Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
What you are about to read is one of the three most-important documents relating to the heart-and-
soul of Freedom Force. A second document is The Chasm, which explains the core principles that
all members hold in common as the foundation of our brotherhood. A third document is about the
unique organizational structure that hardens our movement against infiltration from outside and
corruption from inside. Strategy is the topic of this document, and it is the secret sauce of Freedom
Force.
TOPICS
Because this is a long document, here is an overview of topics to give you a reader’s road map of
what lies ahead. If you are interested in participating in Freedom Force, this is essential
information.
Why Freedom Force focuses on principles instead of issues; the need to be pro-active with
positive goals instead of defending the status quo; how a small group can influence the social
and political policies of an entire nation; the necessity for full disclosure when using a strategy
called ‘rings-within-rings’; Project Red Pill as the embodiment of that strategy; creating allies
among people who do not yet understand the totality of the conflict between collectivism and
individualism; the challenge of creating unity without conformity; one principle that can become
common cause for the entire liberty movement; what is meant by: “Don’t fight city hall when
you can BE city hall’; a look into the future at a hypothetical political party called ‘Born Free’.
*******
CAUSE VS. SYMPTOMS
Freedom Force is different from all other organizations dedicated to liberty. Most groups seeking to
bring about positive change in society are issue oriented. Political parties, for example, have
platforms praising or condemning specific political agendas and then they seek voter support for
those platforms. Educational groups increase public awareness of current events and historical
trends in hopes that this knowledge will translate into political or social change. In both cases, the
focus is on issues: We should do this. We must oppose that. Positive social and political change
would be impossible without endeavors of this kind.
The problem, however, is that a single organization cannot champion more than one or two issues
at a time. Furthermore, even in cases where issue-related victories are won on the political front,
they are short lived. The same challenges return again and again at every election until, eventually,
the super-state wins. That’s because the cause of these problems remains – even when we have
temporary victories. The cause of these problems is that the power centers of society remain in the
(1)
hands of collectivists(1) and, as long as that condition remains, we can never succeed in the long
run. Focusing only on issues is treating the symptom while ignoring the cause.
THE PURELY DEFENSIVE IS DEFEAT ON THE INSTALLMENT PLAN. We have been
like firefighters trying to put out hundreds of fires set by an insane arsonist. We run here and there,
back and forth, with hoses and buckets, fighting one fire after another; but there are more than we
can count. Five new fires are started for each one we put out, and we constantly lose ground while
our beautiful city is destroyed. We will never make headway until we find the arsonist and put him
out of business. Any effort that ignores the cause of the fires is doomed to failure.
Collectivism is the arsonist. Collectivists ignite new totalitarian programs because they can. They do
it easily because they hold the levers of power. They almost totally control the major power centers
of society. At present, individualists do not have comparable power, and, as expressed in the
Freedom Force motto, Those without power cannot defend freedom.(2)
If we really want to defend liberty instead of just going through the familiar motions of what
everyone else has done in the past – and failed – we must devise a course of action that will allow us
to take the initiative. We must stop playing a defensive game in which our sole objective is to stop
our opponent from advancing. The purely defensive is merely defeat on the installment plan. We
must have a pro-active strategy with our own long-term objectives. In other words, instead of just
showing up with a willingness to engage the advancing enemy, we must have a strategy for victory.
WHAT WOULD A FREE WORLD BE LIKE?
If you are wondering what that word victory means in this context, picture in your mind the
replacement of approximately 80% of the present politicians, who simply are gaming the system to
acquire wealth by serving the agendas of lobbyists and replacing them with people who have no ax
to grind except to protect liberty and human dignity. Then picture the repeal of the same percentage
of existing laws that serve no purpose other than to plunder and enslave mankind on behalf of
ruling elitists. Finally, imagine one or two simple constitutional provisions that would clarify for all
time that the proper function of the state is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens,
nothing more. That’s what victory means to members of Freedom Force.
So, for those of us who want to leave the world a better place than as we found it, what is our course
of action? Should Freedom Force follow other organizations and launch issue crusades? Should we
call for an end to the income tax? Return to value-based money? Withdraw from the UN? Return to
basics in education? Put a stop to illegal immigration? Oppose gun control? Reform Social Security?
Demand freedom-of-choice in health care? Put term limits on politicians? Restore the principle of
jury nullification? End aggressive wars with hidden agendas? There are thousands of issues that cry
out for immediate action, so how would we select the most important ones?
Advocates of monetary reform argue that money is what feeds the monster, so let’s start there.
Advocates of education reform argue that schools are where future leaders and voters are being
indoctrinated and that we must first un-brainwash the next generation. Others argue that our
bodies are being poisoned and our brains are being chemically altered to turn us into sickly, passive
robots and, if we don’t stop that first, nothing else will matter.
All these arguments have merit. However, if we take on the task of selecting one or two issues, we
soon would be inundated with urgent calls to act on other issues as well and, if we failed to do so,
members would resign thinking we can’t see the wisdom of their arguments.
RINGS WITHIN RINGS
If not issues, then what? For the answer to that question, we turn to our collectivist opponent in the
United States. The formula has been applied with astounding success by an organization called the
Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR has had over 100 years to perfect the strategy by which only
a few thousand members have been able to dominate the major power centers of society and,
thereby, determine the social and political policies of the entire nation.
The strategy is known as ‘rings within rings’, which was implemented by Cecil Rhodes when he
created what is arguably the most successful secret society in history. In fact, it was the Rhodes
group that created the CFR, itself. If you are not familiar with this history, I invite you to watch my
video presentation entitled The Quigley Formula; The Conspiratorial View of History as Told by
the Conspirators Themselves. (3)
The essence of the ‘rings-within-rings’ strategy is that a small group can control a large group
simply by having the members of the smaller group create the larger group and maintain control
over its leadership. The second group then creates an even larger group around itself and, likewise,
maintains control over the leadership. This process can be repeated until the outer-most ring
encompasses virtually the entire population.
As the rings of influence move outward, they adopt identities and goals that are consistent with the
objectives of the inner core, but those goals are expressed in terms that appeal to a much broader
segment of the population. In this way, those at the general-membership level of the outer rings
usually are not aware that they are serving the agenda of the inner ring.
For example, the center ring may have a goal of destroying the culture and national identity of a
nation, so it can more easily be merged into a global political system. However, to enlist the support
of the population within the target nation, an outer ring might be created that speaks only of
compassion for the downtrodden and of the need for humanitarian aid to refugees. This ring
theoretically might create an even larger movement claiming only to oppose ‘hate speech’ and
calling for laws to punish those who speak against any aspect of cultural disintegration. In this way,
it is possible to cause much of the population to endorse policies that they would soundly reject if
they understood their true purpose.
IS IT ETHICAL?
Is it possible for Freedom Force to use the rings-within-rings strategy in an honorable fashion? The
answer is yes, but the key to this riddle is the phrase ‘in an honorable fashion’. Let’s be clear that
there is nothing unethical about this process unless the true goals are concealed. The only reason
they would be concealed (as they are in the secret society created by Rhodes) is that they would be
considered horribly unethical in the minds of most people, and very few would participate. In our
case, we have nothing to hide and, in fact, most people would consider our goals and methods to be
highly ethical.
Rings-within-rings have been common throughout modern history – ever since societies advanced
to the point of sustaining large-scale voluntary organizations. In the American colonies, it is what
made it possible for a few statesmen to influence the colonists to support the American Revolution.
The creators of the US Constitution used this pattern of influencing others through organizations in
which they had influence, but they were not conspirators, because they were totally open about
what they were attempting to achieve. Their debates and private papers were widely circulated
among the public.
The American Revolution, held up to the world as an example of the common man rising up against
the British, is a myth. The revolution was led by a group of intellectuals and statesmen who
dominated the power centers. They were leaders within colonial governments; they were the
landowners and the merchants; they owned the printing presses.
American independence was won by the courage and sacrifices of common soldiers, but the soldiers
were inspired and led by a small group of men who provided intellectual and military leadership.
That is how it always has been throughout history, and that is the way it always will be. It’s just a
question of which minority will lead.
Rings-within-rings is the natural outgrowth of human nature, which includes the instinct to form
into groups and to follow leaders. Like it or not, that is what all societies do, and the primary reason
we have been consistently defeated by collectivists so far is that we failed to notice that they were
using this trait of human nature against us – and, therefore, we were unable to defend against it.
The document called The Chasm is devoted primarily to knowing ourselves. It presents the
principles in which we believe and provides a vision of what kind of a world we want to leave for
those who follow us. But we also must know our opponent, and that is why Freedom Force leaders
must, not only understand the strategy of rings-within-rings that has been used so successfully
against us, but now must master it for our own counteroffensive.
THE DILEMMA
This is our dilemma. There are plenty of reasons to dislike political parties but, like them or not, in
the kind of free society we advocate, they always will be with us. Since we must accept the premise
that political parties will exist in our future, there are just two questions to consider:
1. If we do not participate in political parties, would it be possible to equal or surpass their
power over political processes, including elections?
2. If we do participate in political parties, would it be possible to create a permanent,
unalterable, and irrevocable provision in the bylaws that would prevent a political party of our
creation from becoming a tool for corruption and hidden agendas?
There is much to be said, pro and con, in response to both questions but, to move this analysis
forward more quickly, please allow me to state my own conclusion: Unfortunately, the answer to
question one is no, but, fortunately, the answer to question two is yes.
JEFFERSON VS. MADISON
In 1792, Thomas Jefferson, had to answer question number one when he was facing political
opposition from James Madison’s Federalist Party. The Federalists wanted a strong, centralized
government, and Jefferson wanted the federal apparatus to be the servant of the states. Even
though Jefferson was suspicious of the long-term integrity of political parties, he saw the growing
influence of Hamilton’s Federalist Party and decided that, to even be in the contest, he had no
choice but to form what he called the Democratic-Republican Party to give form and momentum to
his own political ideas. By the time he became President in 1801, his party had gained more popular
support than the Federalists, and that is what carried him – and his ideas – to the Presidency. This
was a classic example of the fact that, if we want to defend freedom, we must have political power
and, in the real world, whether we like it or not, the path to political power is the political party.
It is true that, occasionally, an individual with great charisma can garner enough voter support as
an independent to defeat a candidate associated with an entrenched political party, but that is rare,
and it would be suicidal to make the success of our movement depend on that phenomenon. Trying
to achieve political dominance without a political party because it cannot be trusted is like going
into battle without a gun because guns are dangerous. In both cases, we must accept the risks and
dangers, because the alternative is defeat. However, along with the risks and the dangers comes a
challenge to do something that never has been done before: to create an organizational mechanism
to make it impossible for the party to be diverted from its founding Principle.
That’s the promise that lies in the answer to question number two: Is it possible to create a
permanent, unalterable, and irrevocable provision in the bylaws that would prevent a political party
of our creation from becoming a tool for corruption and hidden agendas? The answer is yes. All we
have to do is write it and explain why we did it. I believe that most voters would be thrilled with the
idea. At first, they may have difficulty getting used to the idea of loyalty to a principle instead of a
party, but the concept could light fires in their minds and spread literally around the world. The
reason this has never been done in the past is, not because it’s impossible, but because it has never
been tried.
THOUSAND-YEAR PLATFORM
Here is an example of how this might be accomplished. It is a draft of what could be described as
the ‘platform’ of the Born Free Party. The provision that I propose for the bylaws is expressed in
this platform.
The Born Free Party is unlike any other political party that ever existed, because its platform is
not re-written at each election to conform to the wishes of new leaders or lobbyists. The Party
has but one issue, and it never changes. Actually, it is not an issue at all. It is a Principle, and it is
so basic that it holds the solution to just about every social or political problem that has arisen in
the past or that will do so in the future. That Principle is this:
The proper function of the state is to defend the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing
more. All other functions, no matter how well intentioned, eventually become infected by
mission creep and corruption, and this leads to oppressive laws, unbearable regulations, and
crushing taxes. A just and free society cannot survive the good intentions of those who seek to
re-engineer mankind, and it certainly cannot survive the evil intentions of those who use worthy
sounding proposals to gain support for schemes to expand their personal power and wealth.
Therefore, the Born Free Party supports any candidate or issue that is on the side of improving
the state’s ability to defend the life, liberty, or property of its citizens. It opposes any candidate
or issue that is on the side of any other use of state power.
That is the Principle, and it is not subject to revision. It will be the same a thousand years from
now as it is today. It will make no difference who the current leaders of the Party are or how
much money is offered by lobbyists, this principle can never be changed.
One more thing that sets the Born Free Party apart from all others is that candidates are
expected to be loyal to this Principle after being elected. Annually, the Party asks its members to
rate their representatives in terms of fidelity to the Principle. Any representative with a rating
under 66% has one year to bring the rating up or be removed from the Party.
(Examples of how the Born Free Principle applies to typical social and political issues will be
included for further reading.)
At present, the Born Free Party is just an idea, and there are many challenges to be considered
before committing it to action, but I have described it at length so potential Freedom Force
members can see that our strategy is pro-active and reaches far into the future. We are totally
serious when we say we intend to change the world.
*******
FOOTNOTES
1. Power centers are groups and organization that, because of their large constituency, can influence
public policies of the community and nation. Collectivists are those who advocate collectivism, the
belief that the group is more important than the individual and that individuals must be sacrificed,
if necessary, for the greater good of the greater number. The system of government built on this
belief is an all-powerful state in which citizens are subservient to their rulers who control every
aspect of their lives supposedly for their own good. Individualists are those who advocate
individualism, the belief that the individual is more important than the group, because the ‘group’ is
merely an abstraction and exists only to the extent that individuals exist ‒ and that the defense of
individual rights is the greater good of the greater number. Individualists believe that the proper
function of the state is, not to govern its citizens, but to protect them from foreign invaders,
criminals, and the greed and passion of the majority that, otherwise, will plunder and enslave the
minority. To learn more about this conflict between collectivism and individualism, read The
Chasm.
2. Recognition that defenders of liberty must, themselves, have influence and power equal to or greater than the
influence and power of collectivists is one of the concepts that sets Freedom Force apart from organizations that
limit themselves to the role of education. We recognize that power is dangerous and that, in its pursuit, we must
have mechanisms to prevent ourselves and those who follow in our footsteps from being corrupted by the power we
must achieve. You can learn what those mechanisms are at other sections of the Freedom Force site, starting with
Structure and Bylaws.
3. The most current version of this presentation was delivered at the Second Red Pill Expo and is
available for viewing at the Red Pill University web site.
4. This is not a criticism of any specific religion, because, just about every major religion at some
time or another has established a theocracy that brutalized those who did not pretend to convert.
This has nothing to do with religion but with the corrupting effect of absolute political power, even
in the hands of clerics.