It's been too late for a very long time. I know I've said this many times before, but read Jeff Goodwin, "No Other Way Out."
No democracy of long standing has ever been overthrown by a violent revolution. Ever.
That doesn't mean it will never happen. But there are incredible hurdles to getting there—most importantly, the sheer coercive power of the modern state, and the difficulty of convincing fellow citizens that their apparently extensive political rights are sufficiently useless to justify risking their lives.
If everyone spent half the effort on actual political revolution, Gramsci-style, that they spend on fantasies of Red Dawn, we wouldn't be in this mess.
The Marxists spent a very long time building up their modern apparatus. A key part of that was going into academia en masse. Those who want to support liberty should be doing the same.
If I thought violent revolution would result in anything other than heavier chains, I would be. But I look around me at the majority of the population who don't see, don't know, and don't want to know, and I remember the words of Ambrose Bierce: "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."
The Three Percenters believe that violent revolution will result in the restoration of the Constitution. No, it won't. Antonin Scalia explained:
"To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don't really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards."
Unless and until the population returns to an abiding belief in that document, it's going to remain so much toilet paper. And if they do return to an abiding belief in it, it won't be because of violent revolution. For that matter, if they did, violent revolution would be completely unnecessary.
Mastiff is completely correct:
"If everyone spent half the effort on actual political revolution, Gramsci-style, that they spend on fantasies of Red Dawn, we wouldn't be in this mess."
I'll quibble only slightly. "We should vote all of them out of office ..." works only with the ones we can vote out of office, so the proper count in that regard is 536, not 545, because the Supreme Court Justices were not elected.
All federal officeholders are Constitutionally subject to impeachment, including judges. If we, by some miracle, managed to elect a Congress (both houses) who actually cared about enforcing the Constitution, the bad judges would be gone.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
—Article III, Section 1
Sadly, I have to agree with the general consensus here. Even if we could win a revolution—win the war, so to speak—I sincerely doubt if we could "win the peace". In order for a revolution to be worthwhile, the resulting system of government and the general population would have to return to a self-disciplined mode in all areas of life. And I just don't see that happening.
Background: I am under supervised release (probation) after being a reluctant guest of the Imperial Federals for 18 months. Title 18 of U.S. code pretty much trashes any 2nd amendment rights you might THINK you have. If anyone wants more details, I'll provide them. Results?
This country has not been a constitutional republic since Abraham Lincoln. There won't be any violent revolution which restores us to 1789 levels of freedom. And by the way, let's not be ignorant of the fact that even between 1789 and 1861 there were many events of unrest and violence. Do your own study.
My point is that this country is now on the fast slide into socialism and I base that on conversations at work and other places. I lived through Jimmy Carter and the Reagan "revolution". That's not going to happen again. Too many government "educated" drones are now voters.
I understand the "herding cats" metaphor, but the best we could hope for is if enough real American Conservative Constitutional type people would agree to move to one location, like Costa Rica, or Jamaica, or Israel, or you-name-it. And start from scratch just like the Jamestown people did. But I know, yes, I know. How likely is that?
There are simply some things that become inevitable. This country is dying in exactly the way Alexander Tyler described it.
It's one thing to live among a populace that sees someone across an ocean as your enemy, it's another thing entirely to know that there's a 50% chance that every person you see day to day would be more than happy to use the government to crush you and take your stuff and give it to them, and are too damned stupid to realize that such action will eventually crush them as well.
I will either find a way to leave this country as soon as possible, or Ill just lay low and see if enough of the populace begins to wake up. If they don't, things will be so bad, there won't be enough resources for the government to find me, or this country will be in meltdown, and I will simply be in survival mode but with far more knowledge and skill than the poor saps who try to take advantage of me. (I'm tempted to say more on that, but I'll pass.)
November of 2010 will be the final proving ground.
"A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".
[...]
"The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda."
Ah, there's more. Even Maureen Dowd is pissed, along with Chris Buckley, David Brooks, David Gergen, and Andrew Sullivan.
Here's the end:
"All in all it is one dismayed and bitter group, filled with recriminations and a bit of self-flagellation. And it’s not hard to recognize that, as in any grieving process, they have passed through denial (when all who criticized their beloved Obama were excoriated and ridiculed) and are in the second step: anger. They were misled or deluded into believing Obama was a moderate or an indefatigable supporter of Israel or a fiscal grown-up or a reformer (take your pick).
"They and the rest of the country are figuring out the bitter truth: Obama bears little resemblance to the moderate and soothing figure who tied up John McCain in knots. He bears even less resemblance to the Agent of Change. Rather he’s pretty much the Chicago pol who went to the Senate to be its most liberal member.
"And for the wounded Obama supporters, we can offer just one bit of counsel: you have lots of company. There are trading floors filled with sympathetic souls and businesses filled with stunned executives. They didn’t get what they bargained for either. Just ask Jim Cramer. Oh yes, please do invite him to your sessions when he’s not busy with the “I lost my life’s savings” support group."
"Here is the standard pattern of a libtard response: “Reject first, ask rhetorical question later.”
"This is not my phrase, BTW, it is from a psychologist who studied liberals and conservatives and found that conservatives were consistently able to understand liberal arguments, even when they rejected them, but liberals were hardly able to summarize a conservative argument. That they can hardly ever listen to one, and that there response, which gillie follows pretty consistently, is usually a fusillade of rhetorical questions. If you think about it, rhetorical questions are nothing more than appeals to a common belief system. They basically all say, everybody here agrees with this, and they go over big on leftard troll sites where conservatives are banned because everybody there does agree. They think that rhetorical questions are excercises of logic."
It was further down on the page that Unix-Jedi had linked to. (You know, in the other comment thread where I should have posted this. :-} ) But here's a direct link for your convencience: Moptop's comment
It's a good post, and a great point, but it basically ignores the fact that in order to do it, we'd have to cooperate with "the other team" in order to firmly thrash the incumbents.
If we could get a national meme going, to ensure that the incumbents don't make it out of the primaries, that would at least guarantee new blood, no matter which "side" won.
TREASON DOES NOT PROSPER, WHATS THE REASON? FOR IF IT PROSPERS NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!!!!!! LET NO ONE BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS GOING ON IN NEVER/NEVER LAND IS ANYTHING BUT.AND SO THE WHEEL TURNS.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/03/rope-trees-some-assembly-required.html (21 comments)
Inspired by the "Honk if your paying my mortgage" signs I came up with this bumper sticker for the three percenters.
Like it?
I don't mean this as an insult.
You're beginning to sound like a Three Percenter.
Welcome to the club. Refreshments at 7, call to order at 8. Bloody revolution at 9:30.
It's been too late for a very long time. I know I've said this many times before, but read Jeff Goodwin, "No Other Way Out."
No democracy of long standing has ever been overthrown by a violent revolution. Ever.
That doesn't mean it will never happen. But there are incredible hurdles to getting there—most importantly, the sheer coercive power of the modern state, and the difficulty of convincing fellow citizens that their apparently extensive political rights are sufficiently useless to justify risking their lives.
If everyone spent half the effort on actual political revolution, Gramsci-style, that they spend on fantasies of Red Dawn, we wouldn't be in this mess.
The Marxists spent a very long time building up their modern apparatus. A key part of that was going into academia en masse. Those who want to support liberty should be doing the same.
You're beginning to sound like a Three Percenter.
If I thought violent revolution would result in anything other than heavier chains, I would be. But I look around me at the majority of the population who don't see, don't know, and don't want to know, and I remember the words of Ambrose Bierce: "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."
The Three Percenters believe that violent revolution will result in the restoration of the Constitution. No, it won't. Antonin Scalia explained:
"To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don't really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards."
Unless and until the population returns to an abiding belief in that document, it's going to remain so much toilet paper. And if they do return to an abiding belief in it, it won't be because of violent revolution. For that matter, if they did, violent revolution would be completely unnecessary.
Mastiff is completely correct:
"If everyone spent half the effort on actual political revolution, Gramsci-style, that they spend on fantasies of Red Dawn, we wouldn't be in this mess."
Nicely done.
I'll quibble only slightly. "We should vote all of them out of office ..." works only with the ones we can vote out of office, so the proper count in that regard is 536, not 545, because the Supreme Court Justices were not elected.
DJ,
All federal officeholders are Constitutionally subject to impeachment, including judges. If we, by some miracle, managed to elect a Congress (both houses) who actually cared about enforcing the Constitution, the bad judges would be gone.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
—Article III, Section 1
Sadly, I have to agree with the general consensus here. Even if we could win a revolution—win the war, so to speak—I sincerely doubt if we could "win the peace". In order for a revolution to be worthwhile, the resulting system of government and the general population would have to return to a self-disciplined mode in all areas of life. And I just don't see that happening.
By gum, you're right. I was thinking of "Vote the bastards out!" and nothing more.
OK, I'm in. Impeach the bastards out, too!
"The Obama administration has been talking about "pressing the reset button" with Russia "
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/07/us.russia/
They are using that phrase, I do not think it means what they think it means
Breaking up is hard to do, innit? ;-)
Background: I am under supervised release (probation) after being a reluctant guest of the Imperial Federals for 18 months. Title 18 of U.S. code pretty much trashes any 2nd amendment rights you might THINK you have. If anyone wants more details, I'll provide them. Results?
This country has not been a constitutional republic since Abraham Lincoln. There won't be any violent revolution which restores us to 1789 levels of freedom. And by the way, let's not be ignorant of the fact that even between 1789 and 1861 there were many events of unrest and violence. Do your own study.
My point is that this country is now on the fast slide into socialism and I base that on conversations at work and other places. I lived through Jimmy Carter and the Reagan "revolution". That's not going to happen again. Too many government "educated" drones are now voters.
I understand the "herding cats" metaphor, but the best we could hope for is if enough real American Conservative Constitutional type people would agree to move to one location, like Costa Rica, or Jamaica, or Israel, or you-name-it. And start from scratch just like the Jamestown people did. But I know, yes, I know. How likely is that?
There are simply some things that become inevitable. This country is dying in exactly the way Alexander Tyler described it.
It's one thing to live among a populace that sees someone across an ocean as your enemy, it's another thing entirely to know that there's a 50% chance that every person you see day to day would be more than happy to use the government to crush you and take your stuff and give it to them, and are too damned stupid to realize that such action will eventually crush them as well.
I will either find a way to leave this country as soon as possible, or Ill just lay low and see if enough of the populace begins to wake up. If they don't, things will be so bad, there won't be enough resources for the government to find me, or this country will be in meltdown, and I will simply be in survival mode but with far more knowledge and skill than the poor saps who try to take advantage of me. (I'm tempted to say more on that, but I'll pass.)
November of 2010 will be the final proving ground.
Welcome to The Smallest Minority where I've been saying pretty much that for coming up on six years now! ;)
And we're not leaving. There's no place better to go.
"... or Ill just lay low and see if enough of the populace begins to wake up."
Maybe, just maybe, you won't have to wait long. Even the Chosen One has realized that he's in over his head.
The gumdrops are:
"A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".
[...]
"The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda."
Excellent. Just linked this at mine.
Total non sequitur, but with Obama as president does this mean Slick Willy isn't the first black president anymore?
Ah, there's more. Even Maureen Dowd is pissed, along with Chris Buckley, David Brooks, David Gergen, and Andrew Sullivan.
Here's the end:
"All in all it is one dismayed and bitter group, filled with recriminations and a bit of self-flagellation. And it’s not hard to recognize that, as in any grieving process, they have passed through denial (when all who criticized their beloved Obama were excoriated and ridiculed) and are in the second step: anger. They were misled or deluded into believing Obama was a moderate or an indefatigable supporter of Israel or a fiscal grown-up or a reformer (take your pick).
"They and the rest of the country are figuring out the bitter truth: Obama bears little resemblance to the moderate and soothing figure who tied up John McCain in knots. He bears even less resemblance to the Agent of Change. Rather he’s pretty much the Chicago pol who went to the Senate to be its most liberal member.
"And for the wounded Obama supporters, we can offer just one bit of counsel: you have lots of company. There are trading floors filled with sympathetic souls and businesses filled with stunned executives. They didn’t get what they bargained for either. Just ask Jim Cramer. Oh yes, please do invite him to your sessions when he’s not busy with the “I lost my life’s savings” support group."
Moptop also had an excellent post:
"Here is the standard pattern of a libtard response: “Reject first, ask rhetorical question later.”
"This is not my phrase, BTW, it is from a psychologist who studied liberals and conservatives and found that conservatives were consistently able to understand liberal arguments, even when they rejected them, but liberals were hardly able to summarize a conservative argument. That they can hardly ever listen to one, and that there response, which gillie follows pretty consistently, is usually a fusillade of rhetorical questions. If you think about it, rhetorical questions are nothing more than appeals to a common belief system. They basically all say, everybody here agrees with this, and they go over big on leftard troll sites where conservatives are banned because everybody there does agree. They think that rhetorical questions are excercises of logic."
Oh wait, that response was supposed to be in response to Unix-Jedi's comment here.
Doggone! My error rate is too high lately!
Ed -- could you please provide a link to Moptop's post that you quote?
It was further down on the page that Unix-Jedi had linked to. (You know, in the other comment thread where I should have posted this. :-} ) But here's a direct link for your convencience: Moptop's comment
It's a good post, and a great point, but it basically ignores the fact that in order to do it, we'd have to cooperate with "the other team" in order to firmly thrash the incumbents.
If we could get a national meme going, to ensure that the incumbents don't make it out of the primaries, that would at least guarantee new blood, no matter which "side" won.
TREASON DOES NOT PROSPER, WHATS THE REASON? FOR IF IT PROSPERS NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!!!!!! LET NO ONE BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS GOING ON IN NEVER/NEVER LAND IS ANYTHING BUT.AND SO THE WHEEL TURNS.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>