Second American Revolution

[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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what “myth” you are talking about. I’m quite familiar with the history of the Jews, whom I admire greatly. There were Jews living in what is now called Israel before the state of Israel was created. They did not want a state created. So why is it that no one cared about those Jews, their property and their interests but all fell in line behind the leftist UN statists who forced the unwanted state on those Jews who were already living there.

Unlike you, I’m for the freedom of all men, including all Jews, including all those who are now living, and suffering, in the man-made state of Israel. I, unlike you and your type, do not pick and choose which Jews I’ll happen to support and defend.

I do not expect you to agree with me, almost no one does, but please understand I am not your enemy just because we disagree about a bit history. I said nothing about present day Israel except that I consider it the result of meddling fools. What’s done is done and Israel and the Jews living there now not only have the right to be there, and to defend what is theirs, but deserve the support of all decent people. It’s a terrible mess, though, and I personally think it could all have been avoided.

I really do wish all the Jews who emigrated there had come to the USA. Not only would they now not be living under a constant threat of terrorism and invasion, but would have been a great boon to this country’s prosperity and culture.

I sometimes think those who disagree with me, really prefer seeing innocent men, women, and children blown up and permanently injured and killed by terrorists, rather than living in a free country that would welcome them, and where they would be safe.

Have a nice day.

P.S.

Perhaps you can explain something to me. Why did the majority of Jews in this country vote for Obama? I’ll tell you frankly, I’m not too happy with them. I’ll have to ask my friend Burt Prelutsky, but I think he’ll be just as mystified as I am.

Hank

Yahuda, you get so excited. It’s not good for you. You should have a drink.

Do like someone with a little chutzpa, by the way. I don’t believe you have a hooked nose, but you should have seen my grandmother’s.

My relationship with Burt is very casual, but we do happen to be exactly the same age—whatever that’s worth. But it will give you an idea of the time it has taken for me to form my views and opinions. I’m not a libertarian, and have no desire for my views to be imposed on anyone as some government policy. I lived through most of the events that others only know from the leftist public-school history books.

Do have a good evening.

Hank

I am always surprised (and should not be) when those who are more concerned with promoting their religious agenda than the welfare of the Jews who they use to promote their programs, with no concern whatsoever with how much suffering there programs inflict on innocent Jewish men, women, and children call those who really care about the Jews “anti-Semitic.”

You really think the Jews in Israel are better off there than they would be if the US had offered them sanctuary in the US?

Good grief!

Look, I was about to say you are the anti-Semite, but I know you are not. What I would have meant is, while you have no animosity toward any Jewish people, the policies you espouse are anti-Jewish, because they are harmful to Jews. I know your intentions are good, but there is a famous road paved with good intentions.

Hank

Yes - exactly ... in the fight to regain Liberty ... some of us may be wounded or even killed... this would all be regrettable... but a necessary risk to restore the U.S. Constitution.

Keep in mind the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. Only five people died — but the wildfire of citizen reaction helped to eventually set off the firestorm of Revolution...

Only FOOLS would mount forceful removal of American Citizens in a massive March on DC - all done in a peaceful manner... a non violent demonstration - a massive and passive resistance by millions of U.S. Citizens -— only fools...

If such a protest demonstration was met in a violent manner by police and/or an unconstitutional use of the U.S. Military - the entire country would revolt...

Obama can be neutered like the mangy ally cat that he is - IF ONLY we can muster Three to Four Million People to MARCH ON DC.

This guy goes on to say the following:

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.

Huh?

If anyone can discern an actual meaning that is not entirely self-contradictory in that mish-mash of words, and explain it cogently, I'll offer a reward of praise.

I don't think it can be done.

That's basically my opinion too, I'm very convinced of the real possibility of localized, perhaps even regional conflicts and am planning accordingly. The disquieting part is that this isn't the 1930's or 1950's, and human personal behaviors have taken a real slide towards the worst since those times. The veneer of civilization is pretty thin in a lot of regards anymore and there are some real uncouth idiots wandering loose, many with drug addled brains. What happened with New Orleans serves as a credible sample of what may go on, spanning trouble in a radius for many miles away. A big question would be the timing of such troubles and the specific circumstances they might occur under.

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.