[Blain]

Is it time yet for the next revolution?

[Tamara]

What do you think, sir?

Do you understand what, exactly, that would mean? What it would entail? Are you ready now? Are things that intolerable yet? Can you not find any freedom within your own personal life using a simple "refuse and resist" policy?

[Glock Glockler]

No.

Two things need to occur: 1) people's standard of living have to decline to the point where it is a logical choice to risk one's life to create a situation where one's life might be improved, and 2) there must be some type of common purpose to unify the myriad of factions in the country.

If those are not present the majority of people will sell you out because they're afraid that some disaffected minority will cause trouble for them by bringing down the Jun horde. I'm sorry, my friend, I understand your frustration and anger, it often comes to those of us that are young and unbound, but success will lie in the harder path that require us to delay our gratification.

Check your PM

[C.R.Sam]

Yup.

Armed with the vote stead of firearms.
As advocated by Jackson or Jefferson.

Sam

[Zundfolge]

nope


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

[Duncan Idaho]

I think it might be over at DU.

I think they are planning to come for our guns armed with their B.O. and their hemp-fiber "man-purses". :scrutiny: :uhoh: :rolleyes:

Let 'em come. ;) :p :evil:

[Ian]

The more I read about resistance/guerrilla/militia/partisan wars, the more it seems that the resisting population usually wins only after suffering horrendous amounts of death and property destruction. The consequences of an armed revolution should NOT be taken lightly. Far better for now to live free as an individual, unless you relish the idea of a short and violent life. Resist passively...evasion and non-cooperation can get you a lot.

Do Freedom! (http://www.doingfreedom.com)

[Thumper]

Vic (newprolificposter) Vega,

Well said...

Though the natterings of Feinstein et al sometimes make me think it's time to raise Mencken's black flag, some of us really need to stop and smell the roses.

This place ain't half bad.

[Blain]

"1) people's standard of living have to decline to the point where it is a logical choice to risk one's life to create a situation where one's life might be improved, and 2) there must be some type of common purpose to unify the myraid of factions in the country."

The founding fathers revolted for reasons other than the two listed here....

I suppose you are right, however. It will take more tyranny and hardships before people are waken out of their slumber, and realize just what time it is!

[farranger]

I agree with most everyone so far. However, when the time comes, and it probably will someday, don't wait until it's really hit the fan. By then it's too late if you want to be on the winning side. Don't ask me when that time might be 'cause I don't know. I guess it will be like the SC judge who said, "I can't define obsenity but I know it when I see it". I guess I'll just know it when I see it.

[HBK]

Not yet, but sometimes when I read about potential gun banning legislation, it feels like it. But it isn't time yet.

[Croyance]

I suppose you are right, however. It will take more tyranny and hardships before people are waken out of their slumber, and realize just what time it is! Time to vote to repeal laws they disagree with?

[JitsuGuy]

Go to www.blackboxvoting.org and .net. After researching that, you'll have less confidence in your vote and the system that governs it. So maybe "voting" isn't really the answer either.

Jits

[Wildalaska]

Revolution...yeah right..

WildmeethenewbosssameastheoldbossAlaska

[tyme]

The Democrats would like you to believe this is still the 1930's during the Depression. Screw that! Times have never been better. Hey Blain, times are so tough, you are sitting in a nice home, at a nice computer, with running water in your home, food in your refridgerator, a television, probably two vehicles in your garage, furniture, ac or equivilent, a job, guns!, a military that just kicked a$$ and took a country in less than 100 days, a fine president that stands by his beliefs, and you ask if it is time for a revolution???? Hardly!
Yep. All there is to life is a nice home, a nice computer, running water, food, tv, vehicles, and some other artifacts of modern living. :rolleyes:

This may not be the time for revolution, but I find it difficult to believe that the above quote contains the reasons why.

[Geech]

It's illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the government. It's something to keep in mind.

[MicroBalrog]

We don't need a violent revolution...

but what if a sufficiently large amount of people simply, peacefully, refused to comply?

[Blain]

It's illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the government. It's something to keep in mind.


Not according to the Founding Fathers and Constitution it's not.....just who's laws ARE you following?


Voting is a sham, it accomplishes nothing and at the same time helps cyphon off the revolutionary energies of the people. They think they are making a difference when in actuallity they are doing nothing. Every major election and vote is not quite as honest and fair as you believe them to be.

About the guy who was talking about the modern comferts of living....the most subdued slave is a happy one. And though we have enjoyed quite a standard of living for a while, it won't be lasting much longer, of that I can assure you.

[Combat-wombat]

If this thread is illegal, then dammit, it actually might be time!

[tyme]

Blain, there's the Sedition Act of 1798 and the Smith Act of 1940. And with the Patriot Act, rather than being immediately charged under, say, the Smith Act, you'd be held as an enemy combattant and threatened with indefinite imprisonment without access to a lawyer. Your only option would be to plea to whatever other crimes you might be charged with... a few NFA violations, for instance.

Voting may be a sham, but advocating overthrow of the government isn't too likely to be productive either. Just running a website advocating such stuff and with links to instructions on how to make explosives is enough to get you jailtime (www.raisethefist.com).

[NukemJim]

No, for many reasons.

Unfortunetly the time may come but I have doubts about any revoution succedding given the command and control capabilities given to the feds by the computers. Hope we never have to find out.

The human cost of such an event would be horrendus. Plus the majoirty of people on "entitlement" programs would be helping the govement so they could continue to get their "entitlements".

I do agree more is required than just voting. The political system is bad but the alternative is far worse IMHO.

NukemJim

[brownie0486]

My standard of living is not going to last much longer?

Who's crystal ball have you been looking into?

Assure me of the above? Please explain how you can assure everyone here their standard of living isn't going to last much longer please.

I believe it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government as another mentioned. Where in the constitution do you get it is allowed to conspire to overthrow the US gov?

People who have only been on earth for all of 2 decades or less probably don't know how good they have it in this country. I see many young people complain how bad it is out there. They usually haven't lived through enough to make a comparison between today and yesterday, so how to hell can they make any case for how bad it is, let alone ask if it is time for revolutions.

Enlist, go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia and fight for freedoms and against oppression. When you get back you will likely have a better understanding about just what others older than yourself have given you relative the freedoms you enjoy yet find unbearable.

Brownie

[Marko Kloos]

I have no interest in a revolution. I have no desire to trade one bunch of statist thugs for another.

There are very few people in this country who understand the Bill of Rights and the proper role of government. Any group that has the numbers to be successful in any sort of revolution is just likely to implement their own brand of statist Prohibitionism. The current system is deeply flawed...not because the system itself is set up wrong, but because most people just cannot bear the idea that they cannot tell their neighbor what to do. No matter how unequivocal you can word a Constitution, inside of fifty years you'll have the same sort of people claiming the same sort of right to command the guns of the state. Why would I want to trade the United States of America for a theocracy, or some brand of eco-fascism, or some neo-puritan nationalism?

I will not help another group of people into power, only to have *them* to tell me what to do. I don't need a piece of parchment to tell me that I have the right to speak my mind and the right to own whatever weapons I please. I don't need a bunch of black-robed High Priests of Statism to tell me that owning other people or helping myself to their property is wrong. I don't care how many people with guns are willing to enforce the laws on the books. The fact that they can get together enough of their institutionalized mob violence to lock me up does not make their laws one bit more just or moral.

I am already my own republic, wherever I go. In the words of Robert Heinlein, I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

[Tamara]

It will take more tyranny and hardships before people are waken out of their slumber, and realize just what time it is!

What time is it?

Look, complaining about tyranny and hardships while coddled safe in the middle-class breast of early 21st Century America is going to draw a few chuckles from people who've actually seen tyranny and hardship.

The reason voting isn't the answer right now isn't because the Bilderbergers have used UFO technology from the Roswell crash site to hack the electoral process, but because most folks genuinely want to feel safe, to have cameras put up everywhere, to have their cars and luggage and bodily fluids searched at airports and random roadblocks to protect them from terrorists and drunk drivers and gun-owning weirdos. They, oddly enough, think they're the ones who are wide awake, and that those who see a member of the Trilateral Commission under every bed and a Bavarian Illuminatus behind every door are the ones who don't know what time it is.

[Soap]

Brownie, Marko, and Tam, very well said!

[MicroBalrog]

Why such bi-polar thinking?

Do you really think the only two choices are violent revolution and voting?

[seeker_two]

Is it time yet?

Not yet, but in about 10 years... :scrutiny:

Now's the time to "stock the pantry", so to speak...:uhoh:

[tyme]

Anyway, who wants a revolution when we're so close to a Platonic Republic? :o

[Nightfall]

Not yet.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
So exactly how many unregistered machine guns do you own? What about post ‘94 ‘assault rifles' with all the goodies like a bayonet mount, pistol grip, and a telescopic stock? Or is such tolerable? No, this isn't really a serious question, just hypothetical meandering. :)

[spartacus2002]

When the costs of compliance exceed the costs of noncompliance, that's when you will see Mr. and Mrs. America decide they're mad as hell and ain't gonna take it no more.

Oh, I give it 10 years, when the first huge waves of baby boomers start helping themselves from the Social Security kitty, only to find it's bare......... and the congresscritters raise the Soc. Sec. tax from 7.5% to, say 25%.

Remember, there is one thing the elderly do that nobody else does, God bless them. They VOTE -- and Congress knows it.

I've got nothing against the elderly, but I don't want to see myself or my children sold into tax slavery.

[brownie0486]

Hey, hey, easy there pal.

I'm one of the boomers you speak of. I have paid about 20 times more into the sysytem than what I'm getting out of the system one day.

No one wants to give another a feee ride. Just remember, it hasn't been a free ride for us older folks, we have kicked in plenty.

Brownie

[Mike Irwin]

"The founding fathers revolted for reasons other than the two listed here...."

Yes, there are...

And a LOT of them simply aren't noble enough to ever be taught in school.

Some of them were pretty blatantly self-serving and selfish to an amazing degree.

[KMKeller]

Mike,

Stop teasing, enlighten!

[Deepdiver]

Is it time yet for the next revolution?


Absolutely NOT! Unless you mean by use of the ballot box.

[Cosmoline]

No. But the foundation is being laid. The divisions between people and states are growing larger, as left states head further left and right states head further right. On the RKBA front, some states adopt CCW laws and some (like Alaska) are dropping the old restrictions altogether. We'll see more of this as more and more gun owners flee the left-leaning states, while more and more leftists flee the right-leaning states.

In the end we'll have two blocks of states, and many states divided between rural and urban counties. You can see this division emerge on the last electoral college map. It could change, but my bet is it gets more intense with every election. Candidates will campaign in fewer states as fewer states are up for grabs. The rest will be givens, one way or the other.

Give it twenty more years of this, and we may be on the brink. A national law attempting to impose strict gun control might set off revolt, or it might be something else. But, just like the last civil war, it will start with the states. You'll know the time has arrived when you see governors attempt to seize control of their national guard bases. You'll know it's REALLY hit the fan when guardsmen refuse federalization orders. You'll know it's time to lock and load when they start making their own uniforms and flags. The unorganized militia will play a key role, but that role may be to fill the ranks of a rebel army, just like it did in 1860.

Keep your powder dry in the mean time and hope it never happens, cause the second one will make the first one look like a mild dispute.

[HBK]

Wasn't it Jefferson who said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots." ? THe founding fathers built revolution into the constitution. They knew that the form of government they gave us would allow evil men to take power and they allowed if that happened for us to revolt and throw them out of office. I don't think now is the time for a violent revolution, but I do believe our founding fathers would expect us to react with force as they did instead of becoming obedient little sheep.

[Gordon Fink]

The founding fathers revolted for reasons other than [those] listed here.…

Blain is entirely correct.

Revolutions tend to occur during times of rising expectations. The people (such as the American colonists) get a taste of freedom and want more. The powers that be resist or try to backpedal, and the people revolt.

Here and now, in the early 21st-century United States, expectations are mostly falling. The people currently expect less prosperity, less peace, and less freedom. Meanwhile, the state is growing ever more powerful, even as its actual direction quietly falls more and more to influential non-state actors.

This conglomeration of oligarchic power is historically unprecedented. In fact, the state will soon become so powerful, that with the concomitant weakening of the people, it is difficult to see how any future revolution could possibly succeed. Human wisdom notwithstanding, a large-scale economic and social collapse appears more likely in the near term than a revolution.

~G. Fink

[Mike Irwin]

"Stop teasing, enlighten us!"

OK, just a few...

Sam Adams, pretty much the driving force behind the Sons of Liberty. There are some signifcant parallels that can be drawn between the SoLs and groups such as Hitler's Brown Shirts and Mussolini's Black Shirts.

Adams was, by and large, motivated out of a personal sense of revenge. He blamed the British by and large for the failure of his many business attemps, when the simple fact of the matter was that he was just a lousy business man.

Southern Planters. The anti-slave trade and abolitionist movements were beginning to gain quite a bit of steam in Britain in the 1760s and 1770s, and was finally outlawed in 1807. The Southern Planters, many of whose livlihoods depended on the ability to get a steady supply of slaves, were quite worried about the situation.

Once the Continential Congress removed anti-slavery wording from the Declaration, the Southern Planters threw their support behind the effort, with the tacit understanding between all parties that if independence was won, the issue of slavery wouldn't come up again for a long time.

Southern AND Northern commercial interests wanted the ability to freely trade with nations other than Britain. Because of British restrictions on trade with nations such as France and Holland (which were either unfriendly or outright hostile to Britiain), men such as John Hancock became inveterate smugglers.

George Washington. Washington also was likely movtivated in part by a personal sense of honor and outrage. He had applied for admission to the British Army as an officer, and was rejected, what with being a colonial and all.

An egotist of pretty impressive proportions, he professed to NOT want command of the Continential Army when it was being organized....

All while wearing his old French & Indian War militia uniform in the Congress.


Add to the list of those who wanted to see Britain cast off for personal reasons was Benjamin Franklin. As an American representative in Britain, he was caught in some rather seedy intrigue, was summoned to I believe the House of Commons, and was soundly harrangued for several hours.

Those are just a few of the seedier reasons why some of the Founding Fathers supported the quest for independence.

Don't think, however, that all were motivated by purely personal reasons. There were some true idealists among the Founding Fathers, those who believed in the concepts of Liberty, governemnt that acquiesced to the will of the people, instead of the other way round, etc.

Even so, when Independence was gained, the Founders did set about creating a system that was new, but adopted many of the tenets of the British system. The Monarchy was done away with, but only after quite a few of the Founders wanted to install George Washington as.... Executive for Life. In other words, a king.

And, for all their high words and thoughts about the equality of man and how governemnt should be an organ of the people, it was a LONG time before voting restrictions and regulations actually included more than just a small portion of the population as qualified voters.


In short? What's taught in school, and what is generally know, is only the pretty sweet icing on a cake that's not quite so tasty.

[Mike Irwin]

"Revolutions tend to occur during times of rising expectations. The people (such as the American colonists) get a taste of freedom and want more."

I'd have to say, then, that in the case of the American revolution, this really wasn't the case.

[Gordon Fink]

How so?

~G. Fink

[grampster]

The bloody American Revolution already happened over 200 years ago.
The Constitution was written in that blood.

The Civil War ratified that Constitution with more blood.

Participation in the process that was set up and ratified with blood is what is necessary.

One of the founders, Franklin I think, said when asked by the wife of one of his peers if they had given us a democracy "No, madam, we have given you a republic, if you can keep it."

So, use the tools that have already been bought and paid for with blood. Encourage those that you know to do the same. Our problem is not those who would take our freedoms away, rather, it is with those who stand idly by and tolerate it. But, violence is not necessary, only that we use the process that causes paradigms with no violence. You saw it work in the last presidential election!

grampster

[Mike Irwin]

"Not according to the Founding Fathers and Constitution it's not.....just who's laws ARE you following?"

Uh, yeah, it IS. Whose Constitution are you reading? Or are you thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence was recognized by the Founders as being ILLEGAL as hell under any law that they knew, and that they would, if they failed, pay for the effort with their lives.

Supposedly Jefferson offered this quote as justification of the writing of a declaration-- "to place the facts before the world in terms so clear as to command to their assent."

In other words, as noted in the musical 1776, Jefferson was attempting to establish a legal footing, at least in common view, that a rebellion is actually a lawful act.

Then we also have the point that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a document of law in the United States. It has absolutely no judicial standing at all, and never has.

Finally, the Founders and the Framers (many of whom were the same people), wrote into the Constitution this little bit in Section 3, Clause 1...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

[Mike Irwin]

What expectations were rising?

Roughly 2/3rds of the population were perfectly content with continued alliance with Britain, preferring to remain subjects of the King. Their expectations were firmly settled.

The expectations of many of the Founders had more to do with personal economies or grievances than they did with altruistic aims. Those expectations may have been rising, but is the rise of the expectation of getting revenge for a real or imagined ill really the basis upon which to begin a rebellion?

[AmericanFreeBird]

No, and I'll tell you why.

What was that that Thomas Jefferson said (I think?) "Ether we all hang together or we will surely all hang separately."

Read these responses from the "pro-gun" folks who might sort of agree with you. If they are willing to tolerage the slow boiling process then you know damn well Mr. Average American is fat and content to boil slowly to death. If your pro-rights friends won't support you, no one will.

You've got to wait until the Ann Coulter's and Shawn Hannities of America are speaking out against the tyranny. Without some press, and some genuine discontent on a large scale you're the lone ranger.

AFB

[Mike Irwin]

Bird,

That quote is generally attributed to Franklin, and generally only in the context that all members of the Continental Congress would have to sign the Declaration, or would have to resign.

John Dickinson refused to sign the Declaration out of personal conscience and resigned from the Congress.

[Gordon Fink]

Roughly 2/3rds of the population were perfectly content with continued alliance with Britain, preferring to remain subjects of the King. Their expectations were firmly settled.

Indeed. However, the American Revolution did, in fact, occur. Naturally, it had leaders. The rest of the folks came around to the idea later.


The expectations of many of the Founders had more to do with personal economies or grievances than they did with altruistic aims. Those expectations may have been rising, but is the rise of the expectation … really the basis upon which to begin a rebellion?

Never said the Founders’ motives were altruistic or anything but selfish. Folks came over. Some got rich or richer, and they liked that arrangement. Many also felt that they had helped England defeat France in the Seven Years’ War and figured they deserved some respect for that. But Parliament and King backpedaled, denying the colonials any additional authority and rolling back some self-rule that they had acquired. Then Parliament decided to impose a few taxes (minor by today’s standards), and you know the rest.

In times of crisis, nations tend to pull together rather than to fracture. We did so briefly after September 11th. Yugoslavians rallied behind Milosevic during the NATO air campaign in 1999. Germans, even those who didn’t support Nazism, labored on in the war industries under Allied strategic bombing during the Second World War.

Human wisdom notwithstanding, America must hit bottom before another revolution becomes truly plausible. By then, however, we will have lost the tools of resistance.

Of course, none of this rules out the possibility of some kind of counter-revolutionary event, if it’s the “other side” that starts the “revolution,” given that I’ve already discounted human wisdom in general.

~G. Fink

[Joe Demko]

No, it isn't time for the next revolution. On the internet, though, it is always time for masturbatory fantasies of overthrowing the system. Remember that "ultimate shotgun" and that M1A that are such sources of pride to you? Quit looking at them as the solutions to everything that you think is wrong with your life and with society.

[Mike Irwin]

"However, the American Revolution did, in fact, occur. Naturally, it had leaders. The rest of the folks came around to the idea later."

It did? And here I thought it was just something made up to fill history books. :)

The point remains, however, is that with two thirds of the nation either ambivilent, or openly hostile, to you stated aims, it's hard to say that it was a period of rising expectations.

[Gordon Fink]

Okay. If expectations weren’t rising, then they must have been either static or falling. Which were they?

The expectations and actions of the leaders are what matter. That’s why they’re called leaders.

Clearly, you don’t agree with the rising-expectations thesis. Would you care to share an alternative thesis?

~G. Fink

[TearsOfRage]

Soon, perhaps, but not quite yet. Ask that question again when it gets to where everyone has a family member, friend, or neighbor who's been directly harmed by the government.

For now its time to network and to educate.

The more you network, the sooner TS will HTF for someone you know personally. Then you won't be asking whether its time.

Meanwhile, we need to win hearts and minds (no sarcasm intended). Wake up the sleeping giant. There are plenty of people now who are like I was only a few years ago - "Well of course I hate and fear the gov, always have, I mean duh, they wanna put me in jail for smoking the wrong kind of plant (or whatever), but you can't fight city hall". I've woken up two people in the last year and had some effect on a third.

We each only have one life to give, don't waste it.

[MeekandMild]

Blain, no offence intended but that is probably the dumbest question I've ever heard here. Where have you been the last 40 years?

The truth is we are hip deep in an ongoing leftist/socialist revolution and have been getting deeper since the mid 1960's. My friend, we the general citizenry, the LEOs, the retired military, the churchgoers, the farmers and the businessmen are the COUNTER revolutionaries, the bourgeouse capitalist pig-dogs who stand in the way of revolution. If you don't believe me all you have to do is turn on any of the major networks and watch four hours of consecutive prime time television. :(

[JitsuGuy]

MeekAndMild, actually, the truth is that things don't change... Ron Paul summed this up around a month ago with his speech titled "Neo-Conned." We're living the "frog and boiling water" theory. Slowly but surely, more and more rights are being stripped from America, we're taxed beyond the initial intent of taxes and the people that are there to represent us don't do it. Then you have the ever expanding hand of government through this Homeland Security bs and for what? All in the name of "security." "Just tell the people they're being attacked and they'll willfully give up their rights." Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The inherent nature of government, any government is to grow and grow and grow. But for some odd reason to many people, the thought of tyranny in america is impossible... As if we're immune and corruption is only isolated to business and not government... This is not the thought of the founding fathers and it's why the Constitution was written the way it was.



Jits

[Soap]

Golgo- Frank...and dead on.

[Blain]

vic you seem confused....I want our freedom back, not pointless possessions!

MeekandMild I heard that same type of theory on the Alex Jones show ;) That could or could not be true, but either way it matters little, the results are still the same. The same thing is needed.

It will only get much worse, and a lot sooner than you think.

The elites have BIG plans for us....

[Mike Irwin]

Gordon,

It would actually be a lot more productive if you were to define what you personally mean by "rising expectations."

Is that a positive or a negative thing?

Are the expectations rising that Britain is going to take even more steps to crush my commerce and bend the state governments to its will while slathering on additional taxes?

Or are the expectations rising of forming a shining new "city on a hill," a place where the ideals of Greco-Roman democracy will be reborn anew from the ruin, scandal, and carnality of the old system?

Just what expectations to you think were rising in colonial America?

I'm really very curious as to what you mean, because for the life of me I really can't fathom what you're getting at. Truthfully. I'm not trying to be a smart ???, but I'm just not sure by what you mean by it.


I'd have to say that a period of revolution is more a series of rollercoastering emotions -- rising fear and uncertainty one moment, perhaps sheer terror at some points, resignation, trepidation, hope, determination, despair...

In other words, the whole smorgastborg.

Only in a time when you're trying to lead your "nation" into an armed insurrection, it's probably a lot more "what in the name of God have we gotten ourselves in to."

The history books feed us a lot of "the stony determination of men who were cut into marble for the ages."

Bull:cuss:

If you do nothing else in your life, start hitting the large libraries and READ the letters of these people -- not just the leaders, but the common people, as well.

Don't read the homogonized, sanitized, and completely thesisized versions that you get in books.

Read the originals.

My college is fortunate in that it holds most of the collected papers of John Dickinson and has significant holdings in the papers of Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, some Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin materials, and huge collections of letters from other community leaders who lived through the Revolution.

It was when I got to reading these letters for class projects that I began to realize that a lot of what we've been told about the stoic, but unyielding determination of the whole of the American people to be free of the yoke of British imperialism blah blah blah blah was just unmitigated bull:cuss:.

I'd have to say, though, that one of the predominant themes in the letters of the people in the revolutionary period isn't of rising expectations. Most of these people didn't see their lives immediately getting so much better under an American governemnt vs a British goverment.

It's confusion, trepidation, and fear.

[Tamara]

It will only get much worse, and a lot sooner than you think.

The elites have BIG plans for us....

How much simpler it would be if there actually were a monolithic, evil, "THEY".

Out of curiousity, would you care to share those plans?

_____________
Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice. -generally attributed to Napoleon.

[Coronach]

Lines secure, Space Dog.

[Mike Irwin]

"How much simpler it would be if there actually were a monolithic, evil, "THEY"."

Oh, but there IS a monolithic, entrenched evil, Tams. It exists all around it.

The very air we breath, the water we drink, the clouds in the sky, are controlled by it.

It, though, is actually a collaboration of forces -- the Reptillian Aliens, the Illuminati, the Council of 13 Jews, the United Nations, the LiberDemoRepublicrats, Bill & Hillary Clinton, the Masons, and in charge this month, C. Montgomery Burns.

The fluoride in our drinking water is actually for mind control purposes, the flu shot is actually nothing more than government tracking devices, our money is green because the neo-Pagan earth sisters control the US Mint, the list just goes on and on....

And if you wrap yourself in tin foil? You're just making their jobs easier. You show up REALLY brightly on their radar screens...

[Art Eatman]

Looking at the revolutionary actions of the last fifty or so years, I just don't see any way we'd have something here that would lead to an overthrow of the existing system.

The "foot soldiers" available to the Communists in the Philippines, or Cuba or Nicaragua or wherever, here have already been co-opted by social programs.

Potential foot soldiers such as the gangs in the ghettos are not--IMO--dumb enough to believe there is any chance of them coming to political power. I believe the leadership of those groups realize that they exist on sufferance of the vast majority of the citizenry.

Regardless of political affiliation, the average citizen is unaffected by many of the philosophical ideas that perturb those who keep a close watch on government. He can go to the mall or a movie; he can travel freely on such vacations as he can afford, and is free to hunt or fish or go out to dinner at a McDonald's or a Ruth's Chris steakhouse. Against what would he revolt?

Any revolution must have some sort of message that life will be both philosophically and physically better for the majority of the citizenry--except, of course, some "Evil Elite". The majority of US citizens aren't particularly interested in philosophy, and generally are as physically well off as they want to be.

Anyhow, that's the way I see what I think is the Real World in which we now live...

Art

[TallPine]

free to hunt or fish or go out to dinner at a McDonald's or a Ruth's Chris steakhouse

Not when the gun-grabbers and PETA folks and Fat Police are done with us ....

[longeyes]

Strongly recommend use all available electoral means first. Stop.

Have not begun yet to really be politically active. Stop.

Every citizen a politician. Stop.

[Gordon Fink]

It would actually be a lot more productive if you were to define what you personally mean by “rising expectations.”

Is that a positive or a negative thing?

Sorry, Mike! I thought my terminology was self-evident. My mistake.

By “rising expectations,” I mean that the people or at least the leading elements of society have the idea that life can and should be better. When this expectation is countered by the powers that be, the situation becomes ripe for revolution. The people expect more freedom, wealth, etc., and they are willing to fight for it.

If they don’t expect things to be better, they have no reason to fight. This is how I would describe the early 21st-century United States. We expect less economic prosperity, less peace, and less freedom. After all, we have to make sacrifices for the cause of the week.


The history books feed us a lot of “the stony determination of men who were cut into marble for the ages.”

If you do nothing else in your life, start hitting the large libraries and READ the letters of these people—not just the leaders, but the common people, as well.

Read the originals.

It was when I got to reading these letters … that I began to realize that a lot of what we’ve been told about the stoic, but unyielding determination of the whole of the American people to be free of the yoke of British imperialism … was just unmitigated bull.…

Mike, I’ve also read a lot of the same material. However, I find what you’re saying to be somewhat disingenuous: “The vast majority of the people didn’t want revolution, and their leaders were unimportant.” So the American Revolution just happened without any human input?


Most of these people didn’t see their lives immediately getting so much better under an American governemnt vs a British goverment.

Are you talking about the common people or the Revolutionaries? Either way, you’re right … but for different reasons. Most people, then as now, were apathetic. The Revolutionaries, on the other hand, realized that even if they were successful, the post-war period wouldn’t necessarily be easy. They believed, however, that they were working for something better in the long run.


I’d have to say that a period of revolution is more a series of rollercoastering emotions—rising fear and uncertainty one moment, perhaps sheer terror at some points, resignation, trepidation, hope, determination, despair....

I don’t disagree with you on the idea of a constantly shifting range of emotions. However, if emotions such as resignation and despair (i.e., falling expectations for the future) dominate an era, no one will be fighting a revolution. This, again, is why the early 21st-century United States is not ripe for another revolution … at least not a liberty-bringing revolution.

~G. Fink

[mnealtx]

Marko said:

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do

Would you mind if I included that in my sig? Properly referenced back to you, of course...

[Mike Irwin]

"“The vast majority of the people didn’t want revolution, and their leaders were unimportant.”

Gordon,

There's nothing "disingenuious" about it. The history books are disingenuious.

Virtually to a book they give the impression that "AND THE WHOLE OF THE AMERICAN CONTINENT (except for a few whining bastard tories) ROSE UP IN RIGHTEOUS REBELLION. THE LEGIONS OF THE MAN-GOD GEORGE WASHINGTON WERE VAST AND TERRIBLE!"

Most conservative estimates are that 2/3rds of the people in the colonies, or roughly 2.1 of the approximately 3.3 million people here at the time, either supported continued alliance with Britain (Tories) or were completely ambivilent toward the concept of independence, and took no active part in .

I don't know about you, but I'd have to say that yes, that's a pretty vast majority.

In a day and age when 50% of the few people that do vote constitutes a mandate, and 55% constitutes a landslide, yes, 66% constitutes a vast majority.

And the simple matter of the fact is that the vast majority of the people in America at the time just didn't give a damn.

"However, if emotions such as resignation and despair (i.e., falling expectations for the future) dominate an era, no one will be fighting a revolution."

Take a look at the desertion rates from the American army. It's estimated that over the course of the war, anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3rds of the men who signed on to serve in the army ended up deserting.

Take a look at the inflation rates, and the simple unavailability of many stable items.

Througout the 8 years of war, American expectations and outlook as a whole were continually falling given the economic, social, and military pressures both the people and the Army were under.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A lot of what people think they know about the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary period is largely frosting slathered over the very ugly inside.

Finally, as for expectations, yes, I'd have to say you're probably right. Expectations are rising, but only for a VERY small group of the population. Those who are disaffected enough to try to push an entire nation toward rebellion. Some for altruistic reasons, but far too many others largely for selfish and/or petty reasons.

Remember, with two-thirds of the nation either supporting Britain (their expectations are probably falling), or ambivilient toward the whole process (their expectations are about dinner and their next beer), we're right back into that situation how vast is vast.

You probably think I have a very jaundiced and cynical eye about American history.

In all actuality, no.

It's about how that history is collected, packaged, and fed to people that really pisses me off.

[Marko Kloos]

Would you mind if I included that in my sig? Properly referenced back to you, of course...

Don't credit me, but the originator of the quote: Robert A. Heinlein.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

[Gordon Fink]

Mike, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Now I’m confused! :confused:

We both agree that the reality of the American Revolution bears little resemblance to the myth of the American Revolution. (But don’t repeat that too loudly, lest the true believers accuse us of “revisionism.”) Nevertheless, the Revolution did happen, and I’ll have to trust the history I’ve studied on that point. It happened amid widespread apathy, though, I must assume, less apathy than we see today. Something triggered it.

As we’ve wandered off the topic of this thread, I’ll let our discussion of historiographic theories and historical causation end for now.

~G. Fink

[tyme]

(tallpine) Not when the gun-grabbers and PETA folks and Fat Police are done with us ....
Maybe not... there are crossbows, and then there's tofu. :evil: