View Full Version : Moving beyond the RP Revolution: Freedom Force International

05-28-2008, 02:40 PM
Many of us are wondering "With the primary season coming to an end, where do we go from here?"

Well obviously, supporting local candidates is a great thing for us to do. But how do we keep our organization together? Do we really want to keep the name "Ron Paul" associated with our movement? Do we want to form a new organizational structure? Or do we want to start forming local chapters of already existing groups such as the John Birch Society?

How long can we continue to operate through Ron Paul meetups until we become as silly as the Lyndon LaRouche supporters?

I don't have the answers to all of these questions, but I do have a little tiny bit of insight.

Last night my meetup got together and discussed these issues. We came to the decision that we are going to start operating as a totally autonomous group, yet under the umbrella structure of Freedom Force International (http://www.freedom-force.org/). We are going to actively seek power and influence in a manner advocated by G. Edward Griffin's speech "An Idea Whose Time Has Come (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958)"

And thus, the second Freedom Force International Meetup (http://freedomforce.meetup.com/2/) was created.

I just thought I would throw this out there into the internet's free market of ideas. If anyone else is trying to figure out what to do with their meetup, you may want to consider this.

05-28-2008, 02:41 PM
Been a member for a while. I like the idea.

05-28-2008, 02:42 PM
great Idea.

I will discuss seriously with my meetup as well.

05-28-2008, 02:50 PM
Been an FFI member for awhile now, just set up a FFI San Antonio Meetup.

05-28-2008, 03:34 PM
Been an FFI member for awhile now, just set up a FFI San Antonio Meetup.

Cool! Now we have three FFI meetups. Think we can get 1000 within a year?

05-28-2008, 05:51 PM
bump for the night crew

05-28-2008, 06:07 PM
I'm going to be a member of the Freedom Force International.

Deborah K
05-28-2008, 06:48 PM
G. Edward Griffin is speaking at the March in July, but you didn't hear that from me....;)

05-28-2008, 07:35 PM
I like it, a lot. I'm going to read more on the weblink and pitch it to my Meetup next week.

Keep the brain juices flowing.

05-28-2008, 07:37 PM
how about we concern ourselves with OUR liberties?

05-28-2008, 07:41 PM
how about we concern ourselves with OUR liberties?

I'm not sure what you mean. Restoring our liberties is the main focus of this organization.

05-28-2008, 08:13 PM
Thank you for reminding me that I have a phone call to make. :) I became a member of FFI but have been kind of in limbo. Time to move forward.

05-28-2008, 08:18 PM
Great Idea!

05-29-2008, 09:57 AM
I think Freedom Force is a great organization and I'm seriously considering starting a chapter. I wish we had officially adopted their code of conduct as adhering to it may have prevented some of the "cat herding" we have. For instance code 1:

1. The first order is: donít wait for orders. Freedom Force is not pyramidal but holographic in structure. Therefore, instead of waiting for instructions from a monolithic directorate, become self-directed. Join with others when that is advantageous, but also donít be afraid to duplicate and parallel their efforts. Experiment. Make mistakes. Find a better way. As long as your activities are consistent with The Creed of Freedom, and this Code of Conduct, the effort will be constructive. What may seem like chaos at first actually is the ferment of creativity and competition. It ultimately will far surpass the output of bureaucratic and dogmatic control from the top and it will allow the movement to spread rapidly into virtually any culture and any part of the world.

How many times have we heard "Mary Jo is doing such and such and that's going to take away from what Billy Bob is doing"?

Or code 4:

4. Donít trust your leaders. That applies to Freedom Force as well as in politics. Donít expect them to be saints. Most of them are corruptible under the right circumstances. Your job is to watch them like a hawk. Donít let them violate the Creed or this Code of Conduct. Call attention to their errors, when necessary. If violations are serious, mobilize the power to remove them.

More than once I've seen someone say "Don't criticize so and so. He/she's done so much for the campaign." The irony is this has happened in thread where the person saying "Don't criticize so and so" has jumped all over someone else who's clearly done just as much.

Code # 10 is also great.

10. Show tolerance, compassion, and good will toward all. Extend a welcome to members of all races, nationalities, religions, and cultures, provided only that they honor The Creed of Freedom. Expect diversity, knowing that, in spite of differences, our common mission binds us to a genuine global brotherhood.

To that I'd add "different philosophies". As long as the idea doesn't violate the creed we shouldn't be beating each other up over it even if someone else thinks it's "strange".

Freedom Force clearly represents what we need to be doing next, educating the masses, building power structures and infiltrating existing ones.


John M. Drake

06-01-2008, 12:31 PM
This is the first time I heard about this, sounds like a great effort to continue. I love the #1 as well. I think that is something we have all dealt with in one form or another.

06-01-2008, 02:45 PM
I think there is one problem with the creed of freedom, namely if people do something for a cause, i.e. work towards some common good in their own view, if such work produces results the question arises who owns their results.

This could be a soldier defending his country or a scientist researching a phenomenon. The question is, do people who do not agree with the ideas that those people were fighting or working for have any right to enjoy the fruits of their efforts?

I mean, I as a soldier have every right to say that I'm going to defend heterosexuals only. It's my life after all. I mean, when I'm not getting paid for it, in a scenario where I'm a voluntary soldier.

The example is a bit tasteless, but it's simple. People do not work nor fight for any kind of person. There is always an implicit contract present. Just ask yourself if you would have done any altruistic deed you did (if there is any), if you knew for certain that you're surrounded by murderers and rapists. So, some contract is always present.

People like Louis Pasteur did work for humanity, after all. They would not have worked for a humanity consisting of people who think that doctors should focus on the treatment of the rich.

So, treatments he discovered should be withheld from such people. It's an intellectual property rights issue.

Fair and square. That's what I think. Of course complicated.

So complicated that it might not be feasible, in which case I would prefer a solution where you as a member of a society would have signed some contract by default and if you wouldn't like it were free to leave said society on a fair and peaceful basis, but without any longer enjoying any special privileges of said society (of course that would not concern your freedom of movement, speech, work, contract and the like), or differently put, you could just "downgrade" your citizenship.

The other way round would be also fine, in which case you "upgraded" it. But if you had no higher form of organization within your country, if everybody would be content with the basic citizenship, I'm afraid that your country would become irrelevant. Other countries with state ideologies would very likely achieve more progress.

You might say that the state ideology of the US is nothing more than the creed of freedom, but that's not exactly right, there's a religious note there too. That isn't explicitly stated though, but perhaps that's for the better. If the US explicitly stated that they are the country of the creed of freedom and nothing more it might well damage their national myth.

Honestly, I think things are due for an overhaul. The hypocrisy of the status quo is becoming too apparent, though Obama would certainly do the best job of blurring the picture. Ironically he would be the most traditional president of the three bigger candidates remaining.

I doubt though, as stated, that said overhaul should be a stripping down to the state theoretic essentials.

Worries that majorities some larger where crack down on minorities some smaller where else are justified. And this should be minimized. That said, I see no more promising way out than to throw representational government on the dump.

It would send a clear message against bureaucracy and it would end the faction building that is only helping those who want to abuse power. We would after all start to debate issues instead of grouping together in political circles of our own ilk, which, as I said, only helps those who want to abuse power.