Again with the revolution thing.

Saw on facebook this:

52757168_10217296126422632_8227038786387705856_n

And when I was trying to find that (because of course when I went looking for it, FaceBook was perversely hiding it) I also came across this:

52918044_10213960311826729_9105632693915222016_n

On seeing these things, the first thing I would suggest is that if the people presenting them are really serious then they need to take a good, long look in the mirror.   After all, the people posting them aren’t “stacking bodies”.  There’s a decided lack of pro-liberty armed insurrection in the US.  So if the people posting aren’t in revolt then the question to ask is, if they really think it’s time and past time to do so, why aren’t they?  I could assume that it’s simple cowardice, but I’d prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.  There must be some reason why they are staying their hand, not picking up arms, and going after tyrants and those serving the ends of tyranny.

And if they have reasons that seem good to them, then perhaps they might consider that those reasons apply to others as well.

I have made my own views on armed rebellion known elsewhere in this blog.  But let’s take a look at why, despite growing unrest, many are deciding “Not yet.  Now is not the time.”

First one thing people often forget, if they ever knew, was that the build up to revolution in the United States was far from quick.  People laughed at Sarah Palin commenting that “it’s not time to party like it’s 1773” (because “everyone knows that the Revolution was in 1776”) forgetting, if they ever knew, that the Boston Tea Party was in 1773.  The Stamp Act which many think of as setting things off was passed in 1765.  But things started even further back.  The English Civil War followed by the Restoration and then the Glorious Revolution had their echoes in the early colonies, particularly New England.  Some of these echoes included the revocation of the Royal Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1684.  The various religious upheavals in England created definite friction with the strongly Puritan colony and setting a tone that would grow over the next century.  So, it’s no surprise that it takes time before people come to the conclusion that overthrowing a government that tramples upon rather than protecting their rights and liberties is appropriate.

But, specifics.

In a revolution some individual or small group has to be first.  If the time and tenor of the country is right, they’ll be joined in a great ground swell of support.  If not…they end up no more than criminals.  The right time and place and you’re Captain Parker.  A little early and you’re John Brown and the best you can hope for is martyrdom to inspire others.  More likely, if you survive, you’re Thomas Cary. (Many of you are saying “who?” That’s the point.)

Another aspect is that many folk see revolution given the current mood of the country as…not leading to a good result.  Indeed, what scares me is that when asked “And then what?” what some said revolution (presuming they “win), make me think that the only problem they have with Robespierre and The Terror is that they didn’t go far enough.  A revolution not to end tyranny but to put the “right” (as they see it) tyrants in power.  No thank you.  So, before a revolution can possibly produce a “free society” the culture war must first be won.  It’s a decidedly different thing for an overwhelming majority or even “a nation of thirds” (as was once common wisdom, in the American Colonies, about 1/3 favored independence, 1/3 favored reconciliation, and the remaining 1/3 were ambivalent) than when the majority is on the other side.

Now, some think that we have a majority in the population but that the combination of the entertainment and media being held by the “other side” and fraud in the polls to keep that other side in office where they would not in fair elections.  In this case, what they can be waiting for is alternate media to break the chokehold of the conventional media and make the fraud so clear that no one can legitimately doubt, in which case it becomes a case of the overwhelming majority ousting a minority held in power by illegitimate means which means the “and then what” is answered–we simply hold fair elections and the problem solves itself.  But that time is not yet.

And some are hoping, praying, that if there is an armed revolt, the other side will start it.  There’s a lot less moral quandary about defending oneself and ones peers from armed revolt than in initiating one, particularly if it’s the defenders who are on the side of individual liberty and the rights of humanity.  Indeed, that could well be the response of the other side to losing their chokehold on the media and the mask coming off of the fraud.  Force, then becomes the only way they can retain power.

To be just, armed revolt must, meet the criteria of just war like any other armed conflict (leaving aside “competent authority” in this specific case):  Just cause, comparative justice, right intention, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality (no raising revolt because you think a $10 fine for jaywalking is too high). Intention alone is not enough.

I think most people, on an unconscious level, look at the situation and see that we don’t meet the criteria for “just war”, at least not yet.  And I don’t think either Washington or Jefferson, given the specific situation we’re in right now, would be “stacking bodies” yet either.  Too many things are different from the situation they faced.

So, no, a revolution now would not be a “just war”. That situation, as always, is subject to change.  But until then “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

In the American colonies, that “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable” was close to a century from the first stirring of discontent to the “shot heard round the world.”

But in the end:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Again with the revolution thing.”

  1. Let’s see, in this supposed civil war one side will have most of the cops, soldiers, veterans, and a whole lot of firearms and and ammunition, and the other side will have Instagram and Twitter which will not be working because the cell phone towers will be disabled the minute the fighting starts. One side is growing the food and making the electricity and gasoline, while the other side is fighting over the intersectionality of their leadership. When the lights go out, and there are armed men guarding the supermarket, the Left will realize that they done messed up.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I think this is correct. Why fight a war when you can win your case at the SCOTUS (and, of course, continue to fight the culture war).

    The real troubles come when the other side refuses to accept a SCOTUS ruling or tries to “stack” the court by adding many more justices.

    The possibility of revolution is real but might be avoided if the other side would just uphold the Constitution and, especially, the Bill of Rights in an Originalist manner. With enough people convincing their neighbors of the value of the Bill of Rights as the Founders would have interpreted it, this could be the outcome.

    One path to war would be if the SCOTUS ruled in favor of 2nd Amendment rights by applying strict scrutiny (effectively creating “Constitutional carry” after several years of additional litigation) and a Leftist POTUS issued an “emergency declaration” to ban and/or confiscate firearms.

    Remember, that “shot heard round the world” was fired because the British were on a mission to confiscate the Colonists gunpowder.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There is never going to be a Yugoslavia-style war between red and blue states, with attendant ethnic cleansing. However, I think it is entirely possible that certain parts of large cities may erupt into violence. Who knows what the trigger may be, although President Trump’s reelection in 2020 might just do it, but there are sufficient numbers of agitators and radicalized thugs, and their fellow travelers, to have a real live armed insurrection given air cover by mayors, city councils, and governors who don’t have a lot of appetite for doing what it takes to restore the rule of law to people they perceive as being on their own side.

    I don’t know what the next move is. I think we in the red states with the food, energy, and guns need to be prepared to take in the refugees. As major cities descend into chaos, one outcome may be that gangs or militias become the effective government at street level, and the blue model leadership will have to come to an accommodation with them. The fiscal effects will be deleterious.

    A nation cannot function without at least some viable cities. Eventually, some will get it right and restore peace and prosperity. Others won’t.

    We will see at least one blue state bankruptcy in the wake of the insurrection. Possibly several. I don’t know what we do about that. Do we take states over and appoint territorial governors? Do we break up California into manageable pieces? Would be suspend state laws that can’t be supported fiscally? It’ll be a brave new world, that’s for sure.

    Like

    1. No, its entirely possible there will be a Yugoslavia-style style war between Liberal City States and the Countryside – all they need to do is gather a force and actually try to enforce their gun-grabs. However the very real, looming trigger is the 21 Trillion and counting Debt, which simply cannot be sustained- driven as it is by Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. ACA is adding to that, as is student debt and a number of other factors ( nothing got fixed in 2008 – Nothing..) . Trumps economy is growing– but its a Damned if you do ,damned if you don’t proposition. More growth means increasing rates and increasing interest on the debt we already have – so much that interest payments are set to outstrip defense spending in a few years. Go back to no growth and you just get more debt pile on. That which cannot continue , won’t. Read “This Time is Different” if you doubt this is coming.
      China and other world trading partners won’t keep using the dollar forever in this environment, and a hyper-inflationary event like the one witnessed in Venezuela will occur here – and occur faster if someone like AOC or Sanders has their way in the meantime. Of course your envisioned violence and riots can also serve to speed this along.

      Given the politcal and racial divisions in the country – a complete failure of safety net and economic systems and the probable government overreach to try and address these issues at the expense of certain groups – will very likely prompt the first shots. Plan accordingly. The Scenario where the country breaks apart peacefully is sadly, very unlikely. As times get tougher the tribal divisions and the need to provide for one’s own will increase, and refugees from the cities won’t be welcome in most places. Those cities aren’t as necessary to national survival as one might think, as any denizen of flyover country can tell you.

      Like

  4. Things move much faster now, we are close, the divide is too far, the infringement too great, irreconcilable differences will be settled, not north vs south, not red vs blue nor urban vs rural but liberty vs tyranny. And pkease, stop thinking the military and police will instantly be on your side, they are living very comfortable lives and many if not most will not risk that comfortable lifestyle for their families and will absolutely follow orders to shoot your dog and your family in the face

    Like

    1. Yep, and Those Law Enforcement officers s that do take the side of tyranny will find they need to be home 100% of the time to protect their own families. Actions have consequences and their lives won’t remain comfortable for long. That is why the vast majority of (rural) Sheriffs are openly declaring they will not enforce the latest rounds of Blue State 2nd Amendment infringing crap. When SHTF most officers will do as little as possible – because that is how they remain in a comfortable lifestyle that doesn’t involve them getting sniped at for driving a patrol car or wearing a badge. It will be a liberty vs tyranny fight, but the current geographic divisions are going to be where lines are drawn.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s