Kit sounds off with an important message of her personal decision. She has come to the same conclusion that I did about a year ago concerning my affiliations, and is one of the few articulate enough to make the case for those actions. Mike Vanderboegh did not invent these principles. Mike, with the help of a few friends, codified them in one place and became the public face for those espousing those principles. Mike was well spoken enough to make his point, and those who had helped were more than happy to let him lead that charge publicly.
I used to say I was a “III%er”. I used to say I was an “Oathkeeper” (meaning membership in “OKer’s”). I still believe in the principles espoused by Mike, and I still consider myself a keeper of my oath, no matter my affiliation or membership in either group. I do not need someone who wants to make a buck off of me, to automatically believe he can speak for me in all things, especially when the “making of that buck” might subvert the intent of the person making it. “Power corrupts………..”, and I’ve seen too many that were given power, allow themselves to be corrupted because they said they made decisions “for the cause” and it got out of control.
If you are a part of something whose sole purpose is to spread the principles that you espouse. Do not let someone make it into a money making job to forward those principles. I saw this as a Board member of III Percent Society For America, and I’ve seen the corruption that apparently has become rampant with the national level Oath Keepers. Cut the “king” off at the pass, or you’ll soon be wondering , “What happened to our group?”. You espouse principles, you don’t make money off of them. KEEP IT LOCAL!
Don’t be lazy and such an intellectual, and physical coward that you would rather someone else be “king” (and make decisions for the group because it’s easier to “follow” another, whose true aspirations are unknown.) than to lead yourself via your own research and possession of the guts to make your own decisions for you and yours. The “president” of the IIIPSFA found out the hard way that you don’t put individually minded military vets (who know how it’s supposed to work) on a Board you want to run roughshod over and dictate your will. This is not about making money. this is about standing on principles that are timeless to those who would seek to exercise and promote liberty in every aspect of their life.
As I said here, be careful of those who would use terms designed to elicit the response of “Well, he says he’s a ___________ (patriot, liberty minded, III%er, etc.), so if I’m that, I have to agree with him.” That is utter nonsense, and it is designed to evoke a specific response. “Bell rings. Dog Drools.” Don’t let yourself be the dog who hears the bell and can’t help himself but to drool.
This is a very difficult post to write. I’ve started it and deleted it several times now; I’ve even considered not writing it at all. But for some time now, I’ve been a very vocal member of the III%. I believe the principles, I agree with the purpose, and I was proud to be a part of it. Over the last few months, however, I’ve come to a decision. I can no longer be part of the Three Percent. Because I was so public with my support, I feel honor-bound to be just as public with my choice to no longer affiliate with it, and to explain the thought process leading to my decision.
One of the things I believe in very strongly is that we must be able to collect facts, analyze those facts, and make a decision based on that analysis regardless of whether the facts coincide with what we already [want to] believe. Over the last 12 years or so, I’ve been involved with rallies both at the state and national level; I’ve written thousands of articles for a number of blogs, and I’ve worked with patriotic organizations both large and small. Over that time, I’ve learned facts or been presented with evidence that forced me to take a long, hard look at what I believed. In some cases my beliefs had to change because the facts did not support my opinions. I think many of us who think of ourselves as ‘pro-liberty’ have experienced that—at least if we have integrity, we do. There was a time when I was what many would call a statist; I even supported the Patriot Act when it first came out. I reasoned that if you had nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t have a problem with the government knowing what you do. Over time, I was confronted with evidence that my position on a lot of things was dead wrong—and I had to decide what to do with that information. That process of collecting, analyzing, and deciding continued over the next decade, and now I am faced with yet another decision that must be made with facts, not emotion.
I see the Three Percent ideals as intensely personal things; things to live by and continually aspire to. As I studied the history, I was forced to change more and more of my opinions to be in line with the facts I saw, and the validity of those ideals. One of the most important parts of the ‘culture,’ so to speak, was that of decentralized leadership. I understood the value in the concept, and understood why Mike Vanderboegh was so adamant about there never being a ‘leader’ in the III% movement. Unfortunately, I also saw that there were many who wanted nothing more than to ‘follow’ someone, to have a ‘commander’ that would tell them what to do and when to do it. They wanted a king, in some ways, and it went against everything I had learned the Three Percent was meant to be. It frustrated me to no end to see people claiming to be part of the Three Percent while engaging in actions that blatantly violated the principles—or even openly calling for violence against elected officials. It frustrated me to see that while the masses claimed to want liberty, in reality they are perfectly willing to be ruled—as long as their leader claims to want liberty too.
Several people have told me that “We just need a leader to tell us when it’s time to shoot.” One named their personal choice for leader and said that “When he says it’s time to go, I’ll go.” This troubled me; not only was it completely antithetical to what Mike had taught for years, but it spoke to a much larger problem in the movement: Too many people in the movement do not want to think for themselves. It became obvious that what the Three Percent was meant to be, and what it is, are two different things. It is not owned by anyone and has no leader, yet the visible ‘members’ clamor for a king. The standards are there, ever so clear in their simplicity, and yet the visible ‘members’ think they need to ‘all be on the same page,’ and need some kind of organized effort, some ‘moral compass.’ Few who call themselves Three Percent seem to grasp that the individual, the small local group is the key, that the ‘moral compass’ was already penned. They refuse to understand the idea of local, autonomous groups; in many cases, even the local groups look to boost their numbers, oblivious to the dangers of such. They want standardization, ranks, and status. In fact, it could be argued that the large majority of the actual Three Percent, the ones who are following the catechism and the principles, are silent and invisible. Sparks31 wrote of this very thing today:
If you are trying to organize something on a macro level that was created under the concept of remaining unorganized, and admit such, then you are up to something hinky and I’m going to tell people to stay the hell away from you.
There is another issue as well, and in another post today, Sparks31 explains it very succintly:
This 3% thing will result in deaths if it follows itself to conclusion. By adopting that particular term, you are implying that you will fight a standing, legally-elected government should it (continue to) engage in certain actions you find objectionable. The term used is insurrection. Look it up. Unless the social and political course of this country alters its course drastically in the future, that’s going to be a hell of a check you’re going to have to cash.
Think about that.
Then read the words of the man who created it.
If you decide to go that route, now think about the advisability of tossing that term out in public to describe yourself. Or joining up with someone who does.
It doesn’t matter if you’re just a group of harmless preppers who happened to take on the name because it sounded cool and buzzwordy. It’s not the latest buzzword for you to toss out. It’s more like a buzzsaw that will decapitate you if you’re not careful with it.
And you know who could be doing the enforcement for the powers that be?
Sparks has quite a list of federal law backing his premise, so before you decide to rage comment,go read his post. While I know many who read this will proclaim loudly that they are happy to die for the cause of liberty, I would remind you of the following:
The pinnacle of achievement is not talk, and it is not death. It is a life lived. It is a day to day existence that seeks the furtherance of liberty in all things, not just the big actions that have national attention. In fact, I daresay it’s not about attention at all. It’s about being willing to set yourself apart for the purpose of service and sacrifice in your everyday life. Not so you can go to every Big Patriot Action, and not so you can deride everyone who “calls themselves a patriot until it’s time to do patriot sh*t.” It’s so that you can contribute—steadily, purposefully, and maybe even silently—to the cause of liberty.
Other than the rights that you have as an individual to protect yourself, you are not authorized to run operations, assume any rank (unless you are given a commission by the Governor), or speak for the rest of us. If you want to train as a Neighborhood Protection Team, or Survivalist group, go for it. Both of those acts fall under personal and community defense and are God given rights. If you are putting yourself in the position of combatants that are trying to form a national organization, especially on social media, you are putting you and yours at risk and for what? To look cool and “badass” at an “FTX”? Think about it people, organize locally, keep it local and keep off of social media.
I don’t know about you; I cannot speak for you. But this is what I know:
- I do not need or want a king—“liberty minded” or otherwise, and I will not be part of a group of people that wants one.
- I do not need a leader to tell me how to live according to principles and self-discipline.
- I will not be party to violations of those principles, whether on a macro or micro basis; I will not affiliate with those who violate them.
- I will make a difference in my own neighborhood, my own community. I do not need a label or group affiliation to do so.
- I will continue to think for myself, to collect facts and make decisions based on those facts instead of my emotions.
I will continue to teach what I can, and learn what I don’t know. I will continue to live according to the Three Percent principles, because they are morally sound and I agree with them. That won’t change. I simply refuse to accept a label that has become associated with things that the Three Percent was not intended to be. The principles and structure are clear, and I choose to follow them, even though I reject the label or the insistence by many that a national organization is needed.
Some will claim that I’m turning my back on Mike’s work or the cause itself; that I must not respect him as much as I claim. In reality, I am doing this because I respected Mike so much. I know what he envisioned for the Three Percent to be—not because I have some insider knowledge, but because he put it out there for the world to see. We all know what is expected of us, and I do not believe he would fault me for this decision. I know I’ll get hate mail for this; it won’t be the first or last time. When you think about it, those who choose to send hate mail or slander me on social media are only proving my point.
American by BIRTH, Infidel by CHOICE