Political movements are commonly framed as opposition movements, “Citizens Against…”.  The Patriot Circle is not one of these.  Naturally, we oppose corruption, oppression, terror, and abuse in all forms; but we also know that one cannot end something by simple opposition, and if one nominally succeeds, the resulting vacuum will likely be filled by something no better. 

One can only create real and lasting change by standing for something different and working constructively for it.

This is not a mere semantic difference.  When in opposition, one is necessarily bound by the terms of definition and even the rules of the old order: to simply oppose the government is to implicitly accept its legitimacy and authority.

The myth of competition.

Throughout our lives, we have been taught to believe that competition is the natural way of the world and that it is good.  From our bedtime stories on through Little League and business school, we're told -- and reinforce to others and ourselves, there will be winners and losers.  And winning isn't just the most important thing, winning is everything.

This framing of life as a competitive game sets us all up to lose, for in competition

...

The political establishment, by its two-party farce, has sold us the false belief that we are defined by our differences which are more numerous and more important than our commonalities, and pitted us against each other.  It's a lie and an epic deceit.

We have been divided by issues that are guaranteed to upset us because we allow the parties to define the political agenda, which NEVER addresses the common interest.

The truth is that we, the People, agree on most measures that are most important to us:  we agree on life, liberty, justice, and equality and want a Constitution that guarantees our rights; we agree that we need the basics of life such as clean air and water, healthy food, access to medicine and care, ...; and we agree that we want a government that represents us and our interests, that provides quality education for our children,

Consensus is arguably the most powerful form of group decision-making process.  While democracy is competitive and produces "winners" and "losers", consensus is cooperative and produces only "winners". 

Consensus occurs when we agree to agree.  All may agree in principle or some may agree and others may compromise their disagreement in favor of allowing consensus to occur.  If one disagrees, one can block consensus, meaning that no agreement is made, or allow consensus to proceed by prioritizing consensus over disagreement.

Our Nation, America the Beautiful, set its course and established the foundations of its legitimacy on the recognition and declaration of certain universal and natural principles as celebrated in the Charters of Freedom: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

The founders, representatives of the 13 colonies, overcame significant differences, defined their common interests and common cause, and ratified a unanimous Declaration of Independence.  This achievement – the formation of consensus at a moment of critical historical importance – made possible the United States of America as a constitutional republic, and set a modern precedent: 

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

In its inception, the “united States of America” was a description, not a name.  People united to form States which united to form one Nation which became the United States of America.  The Constitution, which the National Archives describes as “a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise”, demanded mature collaboration in the common interest both in its drafting and in its exercise: 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

Of the process, considerations and challenges, George Washington, eloquently defining the essence of consensus, wrote: 

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.  Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.  The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.  It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. 

In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety--perhaps our national existence.  This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus, the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable. 

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will, doubtless, consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that Country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish. 

As we will show, the peculiarity of our present political situation again renders indispensable that same spirit of amity and mutual deference and concession in order to achieve a result that elucidates the common interest and restores a willingness to work together for the common cause of America.

Yes, we are insurgents.  A war has been declared on us by our own institutions of power, in service now to an invisible enemy, forcing us to the vigilance and readiness of battle stance.

However, the Patriot Circle intends to abide strictly by constitutional law and act peacefully in its pursuits - and as such does not espouse sedition, treason or terrorism, by any definition except those most recently imposed to restrict democracy, human rights and longstanding tenets of law, such as the "Patriot" Act has created by deliberately confusing the meaning of "constituted government" and misappropriating the intentions of law in defense of institution (control system), rather than citizen.  Understanding this definition of Insurgency as it pertains to the PC therefore relies on a nuanced perspective and definition of each of the contingent terms: "constituted government"; "subversion"; and "armed conflict".

We assert that enemies of the People, foreign and domestic, have seized control of the "constituted government" via functional invalidation of its constitutional mechanisms, the institution of unconstitutional acts, and by the corruption of its membership; and we seek to replace traitors with patriots by established electoral process, thereby to reestablish the rule of constitutional law by the repeal of all unconstitutional acts -  and thereby to restore the integrity of "constituted government", free of enemy control. 

We intend to subvert the enemy powers' control system by exposing its existence, its practices, and it's effects, and by restoring those wholesome things that it has destroyed, such as the decent respect for pluralism, the recognition of common interests, access to truth and fact, the integrity of our institutions, the health of our society, the common peace and prosperity, etc.

"Armed conflict" is an appropriate (albeit figurative) description of what will be necessary to prevail against the control system, which has substantially and literally armed itself against us.  We stand armed with knowledge and the courage to act against the coercive, aggressive and abusive methods of the control system, its tactics of psychological warfare, its institutions of oppression and fear.  We will abstain from its further empowerment and support by refusing to allow ourselves to be enslaved and used, by cutting off its sources of illusory power and by forcing it to fall on its own swords. 

We should know from history, if not instinct and common sense, that the public agenda of our political institutions do not represent the truth and indeed that the scope of the lies takes only time to be exposed, no matter how they’re enshrined.

Within a control system, one cannot trust stated intentions and must constantly remember that the stated ends represent only that which the system administrators wish to be true and that which we use to justify participation in the means.

Examples:  education, military campaigns, security…

We have been conditioned to focus on the stated ends and to rationalize the use of questionable – and often reprehensible – means.  If the means are not just, moral, legal, then how can the ends possibly be so?

(That we continue to trust and to hope speaks not to our weakness, but our strength, for these qualities represent our goodness and demonstrate that all is not lost.)

If we cannot trust the stated ends, we must turn our attention to the means, for by any sensible measure, they are indeed all that count.

(incomplete)

The problem with this term is that it implies there was an existing old world order - which there demonstrably was not.  The world has always been chaotic, with independent nation states reflecting, to some extent or other, the values of their peoples, and pursuing their own agendas.

So if world order is the globalist agenda (and we know it to be from their own declarations), then, if achieved, it will be a new experience in human history.

Therefore, we thought it appropriate to challenge this insidious presupposition of NWO and suggest a new and apt term:  World Order Elites, or WOE.  The minions, such as Bush himself, are thus "agents of WOE"; and the agenda(s), plans, institutions, etc., the "agenda(s) of WOE"...