Comment: I'm reposting a rebuttal to my comment above...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: When will we learn.... (see in situ)

I'm reposting a rebuttal to my comment above...

I'm reposting this rebuttal from a friend on Facebook. It was really well thought out and articulated, and I feel it's important:

Rob, I love you man, but that's BS. The establishment is thrilled when they find someone who will "play ball" like this because it means they know what to do. They have the playbook, they know it works, they know they will win in the end. We have got to start learning our history on this stuff or this movement is already doomed to fail.

They were able to marginalize Ron only because he was the only one who would hold the line. It still terrified them, it's still why they threw tons and tons of resources at his house seat time after time to knock him out. They always failed because his constituency wanted him there and so did the rest of us across the country.

One of the strongest tools the establishment has to maintain the status quo is this attitude that fear and reprisals and requiring people to march in lockstep is a necessary, normal, and even healthy part of the political process. That debate is bad, and disagreement is worse, and if you don't go along with the majority you should not expect anyone to work with you again. This is idiotic and it is diabolical. It was the common practice of the Politburo, to the point that if someone did talk in favor of the eventually losing side, they were expected to rise after the vote and explain how wrong they had been before, and that they had now seen the light and were entirely on board with the majority. No dissent could stand, ever.

Whenever one person stands up and says no, and maintains that no, come hell or highwater, the establishment knows fear. Because they know that the rest whom they have pounded into a followers' paste are no longer that concerned about who they follow, as long as that person is strong--this is exactly what they have been conditioned for, after all. Those people will in fact start to find plenty who will work with them, and in short order it's entirely possible they'll be facing real opposition.

Ghandi's famous quote leaves out a very important step: First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they NEGOTIATE with you, then you win. If they can offer "seats at the table" and "influence" and "access" and get opposition to stand down that way they are happy to do so. They will gladly share the pie as long as they still define the ingredients and the shares.

The Just War requirement of serious prospect of success is to *initiate* a blood war, ie killing people. 1) A vote for RNC chair is not a blood war; though it has blood war implications, we did not ask Smack to end anyone's life. 2) That requirement is to initiate a war which once initiated is to be executed until its conclusion, the removal of the Jus ad bellum. The criteria to initiate war do not directly apply to every battle of that war. Plenty of battles are fought with 0 chance of direct success because of their effect on the overall war. 3) Serious chance of success gets judged relatively against the other components of the Jus ad bellum--when a population is facing extinction, it has to fight no matter its odds. See Britain during WWII.

RXJ (RXJ continues here!) tells some pretty gut-wrenching stories about what it was like to watch the shining stars of his generation's movement get picked off by the compromise, and the go-along-get-along, and sometimes the direct bribes. It went on until he was the last one standing. They tried to come for him, but they knew it wouldn't work and it didn't. So they moved back to making fun of him, because with the numbers he had left that would work again.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!