RE: A New Dallas Accord to Unify The Freedom Movement
Great feedback! Thanks! I think I must have left something out of my original post that I'll have to get back to with a future post. Basically, yes. We want to build an organization around the "lowest common denominator" of people who care about freedom as a principle. We don't have to sacrifice that. So let me ask you this way: Would you rather have a debate club of anarchists that is always right about everything, or an organization that is accepting of people who don't agree on everything, but are willing to vote in our direction? Because the first answer gets you what we have now. The second answer, at worst, gets us someone like Gary Johnson as President because with more people, you can, you know, actually WIN elections! As for my campaign, the way that I have made a platform based on principle (dissolving the whole federal government) will bring in people who want local governments that are conservative or liberal. We should be ready to welcome them and ready to win!
We must reflect a little more deeply. I know some very seasoned senior activists, one in particular, who points out that the federal government has already been dissolved. I used to doubt that, but I am thinking more and more that it's essentially true. Since the establishment is a private corporate-banking-old blood line force that took over the government long ago, then the government itself, in terms of its origins and founding structure, is no longer with us. Over time, the interlopers seceded from the original Constitutional order and overthrew it, thereby effectively dissolving it. They did this by altering the Constitution without the proper amendment process, which disintegrated the original social contract. Once the private banking cartel moved in and solidified its position in 1913, then the real rulers dissolved what little remained of the original sovereign state. Government, in and of itself, is not the core culprit--rather, it's those who altered its function and form so much that, eventually, dissolution occurred. Yes, one could argue, let's "dissolve the dissolvers," but that's not what's being discussed here.