Jump to content

A False, Legal Shutdown

American Revolution 2.0

2,367 views

Author's note: If you have an interest in the subject matter but have not yet read Dr. Benjamin Franklin's essay; Rules for Reducing a Great Empire to a Small One, I recommend you do.

 

In one foul swoop the government has terminated more jobs than our country has ever seen before. To simply say that this is an issue of government overreach, is a bit too simplistic. This situation is the result of licensing. 

 

A license, in this context, is define as: Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license

 

Naturally, the licensing of rights is unconstitutional. For if it is a right, no other permission is needed but thy own's accord. And for the government to claim it has the authority to distribute permissions for people to exercise their own rights is a hallmark of tyranny. But this is something that has been around for a long time, and in particular, is what gave rise to the "freedom of the press" phrase in the First Amendment. 

 

When you accept a license, the entity that authorizes the license has the authority to terminate it. Thus with business licenses, for example, at any time the government may force any business to do as it commands. To the point, in Arizona, a McDonald's restaurant was forced to paint it's iconic yellow "M", turquoise. Though I am currently addressing a more serious issue of forcing businesses to close, this example proves the point that there is inherently no limit to the authority. If they say "paint it blue or close" you must. Like a gun to the back of the head, so long as Americans consent to licensing, they will be at the total mercy of whom they accepted the license from; their own government!

 

To solve this issue we must terminate the unconstitutional practice of government licenses. As the government declares now, that 'certain businesses are to be shut down, lest they lose their license and may no longer operate'. Without a license, such tyrannical words hold little more power than a suggestion. 

 

For most Americans, their lively-hood is based on permits and licenses. And what was once a political theory; that our government can require citizens to behave a certain way, or have certain views in order to be allowed certain privileges like driving, fishing or bank accounts, is now becoming real in America. Through Licensing the government may now control every portion of your life.

 

But this did not just happen! This is a deeply rooted problem in America's current society. You must understand that licenses are un-American. And as an American citizen, whatever dangers may occur from living free from licenses is a) entirely worth it and b) safer than slavery. Licenses are the government's lien to your God-given rights. Those chains were always there, it is only that just now they are being pulled.

 

We must break free of the chains that have allowed for this tyrannical overreach. We must break free from the concept of licensing. We cannot allow this control through licensing to continue any longer.

 



87 Comments


Recommended Comments



Is it your position that no license should be required to drive? Or to fly an airplane? Or to manufacture high explosives?

If free speech is a right, does that mean that ANY speech at all, under any circumstances, must be not be interfered with by the government?

So I can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire?  Can I shout "Kill all the the Jews now!!"???

In time of war, must the government not interfere with newspapers that support the other side? So, in World War II, pro-Nazi or pro-Japanese newspapers should have been allowed to publish freely?

Share this comment


Link to comment

AR2: This makes perfect logical sense to me, in theory; the question of how to implement it in practice I believe is that we need to convince the majority of the smaller overreaches first. Everyone needs to know that authority is used to intimidate compliance, demanding an ID just because a cop wants it type of things. Once people start to see the little things, then we could move on to bigger and better. It'd be hard to say to everyone 'Hey, stop giving them the power and just do what you want with your business', most people wouldn't receive that message

Doug1943: I'd say everything you just said should be allowed, and as free, critical thinking citizens it would be up to the individual to react. If you yell fire, and immediately everyone freaks out and runs, its because the weren't thinking for themselves enough to look around first. If you yell 'Kill all Jews' and they go on a rampage, it's because they didn't think to ask why or why not. In a war time, if the First Amendment any less valid? If the government could suspend your rights during wartime wouldn't that automatically make it a dictatorship?

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 5/9/2020 at 6:04 PM, StartThePurge said:

AR2: This makes perfect logical sense to me, in theory; the question of how to implement it in practice I believe is that we need to convince the majority of the smaller overreaches first. Everyone needs to know that authority is used to intimidate compliance, demanding an ID just because a cop wants it type of things. Once people start to see the little things, then we could move on to bigger and better. It'd be hard to say to everyone 'Hey, stop giving them the power and just do what you want with your business', most people wouldn't receive that message

Doug1943: I'd say everything you just said should be allowed, and as free, critical thinking citizens it would be up to the individual to react. If you yell fire, and immediately everyone freaks out and runs, its because the weren't thinking for themselves enough to look around first. If you yell 'Kill all Jews' and they go on a rampage, it's because they didn't think to ask why or why not. In a war time, if the First Amendment any less valid? If the government could suspend your rights during wartime wouldn't that automatically make it a dictatorship?

Okay, so your position is that it's okay to yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire, and "Kill All the Jews!!!"  and you're happy with a pro-Nazi newspaper being published during a war against the Nazis, and, of course, using its absolute freedom of speech to note what troop ships were being loaded where and what their destination was. Presumably this free speech could be exercised via a short-wave radio to listening submarines.   Hmmm.....

 

And what about driver's licenses and the license to fly an airplane?  I assume you think those aren't necessary either?  And the manfacture of high explosives?   Should I be allowed to try to make nitroglycerine in my basement, if I feel like it?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Nice twisting of words. Am I saying people should yell "Fire!!" in a theater, no. And should someone yell "Kill all Jews!" or print Nazi papers, or broadcast sensitive information, again no. Its not whether they should or not because obviously they shouldn't, that's ridiculous to even suggest. It come's down to free speech, and those things all fall under it. IMO once one thing gets censored it's easier for the powers that be to censor more, and more, and more, until eventually it becomes "here's what you can say" instead of just "here's what you shouldn't say". And it also falls to the individuals listening, in the vicinity, etc...if someone yells fire, and you just sprint without looking around or sniffing the air first and slam into someone and break your nose, you had it coming, if you break their nose, you should be punished. I'm advocating thought, not violence or exposing secret information, so please don't put words in my mouth. If secret info gets exposed, it would compromise everyone and everything involved obviously, and again shouldn't happen, but those types of secrets should only be in the hands of the ones able to keep them as just that, secrets. 

For the licenses, that's a grey area, and depends on the person. I agree they're a good idea in theory, but (just for example) say an alcoholic looses their license, that little laminated piece of plastic doesn't enable or prevent him from jumping into a car again, and when he was taking his road test no one knew the future.

 

Same with the high explosives. Again, you shouldn't, I think you know the obvious risks, you seem intelligent enough, but at the same if you choose to do the research and get the materials then take those risks, it's your choice. If you blow yourself up when you knew you were making an explosive then you kind of had it coming because you were making it knowing the potential outcome. And if you claim 'well what about someone making it to destroy a hospital' or something, then the repercussions for that terrible loss would be on them. The phrase 'where there's a will there's a way' exists for a reason, you can't prevent every terrible individual from doing what they want, no matter how much we all know some things just shouldn't happen.

 

It boils down to individual freedoms, thought, and teaching the next generation properly, then knowing we did well and hoping they aren't stupid or deadly in their actions. Either way, since we have licenses, and laws to prevent yelling 'Fire!!' in a theater, so this is all hypothetical anyway, but those are my opinions and you're probably glad I'm not in charge :), because AR2 is correct in his initial point: our lives are being controlled through licensing. I'm not saying they're inappropriate in all situations, but we live in what was supposed to be a free country

Share this comment


Link to comment

No, I understand that YOU are not going to yell 'Fire!' or try to manufacture high explosives, or fly an airplane before you've passed the legal test.

 

However,  apparently you are happy if someone else does. Or not. I can't make out whether you think there should be a law governing the attempted manufacture of high explosives, for example, or not. 

 

You say 'the repercussions for that terrible loss would be on them'.  Well, yes, if they tried to manufacture high explosives and blew themselves  and  a few dozen neighbors up, the repercussions would be on them ... but not only on them.  The same with flying an airplane or driving a car ... if we say, anyone can do it, you don't need to pass a test, then ... crashed cars and planes don't only kill the fools who tried to control them before they were ready.

 

If the repercussions of stupid  behavior were only on the stupid person doing it, fine. Let them earn their Darwin Award, and get some brief

fame on YouTube.  

 

It's when the rest of us are affected, that we have to think about legal restrictions.  Then we argue about legal restrictions. I believe that there are people -- I've met a couple -- who think that anyone (including an ISIS sympathzyers) should be allowed to, if they can, construct a nuclear weapon. The right to bear arms, after all.  But anyone with a functioning brain knows that this would be insane.  Owning an assault rifle, fine; importing a Kim Il Sung five megaton Special, nope.

 

Here's the problem: it was said two hundred and some odd years ago: if men were angels, we wouldn't need government. If men were governed by angels, we wouldn't need restrictions on government.

 

Men are not angels, so we need government, the government is carried out by non-angels, so we need restrictions on it.  They won't always work.

 

Do we need a police force? Yes.  Will the people in it from time to time exceed their legal lawful authority. You bet.  We have to scream and yell when they do, but we will NEVER live in utopia.

 

We just discredit ourselves and our cause by vague pronouncements against 'licenses' and government authority in general. Leave that to the Utopian Left, who, if we recall, believe that after they have seized power and implemented socialism, it will eventually grow into genuine communism, and the state will, in their words, 'wither away'.    Ha!

 

So long as we have human beings with a biology that has evolved over 500 million years of ruthless competition, we will need the state, and we will need to keep a sharp eye on the state and fight against its over-extension.  But we will need the state.

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

No I'm definitely not, and I'm going to/have taught my kids to be decent human beings so far, and the farthest I've gone for explosives was homemade 'napalm' experiments as a teen. I think the licensing depends on the subject matter; fishing maybe isn't as necessary but airplanes should have some prerequisites. I'm definitely in support of letting those deserving of a Darwin Award get it, but not at the cost of others, or as few others as possible. 

We definitely agree on the right to bear arm, it should only be within reason. There's always the question of 'well, what's reasonable', but I think for most people that'd be common sense. I'm in NY so I only have a 10-round max, but I fully support handguns, rifles, assault rifles, and while I can't see a need for anything automatic, I'd also be up for that. I'm of the mindset that if everyone in America was armed with the proper screening and training, we'd have less problems overall. For example the group in NC that went to Subway, one guy had what looked like an anti-tank missile, and absolutely no one got hurt. That particular arm may be a bit overkill, but I can't say I don't want one. 

On 5/13/2020 at 3:12 AM, Doug1943 said:

Here's the problem: it was said two hundred and some odd years ago: if men were angels, we wouldn't need government. If men were governed by angels, we wouldn't need restrictions on government.

 

Men are not angels, so we need government, the government is carried out by non-angels, so we need restrictions on it.  They won't always work.

 

Do we need a police force? Yes.  Will the people in it from time to time exceed their legal lawful authority. You bet.  We have to scream and yell when they do, but we will NEVER live in utopia.

 This says it best, I don't think I could've done better, but there are some things  that are too restricted, i.e. firearms in NY for one. I still have my right to bear arms technically, but there's a roughly 6 month process to obtain 'permission' to own a handgun, whereas I went and purchased 2 rifles within a week one time; seems counter-intuitive to me. 

We do need the state, but they also need to recognize our freedoms  in a bit better and less restrictive manner in a lot of situations. I think their overreach and the authoritarian police in a lot of places have given rise to the 1A audits and push-back from We The People that has become so commonplace. And no matter what your current feelings on the safety vs liberty discussions of covid-19, this could easily turn into a much further government overreach than we've seen until now, partly fueled by the restrictions the government has already imposed.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Wow, I am not sure what you guys are arguing about.  The government was incredibly wrong to tell us citizens we can not open our businesses, and we can't go to the park or gym, etc...  Twitter banned me for life, because I state my views.  My views are Right-Wing and Patriotic.  The same with Facebook.  They ban me for speaking against islam or Communism.  That is against The First Amendment.  And, in New York City, I can not own a gun, again because of our government.  That is against our Second Amendment. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

The problem is and has been for over 200 years that we have forgotten who the Constitution was written to control.

 

It was NOT written to control US!

 

It was written to control the federal government DIRECTLY.

 

It has been twisted and we have been convinced as a people that it applies to us.

 

How many of you have read it word for word, every article. It's obvious who it applies to if you read it before amendments began being attached that started applying to us.

 

The founders intended to keep government close to the people through the more manageable state governments...NOT a distant, huge federal government.

 

The federal government was intended to be minimal in both size and capability...defense, make coinage, and very little more. States would manage all other areas as desired by the citizenry.

 

So yes, in some places you might be able to yell fire, fly a plane without a license (it happened for years by the way), make explosives (this also happened for many years),  etc, etc.

 

If the state restricted you more than you liked, you could just move to a more conducive state and vice versa if you preferred more restrictions.

 

That was the intent. Not the twisted, tyrannical beast we have now created.

 

The Constitution is dead. It died many years ago. My personal feelings are that the civil war was it's last official gasp at trying to remain alive but the dying began almost as soon as it was created.

 

Governments hate losing control...it's their ONLY power. Government cannot exist without the consent of the citizenry. When consent is removed, government ceases to exist. The Constitution directly established consent but in very narrow avenues, hence, the powers began immediately to change it and therefore kill it.

 

They succeeded...WE LET THEM!

Share this comment


Link to comment

The rebellion by the slave-owners was probably, technically, Constitutional. It's a moot point, however. As Bismarck said, the big questions facing humanity are not determined by parliamentary majorities, or a piece of paper with nice words on it, but by blood and iron.

 

It's very wrong to take a black-and-white attitude towards the Constitution, or almost anything else.  The United States has been, more or less, a Constitutional democracy, but a flawed one, ever since the Constitution was adopted. 

 

For example: if you were a Black American in the South, up to about fifty years ago, do you think you had the full set of Constitutional guarantees that white Americans there did? No, you didn't.  You could be killed by a white mob, or even murdered by the police, and no one would lift a finger for your so-called 'Constitutional rights'. 

 

But did that mean that America was the equivalent of, say, Nazi Germany, as our young people are taught now by the Howard Zinn project?

 

No... it means we were far from perfect. But we had the means of change built in ... and fifteen years of agitation and protests, including the formation of an armed Black militia (the Deacons for Defense and Justice) ... finally led to America  living up to its ideals here.

 

Japanese-American citizens were put in internment camps in WWII. Did this mean the US was no different than the Nazis? Camps there, camps here?  No ... there was a huge difference, as the young Japanese-Americans of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team understood, although, once again, Leftists who hate America will make the equation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)]

 

We must not fall into the trap of making the Best/Perfect the enemy of the Imperfectly Good and Improvable. 

 

Don't like government policy?  Then get out and get active in politics ... your local Republican Party would love to sign you up and will definitely find something for you to do.

 

If however, you decide that we are living in a country with a permanent Leftist majority, that will move inevitably towards the Left ... then you need to start convincing others -- on the Left and the Right -- of the case for the right of self-determination: the right of a majority in a geographic region which does not want to be governed by those outside its region, to leave.  It should be a fundamental democratic right. And it may be time to start arguing for it.

 

But what is NOT going to happen is for the conservative minority to stage an armed uprising and set up a conservative dictatorship. (And that's what it would have to be, of course, since we had decided we couldn't win through free elections.)  This happens in Africa and the Middle East and used to happen in Latin America, and we look at the countries which are unlucky enough to do their politics that way and shake our heads.  Anyway, it's NOT going to happen here, although of course there are people who would love to see the attempt. (Hint: they work in a building in St Petersburg, Russia.)

 

So ... if we really can't ever win, than we have to start thinking about leaving. A tragedy, but there is no law that the US is somehow special and exempt from the sort of things that happens to other countries.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You just confirmed every point I made.

Again, The Constitution was written to control the federal government...not the State governments.

The states established their own Constitutions and laws, that included slavery laws...some had it...some didn't.

I'm not discussing the right and wrong of any laws the established...that's not the point.

The point is the process of establishing laws.

Per the original Constitution the federal government has NO authority to establish 99.9999% or more of what it now does. Only the States have that authority.

One thing you did say that is appropriate..
.all this is moot.

Most don't care or even know and understand the Constitution and Founding documents or their intent...we're an ignorant citizenry. Ignorance is curable with knowledge but most don't even desire the knowledge anymore. It's sad.


By the way, we were not created as a democracy but a republic...a major distinction not even remotely the same thing. Democracy is merely mob rule.

Words DO matter. It's how governments gradually change our way of thinking about things.

As the old saying goes, tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth. (Paraphrased)

There are no easy solutions but the path ahead is clearly one of less and less freedom to make our own personal choices.

There is no going back or voting our way out unfortunately.

At this point our focus should be on immediate family and TRUSTED friends, local community, state...in that order. There is no fixing the federal government.

Until the States choose to take back their powers nothing will change for the better.

Yes, a bleak future we have created for our next generations.

Share this comment


Link to comment

There are many forms of 'democracy', and it can indeed be applied to a 'mob rule' or 'rule by plebiscite' situation. But everyone in the world, except for the John Birch society, calls the US a 'democracy' -- well, everyone but the John Birch Society, and the Far Left.  It's a certain kind of democracy, which puts restraints on what the majority, or its representatives, can do. 

 

It's certainly true that the Southern states were allowed to have slavery. Then, by the Constitution, they weren't. And, technically anyway, they weren't supposed to deny the vote to, or murder, their own citizens who happened to be Black ... but they did.  It took a long struggle to get the Constitution enforced there ... a struggle opposed by the John Birch Society, by the way.  The erosion of states' rights can be laid at the door of Southern white segregationists, who made "States' rights" equivalent to lynching, and repelled the majority of Americans from the idea. Thanks a lot, guys.

 

There are still plenty of Constitutional restrictions that keep the US from being a 'direct democracy'.  Donald Trump is President because of one of them. 

 

The reality is, the Constitution is a piece of paper. If the government -- the police, the judges, the legislators -- choose to interpret it one way, then that's how it will be applied.  You and I and fifty million other people may disagree ... but if the government is in the hands of the Left, it won't matter.  So when someone asks, "Is doing XYZ Constitutional?" the answer ought to be  in two parts:

(1) "Yes", [or "No"] " according to me and my friends", but

(2) ... [either probably "Yes" or probably "No"] according to the people who control the police and prisons.

 

It's sort of like answering a question from a pretty girl who asks if she should be able to walk through South Chicago close to midnight on

a Saturday night wearing a very skimpy and revealing dress.  Namely, you SHOULD be able to , but DON'T DO IT.

 

In the 1950's,  Congress made it illegal to be a member of the Communist Party. (The ultra-liberal Hubert Humphrey was one of the two main co-sponsors, interestingly.)  Blatantly unConstitutional. (The law is still on the books, by the way. A terrible law .. .if they can pass that, they can pass one making it illegal to be a member of the John Birch Society. But if it were ever challenged in court, I am sure the current Supreme Court would throw it out, just as they ruled that some of the prosecutions under the Smith Act were unConstitutional. (A friend of mine was waiting in prison in Boston to be prosecuted under it in 1957, when the Supreme Court ruling set him free.)

 

The Smith Act, which is still on the books, and similar statutes,  are a threat to the militia movement.  I'm going to start a thread on them, because everyone should be aware of them, and of similar laws which are ON THE BOOKS NOW. 

 

I actually agree with you about the way things are going in the US.  There are things we can do to slow it down, but the long term drift is probably not stoppable, due to demographics, the nature of the Republican Party, despite the Trump episode. 

 

Thus we have to start circulating the idea of the democratic right of self-determination.  That's what broke up the old USSR, pulled the colonies away from their imperialist masters, pulled Slovakia away from the Czechs, broke up Yugoslavia, and will pull Scotland out of the UK soon. 

 

It runs against the grain of American patriots, but needs must.

 

 

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

So ... if we really can't ever win, than we have to start thinking about leaving. A tragedy, but there is no law that the US is somehow special and exempt from the sort of things that happens to other countries.

 

There are some people working and hoping for a peaceful separation.  That, in my opinion, would be truly an American solution.  I emphasize a "peaceful separation" because the alternative might be too terrible to consider, for millions of people.

 

There's a YouTuber who has gained some notoriety for his ideas, on this.  He calls himself John Mark.  But his first video emphasized how the Left could be defeated in a Civil War II.  Doesn't sound too peaceful to me!  I think he's right, on some issues.  For example, he states emphatically that 2 out of 3 non-white immigrants vote Democrat.  But I don't think that his assessment of a civil war is correct, at all.  Especially, he doesn't account for the strong possibility that Blue America would ask for foreign troops to assist them.

 

I live in Illinois, which has 101 counties.  Chicago (in Cook County) and the so-called collar counties surrounding it, are staunchly "Blue".  Almost all of the counties with large populations are the same.  But most of Illinois consists of Red counties.

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 5/9/2020 at 8:57 AM, Doug1943 said:

Is it your position that no license should be required to drive? Or to fly an airplane? Or to manufacture high explosives?

If free speech is a right, does that mean that ANY speech at all, under any circumstances, must be not be interfered with by the government?

So I can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire?  Can I shout "Kill all the the Jews now!!"???

In time of war, must the government not interfere with newspapers that support the other side? So, in World War II, pro-Nazi or pro-Japanese newspapers should have been allowed to publish freely?

 

A good example of what you're saying is that I learned how to fly a Cessna, even though it was impossible for me to ever get a license to fly.  Even when I "soloed", there was an instructor in the right seat.  He didn't say a single word to me.  He was there only if something went wrong.  When we landed, he told me that I was a natural pilot, but that the government would never give me a license.  This is because of the injury I suffered in 'Nam.  All I wanted to do was prove to myself that I could do it.  Expensive proof!

Share this comment


Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Headhunter said:

 

A good example of what you're saying is that I learned how to fly a Cessna, even though it was impossible for me to ever get a license to fly.  Even when I "soloed", there was an instructor in the right seat.  He didn't say a single word to me.  He was there only if something went wrong.  When we landed, he told me that I was a natural pilot, but that the government would never give me a license.  This is because of the injury I suffered in 'Nam.  All I wanted to do was prove to myself that I could do it.  Expensive proof!

Yes. And I could drive before I had my license.  (Although your acheivement is a hundred times more impressive.)  So .. is your argument that anyone should be able to fly a plane ... that we should abolish the requirement for a license to fly? And, presumably, the same for driver's licenses?

Share this comment


Link to comment
18 hours ago, Headhunter said:

 

There are some people working and hoping for a peaceful separation.  That, in my opinion, would be truly an American solution.  I emphasize a "peaceful separation" because the alternative might be too terrible to consider, for millions of people.

 

There's a YouTuber who has gained some notoriety for his ideas, on this.  He calls himself John Mark.  But his first video emphasized how the Left could be defeated in a Civil War II.  Doesn't sound too peaceful to me!  I think he's right, on some issues.  For example, he states emphatically that 2 out of 3 non-white immigrants vote Democrat.  But I don't think that his assessment of a civil war is correct, at all.  Especially, he doesn't account for the strong possibility that Blue America would ask for foreign troops to assist them.

 

I live in Illinois, which has 101 counties.  Chicago (in Cook County) and the so-called collar counties surrounding it, are staunchly "Blue".  Almost all of the counties with large populations are the same.  But most of Illinois consists of Red counties.

What John Mark said about the ethnic division in voting is well known. The Democrats have the great majority of Black and Latino voters, plus the majority of college-educated white voters.  (The Left like to say, "See, the smart people vote for us!" but this is more a result of two generations of indoctination by the Left-controlled cultural apparatus, mainly but not only, the educators. Historically, the educated layer of the population, like the rest of the middle and upper class, voted Right -- it was the (non-college educated) working class, in all countries who voted Left. )  

Mark is an able presenter, but dead wrong -- dangerously so -- in rejecting what he calls 'civic nationalism' in favor of 'ethnic (i.e. White) nationalism'.  It's vital that our side remain based on American patriotism ['civic nationalism'], and centered on the (color-blind, race-neutral) Constitution, regardless of what percentage of non-whites we get to support us at any give point in time. If we were to announce that we're a whites-only movement, we would shrivel to a small minority.  In Africa and the Middle East, tribal loyalty is taken for granted, but we have a different -- and infinitely better -- history.  (And I would not assume that, in the future, Black and Latino -- and Asian! -- people who strive and succeed, and then find themselves being Californicated by regulations and taxes in Blue America, won't come over to us.  IF we remain open to that possibility.)  I've tried to make that point on Mark's YouTube comments section -- and apparently my posts have been deleted, although I may be wrong about that.

 

In a straight out fight between the civilian Left and the Civilian Right, it would be no contest. But in such a situation, it will be how the professional military go that will decide things. If they find themselves confronting a patriot movement that is trying to overthrow a legal, elected government ... then we will be defeated. (And this is especially so, given that the American military is 30% non-white, and its officer corps is 20% non-white, if the insane idea that we should explicitly declare ourselves a movement open only to one race.)

 

Revolutions in advanced countries, where a large part of the population is urban, and the rural population lives in towns, all accessible by good roads, are decided by the position the military take: if they support the government, as in all of Europe in 1848, or France in 1872, or Germany in 1918-1920 and 1923 -- then the insurrections will be crushed. If they become neutral, as in Russian in 1917, then a well-organized, compact, dedicated cadre-party, with a program that can appeal to the majority of the population, has a chance.

 

So ... I think we have our work cut out for us: to convince a lot of people of the validity of the right to self determination; to convince the Left that they would be better off without us; and also convincing young conservatives under 36 who have not done their military service, that they should enlist in the National Guard, or take ROTC at college.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think what you are both arguing about is when is it right to start a Revolution or Civil War.  The answer is, when you want a change that bad. If things stay like this for even one or two weeks, I would love for millions of Americans to rise up and go after the Democrat politicians, especially Governors like Newsom, Whitmer, and Cuomo. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Douglas said:

I think what you are both arguing about is when is it right to start a Revolution or Civil War.  The answer is, when you want a change that bad. If things stay like this for even one or two weeks, I would love for millions of Americans to rise up and go after the Democrat politicians, especially Governors like Newsom, Whitmer, and Cuomo. 

Let's put some numbers on your wishes:

(1) There are roughly 200 million adults in the USA.

(2) Of these, about half bother to vote in Presidential election.

(3) Of the 100 million who vote, in the last election, just under half voted for Trump, just over half, for Hillary.

(4) In our hypothetical revolution ... how many would 'rise up' or at least passively support those who rose up? 

   ---   If it's more than 50 million, then we don't have to rise up, we must vote them out in November. 

   ---   if it's less than 50 million, then we are trying, by violence, to overcome the outcome of a legal democratic election.  Not a good idea.

(5)  I can see a situation where, say, the majority of voting Americans want a return to the Constitution, and vote for a Presidential candidate who agrees with them ... but, due to some technicality of the Electoral College, a minority of the voters get the majority of Electors, and electea  Leftwing, anti-Constitutional President, against the will of the majority of voters.    I suppose some people would say we should rise up then .... but ... wait ... where have I heard that argument before?

 

I think it's very dangerous to speculate about an 'uprising' etc.  So long as we have a functioning (if imperfect) democratic system, we must stay within the law.  If really bad laws are passed, with the support of the majority of people, we might want to resist them non-violently. For instance, if they make certain weapons illegal, 'lose' them in a boating accident. If magazines of greater than 10 rounds capacity are made illegal ... well ... don't take them to range, don't tell anyone you have them, if you do, and find them a nice hiding place.   You might want to consider saving your tin cans and other metal junk, and burying them  -- now, not after some bad law is passed -- in your front and back yard, and in nearby fields and parks.  (Perhaps someone reading this who knows what the 'signature' of a long metal object is like can tell us how short tin cans can be twisted together to imitate it.)

 

In any case, as @Headhunter correctly said, the peaceful way is the American way. We need to start spreading the idea -- which will sound mad at first -- that a peaceful separation of Red and Blue might be the best idea.   The principle of 'self-determination' should be argued for in the abstract. 

 

Other countries recognize or have recognized it: Sweden and Norway used to be one nation, but the Norweigans left at the start of the 20th Century; Slovakia and Czechia divorced a few years ago. The Catalans and Basques in Spain want out. Quebec may try again. There are already 'independence' movements in Hawai'i and Texas and California.  

 

We need to ask our dear friends on the Left: why would yuou want to keep fifty million nasty old deplorables? Why not let us leave?  It would be fearsome to work out the details, but that's why God made lawyers.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Doug 1943, I agree.   There are not enough Patriots that would rise up and physically fight, right now. I absolutely would, but I would want a large number of fellow Patriots to join me.  I believe everything is not ok.  We are not living in a Democratic/Republic anymore.  The Constitution has been trampled on. The Globalists have already made there move.  It is only a matter of time before they have total control.  We will be just slaves to them.

Share this comment


Link to comment
16 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

Yes. And I could drive before I had my license.  (Although your acheivement is a hundred times more impressive.)  So .. is your argument that anyone should be able to fly a plane ... that we should abolish the requirement for a license to fly? And, presumably, the same for driver's licenses?

 

Absolutely not.  My purpose in learning how to fly was to prove to myself that I had the ability.  A physical problem would make issuing me a private pilot's license not only dangerous to me, but to people on the ground.  Flying a plane, and driving an automobile, are inherently dangerous to the people doing it, and other people.  You need to be able to prove that you have the health and necessary skills to do so.  I've considered the possibility of purchasing an ultralight aircraft, but decided against it for the same reason I shouldn't be flying a Cessna or an airliner!

Share this comment


Link to comment
14 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

Other countries recognize or have recognized it: Sweden and Norway used to be one nation, but the Norweigans left at the start of the 20th Century; Slovakia and Czechia divorced a few years ago. The Catalans and Basques in Spain want out. Quebec may try again. There are already 'independence' movements in Hawai'i and Texas and California. 

 

I know an entire family of Slovaks, and they're very good people.  They separated from the Czechs because Czechs and Slovaks pretty well hate each other!

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yes.  Every time some earnest Lefty writes that "Diversity is Strength!!!",  I run through a list of countries where "diverse" peoples live under the same government, starting with Northern Ireland (which has been relatively quiet for the last twenty years, but which will liven up again, I predict, when the Catholic minority becomes a majority, which will happen soon, and votes to unite with the Republic). Then running quickly through Central/Eastern Europe -- the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus and elsewhere, the Balkans (Yugoslavia as was), almost anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan/Bangla Desh, Burma (Myanmar), China (Uighurs, Tibetans) ... almost anywhere where two or more distinct groups have been geographically interpenetrated. 

 

It would be more realistic to say, "Diversity mean bloody civil war, ethnic cleansing, and forced population transfers."  The two big exceptions to this rule are America, and Russia.  So far. 

 

In America, the idiot far Left is pushing as hard as they can to open up the racial fracture lines -- to make whites ashamed of being white. What they will do, if they succeed, will be to make whites throw off the anti-racist conditioning they've had for the last fifty years, and start being conscious of being 'white'. I think that will be a bad thing, and will be the end of America, which has so far done about as well as can be expected in trying to hold together three (three and a half, if you count 'Asians') distinct racial groups. 

 

The Left also hates American patriotism, which is in fact the only real anti-racism. 

 

Of course, I suppose it will be some consolation, if the Left succeed in igniting a racial civil war and the division of the country into white and non-white (or more) fragments, that they (the white Left) will not be welcome anywhere.  But I'd rather see a united America continuing along the same path it has successfully walked for the last 250 years.

Share this comment


Link to comment

youtu.be/y3_xa5-DSe0   --illuminati

 --nurse speaks out about covid 1:40

  --covid dr speaks out 

these are what opened my eyes, there are also a ton of memes going around, and the media isn't covering the real news, ObamaGate is happening, Fox has been covering it but CNN, NBC, CBS, theyre all owned by the elites. I saw in a comment that you'd rise and fight, if it isn't me vs the government police I will too. There will be blood and death, but every good thing has to be worked for, and right now the biggest problem is waking people up to whats going on. This is like 6 hours worth of videos , but hey what else are you doing right now :). Start with the illuminati video and the fall of the cabal video, those are 3.5 hours total, then start to spread the word and work on helping the people you know to open their eyes, its really all we can do at this point other than realize that while there may be a virus, the numbers are grossly inflated and it's not what they're making it out to be. 85-90k dead yes, but 30M+ out of work and wondering how they'll eat

Share this comment


Link to comment

Numbers have been tossed around. Here's some others to consider.

 

Governments have killed more of their own people than all wars, revolutions, etc combined.

 

In all things human, thirds is generally the breakdown. Meaning one third is on one side, one third on the other side and one third blows with the wind. Therefore, you really only have to move roughly 10% of the people to your side to be successful at anything.

 

The American Revolution was conducted and won with only around THREE percent of the population actively participating. The rest were generally passive to one side or the other.

 

The population of the colonies was around 2.5-3 million people. That means somewhere around 100000 people affected the world stage for at least the next 240+ years.

 

Way less than ONE percent control the rest of the entire worlds population.

 

What does this all mean to this discussion?

 

Merely that it's simple arithmetic...a numbers game and the number don't have to be huge to affect world shattering change.

 

The problem lies in moving those numbers...changing the apathetic human races minds.

 

Yes, it only requires moving 10% but achieving that move is monumental.

 

As the numbers for the American Revolution show, most just don't care enough to get involved.

 

Such is now the case also.

 

Fear and hunger are two of the biggest human motivators. If either of those two, or both, are invoked, humans move to action. Usually inappropriate action but action none the less.

 

Our current situation is a good example of that. It's totally fear driven either rightfully or wrongly. In the US alone we have been driven by fear to give up 30m jobs and now to depend on a broken and broke government to support us....hopefully.

 

Could those needed numbers now change?

 

Fear and hunger.

 

Currently fear is driving us toward government. If you add in hunger, and the government can't provide, which it can't, all options then are on the table.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I took a gander at this post and I see a lot of numbers thrown around. I see a like or two at the time of writing this. 

 

However what I do not see is a solution nor a plan of action. 

 

I have a wife who depends on me for her livelihood and income and a large number of siblings who depend on the same. I am not afraid to fight... but it should be a last resort. 

 

I propose educating the American people, first and foremost. Don't argue with them. Educate them. Jesus was a teacher after all and the Messiah whom we should strive to be like everyday. Like him, I intend to spread a message though arguably smaller on scale. 

 

For example... one of the biggest arguments is 'the government has jets and tanks, so Americans can't hope to fight them'. Well that's simply not true. Tactfully point out that the Russians had tanks and planes during the Warsaw Uprising which was carried out by civilians who fought and died together to earn their rights to what they consider freedom. Inform them that the French Resistance during WWII fought with weapons made in bicycle shops and were extremely effective... and the Nazis had both tanks and planes. Then inform them additionally that the Taliban and ISIS take out American tanks overseas with improvised weapons. 

 

Another argument I hear is that a billion people are killed every year in the US by gun violence. That number is heavily exagerated obviously but the FBI crime statistics show that a conservative number of two million people are saved by defensive use of firearms and that the FBI thinks that number is too small since most people that do not FIRE their handgun in a defensive use of a firearm don't generally report it. Also; most gun violence in the United States is not mass shootings but the result of gang violence in inner cities run by governments that enforce strict gun regulation. 

 

At this point in American history I do not in any right mind see our governments sending troops to march against us in order to take our rights by a mile. They will do it inch by inch and slowly over time through laws and regulations. After all if you boil a toad slowly he will not leap out of the pot rather than dropping him into boiling water which he will flee from. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...