Freedom Force International -

IS VIOLENCE THE CORRECT PATH TO POLITICAL REFORM?
From the writings of G. Edward Griffin, Founder of Freedom Force. Compiled 2008 May 8

From the Freedom Force Home Page, written in 2003:
The mission of members of Freedom Force is to shape public policy within their respective countries in favor of personal and global freedom. The method is threefold: (1) dissemination of ideological and issue-related information, (2) instruction in how to become influential within community and national organizations, and (3) instruction in how to lawfully and constitutionally convert that influence into public policy. Members seek to become change agents so they truly can make a difference in the world. … The Freedom Force strategy can be summarized as: Don't fight city hall when you can BE city hall. (Link to original source)

From What Does Freedom Force DO? written in 2005: The best way to understand the operation of Freedom Force is to think of how the CFR functions. It is an influential network whose members accomplish change, not by attempting to mobilize the masses on behalf of specific issues, but by having members implement its ideology and general goals within the power centers of society, which they influence or control. (Link to original source)

From The Income Tax Protest Movement, written March 25, 2005:
So we must ask: Is there a better option for us? The answer is: It depends on our goal. If our purpose simply is to get out from under a personal tax liability, then the answer is no. Our only chance of success is to throw ourselves directly into confrontation with the IRS and give it all we have – and be willing to face the consequences. But, if our goal is to change the system and remove the tax for everyone – really remove it, not just have it metamorphose into another form – then we have a better option. We can organize and work like blue blazes to repeal the 16th Amendment and to reduce the size of government so it will no longer need so much revenue. But we can’t do that inside a jail cell.(Link to original source)

From To Vote or Not To Vote, written December 8, 2004:
Now that the elections are over and especially as evidence continues to mount regarding electronic vote fraud via computerized vote machines, an old question has come back with a vengeance: Why bother voting at all? The following email is a typical expression of this dispair:

In [the video entitled Invisible Ballots] you write about the endangerment of the vote due to electronic voting, which, as we know, can be manipulated by vested interests. However, I have taken a different view when it comes to voting. I see it as simply a horrible hoax that has been perpetrated on the unsuspecting masses. My belief is this: “If voting effected change, it would be banned.” Votes rarely if ever effect any real or meaningful change, as history shows. In fact, if anything, the mere choice of Democrats or Republicans should be signal enough to thinking people that they are nothing more than two sides of the same coin. … I watched the whole Republican conference charade off and on and just got ill with the realization that the vast majority of the sleep-walking public is swallowing all the hokum, hook, line and sinker.
Regards,
Eileen

Eileen has raised some important issues; and, unfortunately, much of what she says is true. However, declining to vote is not the solution. In fact, it is merely another step in retreat toward ultimate surrender. I am fully aware of the show-biz conflict between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. and similar stage performances in other countries. However, the vote is our only mechanism for peaceful and constitutional reform. If we walk away from it, then all that is left is violent revolution. In my opinion, this is not a realistic strategy for victory. I am not unmindful that most tyrannies of history have been overthrown only by force of arms, but the power of modern weapons and the tools of mind control that now are in the hands of collectivists in power have changed the equations. This is especially true in light of recent popular aversion to ownership of firearms. In my opinion, an armed-citizen uprising today would have zero chance of success and would only lead to one of the greatest bloodbaths of history. (Link to original source)

From Freedom Force Strategy written 2004:
The concept of passive resistance has attracted a great deal of support in recent times, and it is tempting to consider it as a strategy for dramatizing public opposition to totalitarianism calling itself homeland security. Here are my thoughts on this issue.

1. If we embarked on such a program, at the outset we would have to be clear about how far we intend to go with it. Bumper stickers and billboards are easy, almost fun; but would we urge our members to go all the way and actually defy the laws? That is the logical extension of any resistance campaign, and not to do so would be hypocrisy. So, what we would be endorsing is, not just civil disobedience, which is a sanitized phrase, but actually violating laws.

2. If we urge citizens to break the law, we would be asking them to become criminals in the eyes of the state. That would make us criminals also – as conspirators to break the law. We would be handing our opponents a golden invitation to close down our operation and throw us all in prison. From that point forward, we would be spending all of our time either behind bars or defending ourselves in court. Forget everything else. Let me repeat that. Forget everything else we are trying to do.

3. Violating laws we think are unjust, unconstitutional, or immoral is honorable and, at times, the only moral thing to do; but how many people are prepared to do that? We have been living under an increasing number of unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral laws for the last 100 years, the tide slowly rising with each session of our state and national legislatures. Why do we suddenly draw the line here and now? What is there about the present that makes it different in principle than the past? There is, of course, nothing different in principle, so we would have to answer by saying there comes a time when enough is enough, and we have finally come to that point.

4. So far so good, but is it true that the American people in general truly have had enough? Are they really fed up to the point where they are now willing to go to prison in defense of their principles and ideals? In my opinion, the answer is no, not even close. In spite of all the bravado about “Prying my gun from my cold, dead hand,” the reality is quite different. Most men are willing to fight to the death as part of an organized military force with leadership and discipline, led against a foreign enemy, and when motivated by national pride and loyalty to country; but, when confronted one at a time by jackboots from their own government, the vast majority would tumble like a stack of marbles.

5. It can be argued that, if the number of resistors were large enough to clog the law-enforcement system, the government would have no choice but to yield. That is fantasy. For many years, the government has contemplated the possibility of large-scale dissent and rebellion and has implemented procedures and facilities to handle it. I believe that collectivists at the top actually are eager for this turn of events, because that would give them the ultimate justification to suspend even the pretense of constitutional law.

6. When thinking of Gandhi or M.L. King as passive-resistance role models for our movement, we must remember that India’s movement for independence and the Civil Rights movement in the US were both supported by a sympathetic media. Gandhi and King were portrayed in the press as high-minded leaders for a noble cause. Without this positive reinforcement in the media (and from government sectors as well) neither movement would have had any chance of success. If Gandhi and King had been portrayed as criminals and troublemakers who deserved to be prosecuted, they would have had no following. It would be foolish to expect Freedom Force or any other legitimate pro-freedom group to have the support of a sympathetic media. Any program of passive resistance on our part would soon be portrayed as a militia or quasi-terrorist program – and the public would believe it.

7. This is not a question of courage but one of strategy. It is praiseworthy to be willing to go to prison, if necessary, for what we believe is right, but this resolve needs to be weighed against other possibilities. If other options are open to us, we need to consider if any of them might be more effective for our purposes. We need to see if there are things we can do out of prison that would be more effective in promoting our cause than what we can do in prison. If there are, then it would be foolish to choose the option with the lesser chance of success. That would be like throwing ourselves into the teeth of enemy machine-gun fire when we had the option of moving, unseen, through a gully and attacking from behind. Yes, it would be courageous to sacrifice one’s self in a frontal attack. But, if there is a better option, it would be an irrational act of suicide and a lost chance for victory. So we must ask: Is there a better option for us? I believe there is. In fact, I believe that the Freedom Force strategy of recapturing the power centers of society by constitutional and legal means, not only is a better option, it is the only one with any chance of success.

In summary: While others are writing letters of protest from the comfort of their homes or practicing civil disobedience, the real battle is raging in the power centers of society – the organizations that shape the political and social policies of the nation. The battle will continue there for decades to come – even within the New World Order, which is already upon us. No matter how long it takes, members of Freedom Force will be there and, ultimately, will prevail. (Link to original source)