Sweet!
:-)
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/19/2009 7:41:42 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[The frustration of most Americans with the systematic destruction of their country, its society, and its economy, by a handful of corrupt politicians grows daily. It is not that they are not willing to do anything about it, but the fact they do not seem to know what to do. The growth of the tea-party movement and the huge march on Washington are evidence of their eagerness to do "something," but it is equally obvious that demonstrations and a millions articles have done nothing at all, and the leftist "Destroy America" railroad roars on without even noticing the protesters. "What can we do," is the question on everyone's lips. It is obvious, campaigns and movements are not going to do anything. This article lays the groundwork for what can and must be done to bring about a true revolution and it is based on the ignored principles of the true nature of America.]
I am not a pacifist, but there is a common view that if you do not agree with that class of people who always see as the first solution to any problem, killing people and destroying things, you are classified as a pacifist anyway.
I regard war as an evil thing. No good has ever come from any war. That does not mean that things might not have been worse if the war was not fought, only that things would definitely have been better if there had been no war.
I am not opposed to using force, however, when force is the only means left by which one might defend himself and his own from the use, or threat, of force by others. In such a case, I regard not using force to be wrong. But the use of force ought to be the option of last resort. There are other methods of defense (among which I do not include negotiation), but when no other method is going to work, then force is not only justified, but mandatory.
This is the first reason I do not believe the next American revolution ought to be one of force, at least, not initially. I think nothing short of a revolution can restore true individual liberty in this country, but I think a violent revolution, at this stage, would be a mistake, not only for the reason already stated, but also because it will not work, and more importantly, because there is a way that surely would work.
Why A Violent Revolution Will Not Work
A violent revolution could only work if it were totally organized. In spite of the huge numbers of Americans who are frustrated and ready to try anything to restore individual liberty in this country, there is not enough agreement among them to form an organized revolution.
There will no doubt be violence in the future, but it will not be a revolution. It will be what is properly called, "civil unrest," consisting of riots and purposeless attacks on groups of individuals and businesses, and it will be totally counter-productive, because it will give the government an excuse to enact and impose more draconian laws—perhaps even marshal law.
There is another problem; the fact there there can be no "front." Where would the revolution be fought? Certainly Washington DC is not the place, because it is not buildings that are the problem, but the tyrannical pols who would certainly not be there. Not even secession would work, at least at the moment. Most state governments are at least as oppressive as the Federal government, (some more), and no state is dominated by freedom loving individuals. The only state I think might successfully secede is Alaska [and I personally wish it would].
The Nature of the Revolution
There are two classes of people in this country—producers and parasites. Everything of value, the services and products that make life possible and worth living are created and provided by the producers.
Most of us know who the producers are. The producers are everyone who has a job, whether in a factory, a clinic, a store or an office, that provides a product or service. They are every entrepreneur that creates jobs, every doctor, nurse, plumber, electrician, automobile mechanic, and carpenter who works to provide the services and products our very lives depend on.
The parasites are everyone who enjoys the goods and services provided by the producers, but produce nothing of value themselves. The chief parasites are politicians who, with rare exception, have never and could never produce anything of value, but think they ought to have the power to regulate everything the producers create and provide.
The single most recent and blatant example is the so-called Obama-care push. How a whole society could be bilked into believing the incompetent collection of frauds in Washington, who could not apply a band-aid to a minor cut, ought to decide how health-care will to be provided is beyond absurd, but can be understood. Most people really believe their government can provide everyone health care. Most people do not understand that government cannot provide anyone anything except oppression and trouble.
Who are the Rebels
If there is to be a revolution, and there must be if America is to remain a free and prosperous country, the rebels that will bring it about are those producers who are awake enough to know what is happening, and the danger it is to themselves and everything this country is meant to be.
While most producers know there is something very wrong with our country, that the economy is tanking, that jobs are disappearing, that every day one is greeted with new government regulations, taxes, and oppressive outrages, they do not really understand that they are the ones that make all these horrors possible.
The government perpetuates the lie that all the good things people enjoy, from their jobs to their entertainment, is provided and made possible by the government—and most people buy that lie. They buy it, because most are enjoying a good life and haven't a clue about where the things that make that good life possible really do come from.
It is those producers who do know where everything of value comes from that must be the rebels, and the nature of the revolution must be a demonstration that is so dramatic, even the dumbest of both parasites and producers cannot fail to understand it.
The Nature of the Revolt
Without firing a shot, the producers of this country can bring about a total revolution, because everything, including the government, depends on them.
The nature of the revolt is simple—the producers must stop producing—they must go on strike—an organized planned and massive strike.
It will not be necessary for everyone to go on strike, and it would not take a very great number, because the entire economy and structure of this country depends so much on producers faithfully providing all the goods and services required to sustain it, even a small temporary stoppage in the flow of those goods and services will disrupt, or even bring down the entire edifice.
Truckers, For Example
Did you know "trucks deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight ... in the U.S. ... accounting for $671 billion worth of manufactured and retail goods," with an additional, "$295 billion in truck trade with Canada and $195.6 billion in truck trade with Mexico?"
In most cities, "major chain grocery stores carry a five day supply of food," and many less. It is the same for most fuel, and supplies of medicine and perishables is frequently much less.
How long would most American cities be able to survive if 20% of truck deliveries were stopped for two weeks? They would not survive. If just 10% of truck drivers would strike for a month, even the stupidest of people would know who their life and welfare depended on, and they'd know it wasn't the government.
A major strike of truck drivers, say 50% or more, would cause such upheaval and send a message so loud not even the MSM could ignore it.
The Doctors
Doctors have already held one march on Washington and are planning others. The doctors are among the better informed producers. Up to 45% of doctors consider quitting or taking early retirement if Congress passes Obamacare.
But, they do not need to quit. They only need to go on strike. Not only doctors, but every producer in any aspect of medicine—pharmacists, nurses, medical technicians, dentists, optometrists, and all other medical personnel need to stop producing their services for two weeks. Again, it would not have to be all of them, just a large percentage.
These are only two fields of producers. When people began to learn they could not get food, medicine, fuel, or anything else that depended on truck deliveries; when people learned they could not get their medical problems attended too; when they learned what was standing in the way of those things were politicians and bureaucrats (czars) pushing their oppressive "laws" and regulations, when they realized it is was Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Frank, and the rest of that leftist crew that brought on this strike, they would demand their resignation. People tend to panic when they are hungry.
What the parasites, from the welfare recipient to the president, do not understand is that they need the producers, but the producers do not need them, and parasites have nothing to offer the producers except to get out of their way. That is the message and nature of the strike. The producers have to make the parasites understand they will not be slaves any longer, they will not produce under compulsion, and they will not produce anything until the parasites get out of their way.
All Producers
The strike ought to include all producers, because all producers face the same threats from the government. From landscapers to builders, from handy-men to machinists, from bakers to chemical engineers, every profession and every business that uses energy in any form is going to be crippled by the so-called cap-and-trade fraud. Many entrepreneurs will go out of business and many small, as well as large, companies will cease to exist, and all the jobs associated with them will cease to exist as well.
So all of these, landscapers, builders, handy-men, machinists, bakers, chemical engineers, and every other individual producing a product or providing a service needs to be part of this strike.
Nothing to Lose, Everything to Lose
Why should a producer give up his income for a month, or even two weeks? Most won't be willing to make that sacrifice, will they?
This is a revolution, after all. There are some who are seriously talking about taking up arms as though they are willing to risk their lives for the sake of the revolution. It might come to that, but it is not necessary yet. Still, there will be no revolution without a cost. Considering what is at stake, a month without income is a very small sacrifice.
This is what it boils down to. The present government's policies and laws are going to destroy the American economy, what's left of it, and will destroy the life-blood of its industry and business, energy, and further destroy business with it's draconian cap-and-trade tax fraud, while signing away America's sovereignty to every international redistribution-of-wealth scheme that exists.
Those unwilling to sacrifice a few weeks business or income will most likely end up losing all income and their businesses. Those unwilling to intentionally suffer a small loss now, are very likely to end up losing everything, with no way to recover those losses.
But wouldn't such a strike hurt people? You betcha, and the ones it will hurt the most will be those who believe the producers won't dare do it, or that the government will prevent it, and refuse to make preparations for it. The government could prevent it, of course, simply by having all the leftists in it (95% of the pols and bureaucrats) step down and striking down all the bills named in the strikers' demands—a very unlikely possibility.
Organization and Demands
To work, a strike needs specific demands that must be met before the strike will end. I've been using an example time of a month, or two weeks, because I am convinced the consequences of the strike will so terrify the parasites, that in less than two weeks they will be screaming for the striker's demands to be met, at which time I would not bet two cents on the health or longevity of any politician that was not working to see those demands were met. Hungry, cold, sick people, with no relief in sight, tend to be hysterical.
In the next article in this series I'll discuss the kind of demands the strikers ought to make, and how that strike needs to be organized and implemented. It is very simple.
—Reginald Firehammer
“It would be nice if the author could spell ‘martial’ correctly.”
Yes, sweety, it would be “nice.” It should have been “marital.”
Buzz off!
Hank
Anytime, Hank. Glad to be of assistance.
Don't you think so?
Otherwise the author looks sloppy and ignorant putting into jeopardy the excellent points he or she made.
Better sweety?
One, and only one, of those things is specifically within the purview of Congress, under the name by which it was known at the time.
I leave you to discover which one.
Other than that, I agree entirely with the content and spirit of your post.
Excellent. Perhaps you are not a thug, but just a very enthusiastic lover of liberty. I appreciate that. More than you know.
Hank
Well, no. A very busy producer knows that there are countless individuals who will edit his work for free, just by posting it on FR. See, you are an example.
Plese to not think it is not appreciated.
Hank
Ahhhh, I see. A idealist.
The next time someone robs you at gunpoint, or the next time some woman you know gets raped and busted up and you have to visit her in the hospital, or the next time there is a Pearl Harbor, or a Malmedy, or a Belleau Woods or an Antietam and your family’s as well as your country’s ass is on the line, let me know how far the philosophy of “why” gets you.
Why? Because sometimes reality intrudes on our carefully constructed philosophies, and we are forced to act. We fought alongside our ALLIES during WWI because they asked us to, lest they be pushed into the Atlantic. Your suggestion that the South was ready to “evolve” its way out of slavery would be laughable were it not so absurd. How would the government buying all the slaves end the institution of slavery?
Why, then, can you not see it at play with the Obama administration. Don't forget who his mentors and influencers are. They have "doubled down" in an attempt to push the ball irretrievably over their goal line.
The whole thing has been and continues to be put over with a lie and a huge theft. The lie is that the government can provide people something, anything, like healthcare.
As always, par for the course! They could do nothing were they to be honest.
But the government cannot provide anything. All it can do is steal what other’s produce and redistribute it.
Exactly! We are talking about a distribution system and the government is the big dog on top of the pile. The purpose of the Constitution was to limit those areas over which the government had control, or what they could distribute. The Constitution did not place them atop the pile but as only a booth on the main toll road. They could collect a toll but had limited, or no, power over what went where.
The government promises to deliver health-care, but the Doctors know the government cannot deliver anything, and certainly cannot deliver health-care without them. So they are going to quit, and how will Obama-n-company deliver health care then.
How did they do it in the USSR? How do they do it in Cuba? North Korea? China?
You have a very valid point but you are playing their game. The Communists are usually the ones who call strikes to bring a country, or government, down? You are attempting the same game with the wrong people. They will simply crush you.
I am reminded that a passive approach only works with honorable and compassionate people. Had Ghandi tried passive resistance with Mao or Stalin rather than with the British he wouldn't have even been a footnote in history. The brutes always encourage passiveness in their opponents.
Sweet!
:-)
“It means, simply, if a nation’s only means of defence against an invasion is to go to war, and the war successfully repulses the invasion, things would have been worse if the war had not been fought, probably. However it would have been better if there were no invasion, and therefore no necessity of war at all.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I thought that was what the writer was attempting to say but the sentence is a classic example of someone having failed to read what he has just written and ask himself if he has actually said what he meant. The whole problem could have been avoided by adding two words, need for.
What kind of government we actually have is debatable. It is certainly moving toward an oligarchical dictatorship if not there already, we will know by the end of 2010 whether we are past the point of no return, I suspect that we are. It is certainly NOT the constitutional republic we are promised in the now forgotten constitution, everything the congress is trying so hard to pass is in violation of the constitution and should never have even come up for discussion. It is NOT a democracy because that implies majority rule and the current power grabbers care not at all what the majority wants, they only want what suits their power grabbing purpose.
Is it wrong to refuse to fight for your country’s government? Not necessarily morally wrong certainly but it may involve criminal penalties depending on what country and what time period. Of course we all know that what is wrong and what is criminal are two different subjects.
Does it matter what kind of government it is? I would say yes, a just government would only go to war to defend liberty, it may be morally wrong to enjoy the fruits of liberty while expecting others to take all the risks of defending it for you. Of course there probably has never been a case of a nation going to war with unanimous approval of the citizens. Some will always say it is unjustified.
I like your style, Sweety.
“Otherwise the author looks sloppy and ignorant putting into jeopardy the excellent points he or she made.”
Of course. But even the best editors miss things, occasionally, and usually have the opportunity to correct things that were missed. Have a look at the original article, and you’ll see it was corrected before all the criticism, rightly deserved.
How would you suggest an honest error be corrected on FR, I do not care how careful a writer or poster is, inadvertent mistakes make it under the wire, and FR makes no provision for correcting those kinds of mistakes.
Anyway, please know I understand your criticism, and appreciate them.
Hank
My reading sort of ground to a halt at “marshal” law ...
There will no doubt be violence in the future, but it will not be a revolution
This has been in the back of my brain for some time now. I'm concerned that if/when the government gravy train slows, there will be urban unrest. They will get MSM coverage, and the government will not replay the firehosings of the 60's. It took cities decades to rebuild after the civil unrest of that era, and then only after the Reagan revolution. There are plenty of slums in the world that have survived for many years, at a cost of immense human suffering and indignity. Not sure we'd be able to pull out of such a mess.
I'm of the opinion that the one-worlders would not bemoan the loss of the middle class.
TY for the ping.
“I’m of the opinion that the one-worlders would not bemoan the loss of the middle class.”
They would not only not “bemoan” it, but applaud it. It’s exactly what they are aiming at.
Hank
Neither could Albert Einstein.
Well it could be done the way I do it professionally. I look at it one day and forward it to a co-worker for review. That co-worker looks at it, and then returns it to me. I then let it sit for at least 24 hours.
Then I look at it again and forward it to the boss. He looks at it and sends it back to me where I read it a final time word for word as if I've never seen it before.
You see Hank, we write things like this for a living. People actually pay us for sh** like this. If we write crap, that's what we get in return.
If we write well and better than our competition, we are rewarded
Please accept this in the spirit in which it's offered. This kind of thing is too important to be done in a slipshod manner.
Best,
L
You know, you just wrote something similar to what John Adams said! Someone up the thread quoted him saying something (paraphrase)about the real revolution occurring already in the people’s minds or hearts. I remember reading it myself in “John Adams” (by D. McCullough)a few weeks ago!
It seemed to have something to do with the people not tolerating things anymore. The people were getting tired of being overtaxed without representation, of course. But there were other issues too! The people were beginning to feel like they didn’t have to automatically do something or give something they shouldn’t have to do or give, as much or at all, I think. That they were beginning to feel that way, was a rebellion. Though at first it was not violent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.