

"Hardly the point. What is "my culture" and "my society"? Is it what you write down somewhere or is it what I choose?"

It brings to mind a more fundamental question I've been thinking about. Suppose a significant majority of the people around you choose, of their own free will, to enslave themselves to a greater or lesser degree. Do you have the right or the obligation to force them not to?

By "force" I mean, living in a manner incompatible with theirs, in close physical proximity. Law Enforcement in the modern sense depends on all submitting to it (much like Islam); it is inherently territorial and does not work if those subject to it are constantly exposed to those who are not. Imagine being pulled over for a speeding ticket, and seeing someone zooming by that the cop doesn't Law Enforce for. It might work in a theoretical sense - he doesn't Law Enforce as punishment, he doesn't Law Enforce as protection either - but emotionally it would tend to trigger revolts - and the people running and supporting Law Enforcement know it.

But suppose a given locality decides to vote for Law Enforcement, and decides that its benefits in their view are a stronger argument than short-term emotional reaction at the negatives, and that therefore the best way to protect and preserve the Law Enforcement system is to prevent people from having such tantrums - and thus preventing those not subject to Law Enforcement from living within the locality. Do they not have the right to make that decision? Are you going to impose yourself on them anyway? Where does your right to live as you please meet with their right to live as they please?

April 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM  
Anonymous The Trainer said...

The key is to control the urge to let your ego do the talking. Logic, reason, and resolve.

It takes practice....witness many of the posts here...

April 4, 2011 at 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great questions, Rollory!

> Do they not have the right to make that decision?

Well, let's leave rights for another time. But yes, obviously they CAN make that decision.


> Are you going to impose yourself on them anyway?

Hell no! Firstly, why would I want to impose myself on anyone who didn't want me? I'm a Capitalist ethically (and practically) and business doesn't work that way. I don't sell to those who don't want to buy, and I don't buy from those who don't want to sell. Where's the problem?

Maybe the more relevant part for here, though, is this. The reason I don't impose isn't because I give a hoot about them. It so happens that I do, being the empathetic soul that I am, but that's not the reason. The reason I don't impose--or steal or lie or cheat--is because of who I want to be. I want to be the best person I can be, and I think I deserve nothing less. The point of ethical egoism is that this is the case for every person, at least once they come to realize it.


> Where does your right to live as you please meet with their right to live as they please?

Somewhere in the land between us! Luckily, there's plenty of land and I'm not very picky.

April 5, 2011 at 12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds good, Trainer! Maybe we're on the same page after all...only one thing does the controlling, right?

April 5, 2011 at 4:10 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home