Come the Revolution? What Revolution?
by Patrick K Martin
Exclusive to TLE
"Freedom has a one word definition, and that word is Responsibility. You are free only to the extent which you are responsible for your own life and actions, you are a slave to the extent which you are not." Patrick K Martin (with credit to David Gerrold)
It is said that the institution of slavery has one person who is indispensable to its operation, the slave himself. Look around you, none of us is truly responsible for our lives and actions, instead the government removes our responsibilities from us and acts in the manner it thinks best. How then do you assert your freedom? Mostly, you don't. How many of you pay taxes? How many of you younger men have registered for the draft? How many of you pay social security? Comply with laws which you oppose? Send your kids to government schools? Petition for school subsidies (i.e., vouchers)? Conform to zoning ordinances, environmental laws and land-use regulations? Is there any Federal, State, County, or Municipal, Law, Act, Ordinance, Regulation or Tax with which you comply? Then to that extent you are a slave.
Well, why do you do it? Come on you Anarchists, why haven't you put up a sign on your property and publicly declared that no person, government or agent there of has any authority there and that you will shoot dead any unauthorized person who enters? Why have you not walked into your local town hall or city council meeting and declared your personal sovereignty and encouraged your neighbors to do the same? Have you written the IRS and the SSA to tell them that you no longer recognize their authority and that you will resist, with lethal force, any attempt to impose their illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of your rights and property? No? Why not? Do you not have the strength of your convictions?
The answer is obvious. You (like most of the rest of us) have no wish to die! You value your life more than your freedom. Many people will deny that, as asinine as it is to do so, and say that they would surrender their lives to defend their freedom, but the truth is something else. In truth we all understand that as long as we have life we can have hope, why else would we struggle? Why do people like myself and Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor expend so much of our time and effort (not that I equate my efforts with theirs) in what often seems to be a forlorn hope that we may, by our words, effect a change in the course of human social evolution? We know that the odds of any meaningful change occurring are vanishingly small, and yet here we stand, voices crying out in the wilderness. We, like you, submit every day to the theft of our property by government minions, because, like you, we have no wish to die.
Look around you, look at all the people crying out to be saved from the crushing weight of our government, and yet still toiling to feed the beast. Look at all the people languishing in prison for crimes simply written into existence by our government, and their loved ones still begging our rulers to free them. Look at eighty million gun- owners, slowly being stripped of their rights, and still quietly complying with every new outrage. When will they awaken to the truth? When will they finally have enough and spit on their masters? When will they rise up with one voice and say NO!? The answer my friends, is never.
When I used to hang around with the militia types, there was this tactic assumption, that when the New World Order reared its ugly head, and the people found out what was truly being done, they would, as one, rise up in their righteous anger and smite the evil doers with a mighty hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that few people are willing to gamble, fewer still when the stakes are their lives. Most people will suffer immense hardships rather than risk what little they have, especially for something as abstract as freedom.
Look at history, countless times nations have been invaded and conquered, do the citizens rise up and die rather than submit to their new masters? Sure, some of them do, but the vast majority simply comply. Look at the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks were a minority party who subverted the democratic system, illegally assumed power, and proceeded to initiate a wave of terrorism and murder seldom equaled in recorded history. The Russian people saw this with there own eyes, did they rise up? No, the majority simply carried on with their lives, hoping that they would be spared by the Red Terror sweeping the nation. What about the Nazi occupation of France? Did the majority of Frenchmen (and women) join the resistance? Sure they did, right after the allies booted the Nazi's out. The majority of the French resistance before that time was made up of communists who acted under orders from Moscow. Throughout the Second World War we see examples of the same pattern, resistance by a small minority of individuals, with little popular support, until events demonstrated that action carried little risk. Even the American Revolution was carried out by a small group of individuals, not by the bulk of the colonists. So, what makes anyone think that tomorrow will be any different?
I have heard many people in the Libertarian movement make the argument, as John Lopez did in TLE 185, that simply bombarding enemy nations with Libertarian propaganda (and it is propaganda, no matter that it happens to be true) and cheap guns will produce a Libertarian revolution and thus remove the necessity for offensive action against those nations. Well what evidence is there to support this idea? Why would anyone believe that showering, say North Korea, with the Federalist papers and Rand's "Capitalism; the unknown ideal" or "Atlas Shrugged," along with $2.00 single-shot Liberator pistols (or better yet a version of the all stamped semiautomatic that Walther developed in WWII) will provide those people with the backbone and intelligence to successfully overthrow that murderous regime? Hell, look at our own country. America has a history of political action among the populace, of free speech and the possession of arms, and yet here we are living in a police state, anticipating the crash of the battering-ram and our death or incarceration at the hands of our fellow citizens. If Americans, children of one of, if not the, freest nations in history, find ourselves in such a position, what in heavens name makes us think that people who have known only repression and fear for generations, will act differently.
The truth is that the only weapon governments possess is the only one the human race almost universally responds to, fear. Governments almost never have the capacity to prevail by main force. If a robber goes into a bank with twenty people in it, with a six-shot revolver, logic says that he can be overwhelmed, but each of those people fear that they may be one of the six who get shot. Government too is out numbered, the force it possesses is miniscule compared to the number of people it controls, but nobody wants to risk being one of the people killed, no matter how few may end up that way. Look at Tiennamen Square Massacre, the Chinese government feared that the people would rise up, reports in the western media suggested that units of the PLA were in or near a state of revolt over orders to reoccupy the square and crush the protesters. Politically reliable units had to be rushed to Beijing, and even then, the famous pictures of the man standing in front of the tank showed that the soldiers of the PLA were reluctant to act. If the people of Beijing had rushed to support the protesters, would the massacre have happened? If the Chinese people had risen up, would the PLA have put them down? We will never know, because the man-in-the-street refused to stand up, the bulk of the people were too afraid to face the possible consequences, and therefore remain in their servitude today.
Having the means to defend oneself and one's beliefs is immaterial. One must possess the will to use them. In fact, when the majority of people possess the will to action, weapons become superfluous. The Nazi's herded countless thousands to their deaths with unloaded weapons, because their victims lacked the will to resist, generations of acquiescence had ingrained in the victims an unthinking compulsion to obey. In our own country, we watch our rights stripped from us with helpless outrage and despair, when all that is required to stop it is the willingness to resist in spite of the potential consequences, and we in America are less likely to suffer the greatest penalties for such actions than the peasant in Korea, or the shopkeeper in China. We might supply the means to resist, but how will we provide to will, when we ourselves don't have it?
I think he has nailed it pretty good. Good article and one to really think about.
Sad but true, I have to admit. I see alot of Internet blowhards say otherwise, but I haven't seen any actions that would make even the teeniest difference, lately.
I have an addition to this discussion; found it years ago, pasted here:
will there be a rebellion?
Much talk about Constitutional rights,civil rights, gun rights, tax rights, land-use rights, etc. This mythical line in the sand, but beyond some letters to the editor and donating money to gun rights orgs and some voting action, no real "action" ever, and will there be? This is the actual bottom line question. Let's examine it in a little more real-life depth.
In a civil war/ rebellion such as this, there are no "front lines", none evident.
. The front lines might be your nosy neighbor, it might be that census worker you whizzed off after they whizzed you off, might be the local deppity who's related to your neighbor next door, you know him as a human being, but one who participates in "no knock" raids, and who has put people in jail for "illegal firearms ownership" maybe, or who "mans a roadblock". That's one of the people you'd have to shoot. It might be the local teevee talking head who daily spouts lies, and then fails to spout any truth about the scandals, or keeps insisting to you that the football scores are always more important than anything else, that's another one might have to be shot. It might be your own preacher, who is always spouting that "render unto caesar" crap. He might need to be shot. It might be a relative of yours, who works as a data clerk in charge of "that file" that the fat boy's institute has courtesy of carnivore and echelon. Maybe it's your own "boss" at work, who gives huge amounts of "campaign" bribe money to these politicians, he might need to be shot. Maybe that grandma you know, lives across the street, works in that little office downtown, processing "paper work" for various dubious "permits" for this or that that violate your "born with" rights, but she's just "doing her job", and she's a grandma, but she might need to be shot, too.
This is why no shooting has happened yet, and isn't likely, not on any scale, and not anytime soon, because THOSE and more are the folks who would "need to be shot", because they are all part of "the system" in general that is the system of oppression. Pretty easy to talk about it when it's say-iraq or china or the old boogieman russia, but not when it's "here". those "boogiemen" were and are all made up of various "humans" who did this or that to help along "the system" whether directly or indirectly. There is no such thin as a "government" as something you can drag off to the side and point at, this is a big lie. There's "human beings".
It's not only the public darth vader JBT's of the pictures, the elian grabbers, or the ones who raised the batf flag over the waco "compound" while it was still burning and the people inside where still cooking to death. Those latter are just the most obvious ones, easiest to spot, or the very public goon anti freedom politicians on teevee, again, the easiest to spot, but it's "the others" that need it even more, if you really want to get down and dirty about it.
Who knows, I suspect all of the above. I most definetly hold some members of the media partly "responsible". their first amendment "rights" to free speech on the monopolised airwaves have been abused against the people when they FAIL to shout FIRE when it needs to be shouted, and they have really failed on this one, big time.
If there are clearcut flames spreading, one does not waste time on idle hollywood gossip talk, or to on-purposely ignore the actions of "the arsonists" who have set that fire in favor of carefully analysing "the big game". but they do, because that's what "the people" really want the most.
There may be technically 80 million "gun owners" in this country, but I doubt if there are even one million GUN OWNERS, I doubt a hundred thousand, maybe even only ten thousand, tops. There's a very clear and distinct difference.
I still like the "window glass war" concept as a first step, but it may be just too late for even that, especially if the clinton/gore regime remains in power.
With "the bushes", you have this "openly a friend of the gun owner and self defense", but then the continuation and full implmentation of the thousands of "gun laws" out there, including the most heinous ones of new york city, washington dc, and of los angeles and california. Bush wants even those laws "enforced", and the federal "project exile", he openly stated this in the debates.
Yes, he "signed into law" a concealed carry in Texas, and "so what" I say, when he could have "signed into law" just a re-affirmation of the vermont style gun law, which is basically no gun laws except the second amendment, unless you screw up aggressively with ownership or "bearing" of arms, which is as it should be. But even vermont is one step short, because they "signed on to" the federal laws starting in 34. Too bad, that was the real good time to fight it, but it didn't happen back then, not my generation's fault on that one, the generation that fought overseas, the "doughboys" to "liberate" this or that country sorta forgot to "liberate" their own country when they got back, they caved in. And it continues to this day. Grandpa's generation,then dad's generation dropped the ball on that one, they, like my generation of "boomers", and the gen x's, had making money, insuring security at home economically, professional sports, music tickets and concerts, and having as shiny new car as "more important", even though it's the same Constitution now as then, the same words then as now. Those generations complain about this new "younger" generation "not knowing" the Constitution, well, let's just back up a little on that one, shall we? We got three full generations of chest beaters now, beating chest and then they keep walking backwards, and are gradually lowering their gaze as the king walks by. We are at the "curtsey and kneeling" stage now, but we got there after those previous generations allowed some pretty strange 'domestic" laws to be "passed and enforced". Ya, fought bravely OVERSEAS, well and good, but not "at home" it appears, not at home. I don't think this is disputable either, not really, if you think on it some.
I guess we shall see who does what. I expect some fairly strange edicts and executive orders spewed no matter who "wins" this election, because I DON'T see the uS patriot "winning" in the "polls", nor are either of the two front running gents in that class of people known as "patriots" near as I can see. I see two rich guys who have around the clock machine gun armed bodyguards, who have private jets, mansions, prestige, power,free money willingly given to them for political favors, who have ties to foreign governments and massive transnational money as their first loyalties. If you can't see that, sorry, but you are technically "blind" then.
They each spout some words to appeal to one side or the other of the middle, the middle that could care less about "freedom" except the freedom to go to the store and buy cheap stuff, and to have 24 hour a day "entertainment". It doesn't matter if that person espouses this or that, or if their taste in music is "techno", or "rap" or "rock" or "gospel" or "country and western", not really, not down where it counts, and it sure isn't being counted, either. That's about it. The vast "middle" in this country is just as clueless about the Constitution as any normal tv talking head, they honestly do not know, nor do they care much even if they do, nor will they do anything about it that is going to make much oif a difference in the long run, or even the short run now. They want cheap gas, cheap beer, cheap stuff at walmart, professional sports to an obsessive level, cheap and free addictive drugs from the transnational pharmco conglomerates, and a lot of credit to keep funding their "lifestyle" that is their only birthright they think they are apparently "born with".
The average middle "guy" if such a creature exists, or even someone more to one end or the other of the political spectrum, is way more interested in whether or not his "team" wins on the weekend, or monday night, or how his "stock" is doing, or whether he can talk the spouse into going into debt for a new shiny SUV, whether he "owns a gun" or not. Anyone can clearly see that this is "true",it just "is".
I imagine a few hundred thousand in this country would possibly "fight" if more and more gun laws are "passed". If that many. None of them-ok, a very few in number tiny exceptions- have "fought" yet so far in california or new jersey or new york city or washington dc or los angeles. There has been no shooting of federal bureaucrats or armed agents enforcing the land grabs out west, or making off limits to "normal human" use of the federal lands. Some protests, yes, of course, but no shootings. Signs waved, even a "shovel brigade", but all those shovelers own guns I bet. the kings taxmen continue their daily tribute-taking, un opposed. the "people" still slow down for the roadblocks. On and on. As long as right down where the rubber meets the road, where bureaucrat and bureaucrat's armed agent go and "enforce" this or that weird law, and they don't get shot, all of "this" will continue. As long as any judge can actually put someone in jail merely for possession of some firearm, then it will continue. As long as roadblocks for seatbelts or dui continue un challenged by arms. As long as no-knock raids kill people and nothing happens to those perps except "paid administrative leave pending an investigation". As long as the taxmen can threaten and intimidate. As long as the military keeps going off and fighting in foreign wars against some "dictator" over there, but sorta forgets about the ones we have here, and keep insisting on this "I'm a hero" concept for that in-action here. That's a hard one to swallow, but it's true, too. As long as the cheers in the stadium are louder than the voices raised over the illegalities, then it will continue.
The chip away plan has been working, not as fast as the chipper - awayers would like it to work, but it HAS worked remarkably well for "them".
Now IF "they" make some really weird boneheaded move that turns up the heat on the boiling frog a little too fast, then maybe "it" will happen, but not if "they" keep doing what they are doing, and a really large part of "the plan" is to keep increasing the numbers of who this "they" is and are. At best we'll get the australian example, massive turn in's, a lot of guys bury theirs, but no one shot. "They" won't even have to do a house to house, what a lot of guys are waiting for it appears, that's "their" bottom line drawn on the sand.
Well, the goons know this, so they won't do it, they'll just scare you into waiting to that point, then they win by default, and it's worked so far, hasn't it? If I'm wrong, where's the fighting going on then? I seem to have missed the reports.
I'm not desparing of this, just looking at human nature. We already have all these "laws", they are enforced, and there's only been a little gun burying. Oh ya, we can send money to someone, and "vote'., uh huh.
Here's another one, a bit of reality, in a lot of families, there's a split on this issue, one spouse supports full "gun rights", the other wants a lot of gun laws. Now, anyone gonna shoot their spouse? Or how about if your patriotic neighbor knows full well your spouse is a gun grabbing goon, anyone gonna be mad if they shoot your spouse then, or maybe your kid? This is why this is so hard to contemplate, and why it hasn't happend yet, why in australia it didn't happen, because you have to look really hard at who might need to be shot, once it gets beyond theory.
Say you got a daughter in college, no matter what you've ever said, she still supports a "ban" on this or that, maybe your semi you got in the closet full background databases, even a national registration of "you", and elimination of all guns except for single shot shotguns, which must be kept locked up at home, or locked up over at the police station until you "go hunting". Well, she's a "goon" then, sorry, most obviously, and in this "theoretical armed rebellion" she "needs to be shot". Uhh, how's that gonna make "anyone-you" feel then?
I believe I have presented just a smidgen of reality into this question here. And it's another reason I will constantly keep hammering home the "no neutrals" concept, because it's "true" and "real" fact.
In the first secession from "royal" semi-never great-britain, there was a fairly clear "us versus them".
The next one, the war of the right of secession and state's rights, there were still some gross geographical borders evident, and still a pretty good "us versus them". Now, there are none. "Them" is "us".
The "enemy" has you surrounded Mr and Mrs Patriot, even in your own family perhaps. Mr Goon knows this. This is a "good deal" for Mr Goon. He only has to very occassionaly make an example of someone, and he's won. There's no easy way around the realities of an armed rebellion to seize back freedoms and rights stolen, not when the vast majority of freedom lovers have to actually squeeze that trigger on a neighbor or relative, or stand by and "take it" when a relative or neighbor gets their "just desserts" for goonish behavior.
Kinda spooky, isn't it? Who's going to go first? Who's going to "stick to principle" when it's their neighbor or spouse or son or daughter or daddy who "needs to be shot" in this theoretical scenario? Who has that kind of guts? Who has this courage, when it's hard to even "put down" the family pet when "it needs to be done"?
This is exactly why it didn't happen in australia, the example used here to point out how "wimpy" the australian patriots where when they stood down, caved in and "took it". Faced with the reality of the situation, they chose not to shoot their neighbor, spouse, daughter or grandma across the street, when they were and most definetly are "part of the problem". It's not just some vague anti gun politicians, or the JBT's, it's real humans, most of them gradually turned into goons, but they still look and act "human" most of the time, but no one has the guts to confront them, nor do they have their own personal guts to admit that they are in fact "part of the problem". We have no "enemy" because it's all of us or none of us, so far it appears it's "none of us" is the non-enemy, because everyone wants to be or have "the exception to the rule". There won't be a civil war unless there is "an enemy" to fight. We have no enemy, no way to differentiate who is who anymore, do we?
I suggest maybe a massive deployment of mirrors as the only "solution" that "might work", because what's going on now surely isn't.
What's the "window glass war" concept?
The Window War