What's The Plan?

[acptulsa]

The disempowerment of libertarianism is the direct result of a) support for open borders and b) support for corrupt foreign trade practices.

We had plenty of momentum until the saboteurs within our movement made those priority items on the agenda, when it has been clear for a long time that the will of the people is the precise opposite of those policies.



I could, but after what I've seen go down here from the 2016 election onwards, I have no desire to empower individuals who have no loyalty to their countrymen and mostly aren't libertarians anyway, but Communists LARPing as anarchists. Seriously, why would I empower you people at all? What have you done to deserve that power? It would be beyond irresponsible for me to lend aid to people who cannot even control their own excess of pride, and are generally no better qualified to make policy calls than any random person you could pick out of a phone book.

LOL

Oh jeepers, we pissed off Superman. We're still right about the slide into tyranny, we're still right about the government trashing the economy, we're still right about the Fed destroying the middle class, but we're not doing a good enough job pandering to people who hate Mexicans. And even though the GOP will stick as many candidates in the race as it takes to make good candidates invisible and the mainstream media will not only ignore good candidates but brainwash idiots into believing it hates their favorite candidate to the point where they still believe he's anti-establishment even after he appoints Pompeo to the State Department, you can fix all that. And you would, too, but you hate Mexicans and you hate us more than you love your country.

LMFAO

Good God, we might have discovered something more arrogant than Teh Collins.

The thing that keeps haunting me about this whole 2016 debacle is six percent of the population nominated this orange closet neocon. Six percent of the population, a forest of seventeen candidates and 24/7 coverage by the media engineered this whole thing. Six percent. That's what the party system is doing to this nation.

We may not have the party system and the media's awesome power. But we can match the six percent of the Mexican Hater Faction all day...

[CCTelander]

LOL

Oh jeepers, we pissed off Superman. We're still right about the slide into tyranny, we're still right about the government trashing the economy, we're still right about the Fed destroying the middle class, but we're not doing a good enough job pandering to people who hate Mexicans. And even though the GOP will stick as many candidates in the race as it takes to make good candidates invisible and the mainstream media will not only ignore good candidates but brainwash idiots into believing it hates their favorite candidate to the point where they still believe he's anti-establishment even after he appoints Pompeo to the State Department, you can fix all that. And you would, too, but you hate Mexicans and you hate us more than you love your country.

LMFAO

Good God, we might have discovered something more arrogant than Teh Collins.

The thing that keeps haunting me about this whole 2016 debacle is six percent of the population nominated this orange closet neocon. Six percent of the population, a forest of seventeen candidates and 24/7 coverage by the media engineered this whole thing. Six percent. That's what the party system is doing to this nation.

We may not have the party system and the media's awesome power. But we can match the six percent of the Mexican Hater Faction all day...

I have no idea how he feels about Mexicans and I don't really care. That's his problem, or not.

But I do know how he feels about me since he never passes up an opportunity to tell everyone. It never ceases to shock me how my desire to leave people alone to live their lives in peace, and my demand that they afford me the same courtesy, can engender such naked hatred in some people. Well $#@! him. I've got more important things on my mind.

[acptulsa]

I have no idea how he feels about Mexicans and I don't really care. That's his problem, or not.

But I do know how he feels about me since he never passes up an opportunity to tell everyone. It never ceases to shock me how my desire to leave people alone to live their lives in peace, and my demand that they afford me the same courtesy, can engender such naked hatred in some people. Well $#@! him. I've got more important things on my mind.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure his grand plan to make the liberty movement more powerful is to abandon all our principles, sell out, and embrace collectivism.

That not only won't work, but we'll be selling our souls to get nowhere fast. Brilliant.

[euphemia]

Why is asking libertarians to have unified vision and a plan collectivism?

[acptulsa]

Why is asking libertarians to have unified vision and a plan collectivism?

Are you talking to me? Let's see if I can decipher that question.

It isn't. Blaming three million illegal aliens for thirty million being out of work is collectivist. It's also clearly stupid. Arguably it got Trump the six percent he needed to secure the nomination in a seventeen candidate field, though I think that still wouldn't have happened without the media brainwashing people 24/7 that the Establishment was just as scared of Trump as Rand Paul (which was clearly a bull$#@! narrative). But even Trump understood that he had to repudiate his xenophobia to beat the psycho bitch from hell in the general election.

Would a unified vision and plan be helpful? Well, hell yes.

[aravoth]

Why is asking libertarians to have unified vision and a plan collectivism?

Libertarians can't be unified the way the other political parties can. Everything about libertarians is decentralized. Only a handful of them would follow a mission statement, another handful might follow another one, maybe a few more would follow a mission statement that's different from the first two.

Everyone always tries to get everyone in this movement to fly a single banner. When really, the answer is to fly multiple banners, but sing the same anthem.

[thoughtomator]

LOL

Oh jeepers, we pissed off Superman. We're still right about the slide into tyranny, we're still right about the government trashing the economy, we're still right about the Fed destroying the middle class, but we're not doing a good enough job pandering to people who hate Mexicans. And even though the GOP will stick as many candidates in the race as it takes to make good candidates invisible and the mainstream media will not only ignore good candidates but brainwash idiots into believing it hates their favorite candidate to the point where they still believe he's anti-establishment even after he appoints Pompeo to the State Department, you can fix all that. And you would, too, but you hate Mexicans and you hate us more than you love your country.

I wouldn't put it in those terms, but yes it's basically correct. Libertarians need to respond to the urgent and pressing needs of the people and make those our priority, or we will be irrelevant.

Allow me to put it in terms that may be more meaningful to you:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

That's basically what nasally-elevated libertarians have been doing since Ron retired. Americans have vital interests of immediate and pressing importance, and bad libertarians blow those things off with mockery, which creates long-term enemies and is basically the worst thing you can do in politics.

LMFAO

Good God, we might have discovered something more arrogant than Teh Collins.

I have a historic and unprecedented victory as proof of my competence. It's not arrogance if you can really do it, and I have shown I can.

The thing that keeps haunting me about this whole 2016 debacle is six percent of the population nominated this orange closet neocon. Six percent of the population, a forest of seventeen candidates and 24/7 coverage by the media engineered this whole thing. Six percent. That's what the party system is doing to this nation.

We may not have the party system and the media's awesome power. But we can match the six percent of the Mexican Hater Faction all day...

You can't match that six percent because you're terrible at working the system and even worse at forming the political coalitions necessary to actually win. The so-far insurmountable obstacle for libertarians is the inability to deal rationally with others who are generally aligned on policy without sharing the ideology. And then of course, the ideology has taken on a life of its own, a destructive one, in placing itself in opposition to the genuine and valid interests of the people at large.

The "Mexican Hater Faction" as you call it is very rational and correct both morally and Constitutionally. Mexico is a $#@!hole. Large parts of Mexico are literal war zones. America is a much better place than that and Americans don't want America to be Mexicanized, not out of some irrational hatred of "the other", but out of a clear-eyed recognition that Mexicanization represents a serious threat to their lives and liberty, and a dramatic decrease in their quality of life.

The border issue is an excellent example of the destructiveness of the anarcho-Communist ideology that's infected the movement. Liberty requires protection - again, go back to the Declaration and note that it is quite explicit: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - and the first thing human beings must do to protect themselves and each other is to set up a defensible perimeter - a border.

The bottom line for any libertarian who considers himself an American is that if you have strayed so far from the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence as to actually be committing some of the very offenses that caused the Revolution, you have gone far down the wrong path, and it's time that the right to self-determination was restored to its proper place in the pantheon of principles.

[acptulsa]

I have a historic and unprecedented victory as proof of my competence. It's not arrogance if you can really do it, and I have shown I can.

Secret proof is not proof. It's only proof if it can be seen.

You can't match that six percent because you're terrible at working the system and even worse at forming the political coalitions necessary to actually win. The so-far insurmountable obstacle for libertarians is the inability to deal rationally with others who are generally aligned on policy without sharing the ideology. And then of course, the ideology has taken on a life of its own, a destructive one, in placing itself in opposition to the genuine and valid interests of the people at large.

Libertarianism has nothing to offer the system. The coalitions of the system are designed to come up with pork for the left and pork for the right, and every coalition that was ever formed in Washington was designed to get votes for the pork by voting for the other guy's pork.

As for the genuine and valid interests of the people at large, the principles of libertarianism do just that. They don't need to be subverted or perverted to do it. Remove the obstacles to small business development and soon the nation will be begging labor to immigrate, because we'll have everyone but the untreatable schizophrenics working for a living wage. But without principle, there will be no way to tell the good panderers from the bad panderers.

The problem isn't an 'inability to deal rationally with others', it's an inability to reach them at all. A lack of rationality is clearly not a major impediment, as evidenced by the fact that the MSM is triggering people every day, and they aren't using rationality to do it. The libertarian problem is our rationality nearly exists in a vacuum, while the mainstream irrationality is broadcast 24/7 into every home and every pocket that contains a smartphone, with a gazillion watts of radio strength behind it. And they won't even leave our videos up.

Blathering about Mexico is fearmongering. The really scary people are in Washington, and Langley, and the newsrooms of New York City. You scream about rationality, but you aren't showing any evidence of it. Liberty isn't just its own reward, it's economic success. And if we aren't getting the message out, it isn't because of a dismissal of the crying need or any nasal elevation. It's because our voices are getting censored and drowned out. And your determination to blame that trouble on us, our attitude, our separation from ugly economic realities, or our lack of dedication to the Declaration is mere trollery--the exact sort of trollery we'd expect from someone who is not only not dedicated to liberty, but considers libertarians his enemy.

[thoughtomator]

[QUOTE=acptulsa;6606318]Secret proof is not proof. It's only proof if it can be seen.[quote]

Nothing secret about it. Documented quite a bit of it here while it was under way.

Libertarianism has nothing to offer the system. The coalitions of the system are designed to come up with pork for the left and pork for the right, and every coalition that was ever formed in Washington was designed to get votes for the pork by voting for the other guy's pork.

But that does not mean the system has nothing to offer libertarians. It offers us the power to enact a libertarian agenda.

As for the genuine and valid interests of the people at large, the principles of libertarianism do just that. They don't need to be subverted or perverted to do it. Remove the obstacles to small business development and soon the nation will be begging labor to immigrate, because we'll have everyone but the untreatable schizophrenics working for a living wage. But without principle, there will be no way to tell the good panderers from the bad panderers.

The primary obstacle right now to business development is the environment of lawlessness. Business - and liberty in general - requires the Rule of Law to flourish optimally, this is the secret sauce that made America so successful and can do so again.

The problem isn't an 'inability to deal rationally with others', it's an inability to reach them at all. A lack of rationality is clearly not a major impediment, as evidenced by the fact that the MSM is triggering people every day, and they aren't using rationality to do it. The libertarian problem is our rationality nearly exists in a vacuum, while the mainstream irrationality is broadcast 24/7 into every home and every pocket that contains a smartphone, with a gazillion watts of radio strength behind it. And they won't even leave our videos up.

You can't reach them at all if you present policies hostile to their interests. For a person who has nothing to sell to survive but his labor, the labor dumping and wage suppression from open borders policy is devastating and threatens their very ability to stay alive. Most Americans are in that position, they are not owners of productive and profit-generating assets, they sell their labor to survive.

Ron reached countless millions despite the blackout because what he preached spoke to the interests of the people, and the people enthusiastically carried the message along person-to-person, mouth-to-mouth. He did not adopt an attitude of defeatism.

Blathering about Mexico is fearmongering. The really scary people are in Washington, and Langley, and the newsrooms of New York City. You scream about rationality, but you aren't showing any evidence of it. Liberty isn't just its own reward, it's economic success. And if we aren't getting the message out, it isn't because of a dismissal of the crying need or any nasal elevation. It's because our voices are getting censored and drowned out. And your determination to blame that trouble on us, our attitude, our separation from ugly economic realities, or our lack of dedication to the Declaration is mere trollery--the exact sort of trollery we'd expect from someone who is not only not dedicated to liberty, but considers libertarians his enemy.

Yes the really scary people are in DC, NY, and we should definitely not omit London because a lot of the "Deep State" stuff is really directed from there.

The Mexicans are a weapon being used by those people to disempower Americans. Opposing one is opposing the other.

It's time to face that it's not just because of censorship and media competition that the message isn't getting out. It's because the message you want to preach isn't the same message that Ron Paul, Representative, and candidate for President of the United States, preached. The "libertarian" message today - open borders and continuation of false free trade practices - is utterly indifferent to the needs of the people, and it's immediately perceptible to normals that this is the case.

The message just isn't going anywhere because it resounds with nobody. Open borders and foreign trade at any cost aren't what libertarianism is supposed to be about, and the net effect of these practices has been catastrophic for Americans, and it's time to come to terms with this.

There's an excellent libertarian opportunity on the table right now, with Big Tech censorship and a really clear-cut free speech issue. I don't see many, if any, libertarians on the field for this battle. I don't see all that many libertarians pounding the table over right to bear arms issues either right now. It's all conservatives and alt-righters carrying the buckets in the line to try to put out the dumpster fire of countless years of progressive socialism.

You want to be relevant, start carrying some buckets.

[acptulsa]

The primary obstacle right now to business development is the environment of lawlessness. Business - and liberty in general - requires the Rule of Law to flourish optimally, this is the secret sauce that made America so successful and can do so again.

The rule of regulations is no boon to small business. If every business in the country needs three lawyers and seven CPAs to maintain compliance, regardless of size, obviously small business has no chance to compete. Everything else is just window dressing.

The Mexicans are a weapon...

...and it's immediately perceptible to normals that this is the case.

...alt-righters carrying the buckets...

You want to be relevant, start carrying some buckets.

Our strength is the ability to attract votes from 'across the aisle' in general elections. If we lose that, we lose the promise of saving this country from partisan division and utter conquest. And there's no quicker way for us to lose that ability than to be seen carrying water for the dog whistlers.

You can get as angry as you want, but it's the truth and we know it. We aren't likely to forget it, either.

So long as we are individualist, not collectivist, and will not strip an individual citizen of rights for any reason except his actions as an individual, you dog whistlers will always turn on us in the end. You like to pretend someone being on the 'other side of the aisle' makes for irreconcilable differences. But it isn't so. Even a full-blown communist can be persuaded that socialism works better on a more local level, and we can carry water together on the federal level. We are far better off working with them than you.

It's just a pity that you dog whistlers were allowed to drive so many reasonable people away from this forum. But just because you burned this bridge for us does not mean we have no other bridges.

[A Son of Liberty]

Libertarians can't be unified the way the other political parties can. Everything about libertarians is decentralized. Only a handful of them would follow a mission statement, another handful might follow another one, maybe a few more would follow a mission statement that's different from the first two.

Everyone always tries to get everyone in this movement to fly a single banner. When really, the answer is to fly multiple banners, but sing the same anthem.

Your avatar be like

[thoughtomator]

The rule of regulations is no boon to small business. If every business in the country needs three lawyers and seven CPAs to maintain compliance, regardless of size, obviously small business has no chance to compete. Everything else is just window dressing.

That description of the current situation is opposed to the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law means just that, the rule of law - not the rule of unelected bureaucrats. It means the law should be clear, concise, and consistent and what we have now is quite the opposite. It is the option - the only option - which does not automatically result in some form of tyranny.

Our strength is the ability to attract votes from 'across the aisle' in general elections. If we lose that, we lose the promise of saving this country from partisan division and utter conquest. And there's no quicker way for us to lose that ability than to be seen carrying water for the dog whistlers.

You can get as angry as you want, but it's the truth and we know it. We aren't likely to forget it, either.

The Left is bat$#@! crazy. If you ever forget just how over the top bat$#@! crazy these people are, turn on CNN for 10 minutes to refresh your memory.

To attract those votes you will need to be bat$#@! crazy too, and in doing so lose the far greater liberty support on the right. There is no possible stable configuration of a libertarian-Communist alliance. You can do it flash-in-the-pan style (e.g. Occupy Wall Street) but that is just a momentary nexus of interests and not a true coalition. When you sell out your countrymen for the open borders they love, do not expect support for free trade, speech, association, etc. from them in return. They don't want to help you - they actually want you dead and replaced by people who are more amenable to being controlled by them, to people who will happily vote for them in return for kickbacks.

So long as we are individualist, not collectivist, and will not strip an individual citizen of rights for any reason except his actions as an individual, you dog whistlers will always turn on us in the end. You like to pretend someone being on the 'other side of the aisle' makes for irreconcilable differences. But it isn't so. Even a full-blown communist can be persuaded that socialism works better on a more local level, and we can carry water together on the federal level. We are far better off working with them than you.

It's just a pity that you dog whistlers were allowed to drive so many reasonable people away from this forum. But just because you burned this bridge for us does not mean we have no other bridges.

You can't claim the status of citizen unless you first grant the right of the nation to exist. Without a nation you're not a citizen of anything and you're completely on your own to defend all of your rights. The one right left to you is the right to kill or be killed as nature would have it.

So implicitly you depend on the very people who have your back for no reason other than that they consider you a countryman, and the status their recognition grants you as the very source of your claim to rights.

Individualist is not pro-liberty in all cases, even though it is almost all cases. In the case of the protection of liberty of the citizens of a nation, that is absolutely a collectivist and also absolutely non-negotiable completely required guaranteed to fail without component of liberty. You cannot demand your own liberty be protected while being indifferent to the liberties of others being encroached, without being a completely self-absorbed hypocrite.

[acptulsa]

The Left is bat$#@! crazy. If you ever forget just how over the top bat$#@! crazy these people are, turn on CNN for 10 minutes to refresh your memory.

To attract those votes you will need to be bat$#@! crazy too, and in doing so lose the far greater liberty support on the right. There is no possible stable configuration of a libertarian-Communist alliance. You can do it flash-in-the-pan style (e.g. Occupy Wall Street) but that is just a momentary nexus of interests and not a true coalition. When you sell out your countrymen for the open borders they love, do not expect support for free trade, speech, association, etc. from them in return. They don't want to help you - they actually want you dead and replaced by people who are more amenable to being controlled by them, to people who will happily vote for them in return for kickbacks.

Anyone who takes CNN's word for anything is the one who is bat$#@! crazy. Anyone who thinks they're fighting CNN by taking their word for how whole collectivist blocs of people think and segregating themselves accordingly is bat$#@! crazy.

But of course you know better. You just want to demonize our potential allies in hopes that we'll be bat$#@! crazy enough to abandon our principles and help you people achieve your collectivist, anti-individual, anti-liberty agenda.

Nobody who watched CNN point their cameras at Westboro Baptist protests and say, 'This is what Christians are,' or at a bunch of loud, inarticulate chickenhawks and say, 'This is what conservatives are,' has any excuse for believing CNN when they say what Democrats are.

[wizardwatson]

Libertarians can't be unified the way the other political parties can. Everything about libertarians is decentralized. Only a handful of them would follow a mission statement, another handful might follow another one, maybe a few more would follow a mission statement that's different from the first two.

Everyone always tries to get everyone in this movement to fly a single banner. When really, the answer is to fly multiple banners, but sing the same anthem.

I think the real issue is related to the fact that "libertarians" or whatever you want to call this R3volution remnant is that they are pragmatic to the bone. If the mission in question doesn't have results that they can calculate and foresee, it will be discarded as an option for participation. Even though Ron Paul 2008 was a longshot, it was pragmatic from the standpoint of group action. That is what I think is really missing. We need intelligent group action that serves a purpose. I also believe it has to be outside of this political campaign paradigm. The movement has already shown that Ron was a one-time deal. The "multiple banners" can't be multiple candidates, in my opinion. Rand was as perfect as Ron just without the record, and couldn't get the same "Ron effect" with him. Why? Because doesn't seem pragmatic as RP 2008.

There are ways though. Not going to attempt to articulate in this post, but I think there are still opportunities for group action that the movement could get behind if it was presented properly and communicated/marketed effectively.

[osan]

Politics has nothing to do with priciples.

Au contraire, mon ami. It has everything to do with it. The fact that people reject this in such widespread fashion is a big reason we are under someone's thumb. People have become corrupted pragmatists such that we were virtually guaranteed to end up where we are. It is precisely the absence of principle that has lead us directly to our current state of servitude, replete with various talking heads yakking on about "terr'ist" this and "RAYcis" that on the one hand and the snowflale-SJW-ÜberPhags whining and whinging for "muh 'quality and death to all NAZIs" on the other. We live in a circus of our own making.

In order to accomplish a wide spread acceptance of libertarian ideals, this movement would have to swallow a rather large helping of pride and principle, several times.

Perhaps, but I see it more along the lines of coming together as a political bloc with a set of clear, complete, and correct principles to which there is deeply coherent devotion among many tens of millions of people. Were this the case, which implies a willingness to act, I wager that violence might not even be necessary. Such a juggernaut would be difficult to stop. Were it appearing that it was going to be thwarted indefinitely by the misbegotten forces of the progressives and/or other political vermin who would see you enslaved in accord with their distorted visions of utopia, it would then rise and do what needed doing, even if it meant slitting things nobody wants slitted. But I believe there is still plenty of ability to affect the right changes without having to kill the sissies. What is absent is the cohesion and will to make it happen. Therefore, serfdom. We made this bed. Now we lie in it.

It's very difficult for honest people to compromise the principles that they have used to build the foundation of their very lives on.

And I maintain that they don't have to. The power of the fat middle of America is far greater than most people believe, but it cannot be applied to proper effect without the cohesion to which I have referred. Said cohesion cannot be realized AND be correct without the right principles standing front and center. Without principle, there is no sufficiency. This is why the "left" is so successful. Their only principle is this: destroy the status quo, which is the simplest thing to understand and act upon, whereas the principles of proper human relations, while also simple, are far more difficult to put into good practice because to do so demands much from the individual.

Building a huge skyscraper is orders of magnitude more difficult than taking one down. The left is fueled by and based upon bitter anger and the goal of wreaking destruction of what is. Freedom must be fueled with love, intelligence, respect, ability, decency, and a sense of the sacred. Lefties are not burdened in such ways.

The ironic bit is that while the forces of evil will almost certainly win in the end, may I prove mistaken, it is precisely because they have no apparent plan for building the world post-revolution, they will ultimately fail, perhaps leaving the world of men to slip for some time into a state of true chaos. They don't know how to build, but only whine and destroy in their typically timid ways.

[osan]

The disempowerment of libertarianism is the direct result of a) support for open borders and b) support for corrupt foreign trade practices.

While I think there is quite a bit more to it than just this, I will not say that you are incorrect. You just don't go quite all the way.

We had plenty of momentum until the saboteurs within our movement made those priority items on the agenda, when it has been clear for a long time that the will of the people is the precise opposite of those policies.

I cannot testify to sabotage, but whatever the cause, PC has by all means compromised things such that I now call it the "bowel movement". It seems to me, and I may be mistaken here, that far too many people were too concerned about not being perceived as "RAYcis" and also misconstruing the proper application of principles of liberty to issues of policy regarding control of borders. The open borders contingent are not operating in the real world, thinking that we can fling wide the doors without any deeply deleterious consequences. When confronted with reality, they retreat into "you're just afraid" or "you RAYcis", etc. because they really have no valid answer to the problems identified beyond asserting in unsupported fashion that they don't exist. FAIL.

I could, but after what I've seen go down here from the 2016 election onwards, I have no desire to empower individuals who have no loyalty to their countrymen and mostly aren't libertarians anyway, but Communists LARPing as anarchists.

Truth should be put out there, not to empower the corrupt, but to illuminate good and decent men and to let them know they are not alone. My humble suggestion is not to allow fear and frustration to dictate your choices. God knows I experience my share of aggravation and feelings that there is no future for freemen, but after succumbing to it from time to time and perhaps posting my exasperation and pessimism mere, I have to date always picked myself to continue putting one foot in front of the other. Furthermore, even at my periodic nadirs, I pretty consistently remind people that regardless of the apparent hopelessness of the situation, press on regardless. After all, what's the alternative? I'm not in a mood to lay down for anyone.

Seriously, why would I empower you people at all?

See above. Question: if we are all so unworthy of your insights, why come here?

What have you done to deserve that power?

What have I done not to deserve it?

It would be beyond irresponsible for me to lend aid to people who cannot even control their own excess of pride, and are generally no better qualified to make policy calls than any random person you could pick out of a phone book.

Well then your continued presence here mystifies me. If I felt this way about the people here, and I do not, I'd be gone. What, then, is the payoff for you?

[acptulsa]

Well then your continued presence here mystifies me. If I felt this way about the people here, and I do not, I'd be gone. What, then, is the payoff for you?

If he can't convince us to become racists, he wants the whole movement fractured. Since the racist faction is not growing, there's nothing left for them to do than divide all the other factions until their tiny faction is the biggest by default.