Time for revolution? Really? Where should we draw the lines?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by RedBird

 

If I'm not mistaken that is the story of Cincinnatus is it not?

Similar story, but a different instance.

Cincinnatus' first appointment as Dictator occurred about a dozen years before the incident which I detailed in my post, and his second term as dictator occurred shortly after. That is, unless I am mistaken - I accidentally left my copy of the Early History of Rome on the counter at Safeway while I was buying groceries today. Which kind of sucks.

reply to post by The Vagabond


No, I think you misunderstood me. Or I misunderstood you. I just want people to stop compromising what is right and wrong and pointing the finger at something else. In your scenario, I would just shoot the b@S* before he got 10ft away let alone the school zone!

i marvel at how people in the usa co-operate with the overlords.
i suppose we have few options. a few go nuts and shoot it out..
But the nation was taken by force -and force of arms hold it together.
der Homeland is layered with security- armed to the teeth..
Fema is totally militarized, as is CDC, IRS, ATF, FBI. NSA.
But the usa has a Huge prison population at 2.3 million
LEADING CHINA IN THE MANUFACTURE OF INMATES!
what line are you able to draw pilgrim?
the swat team will take you down so again-
what line that you draw means squat? esta nada..
so lets see ,the shot gun has a range of say 50 yards-
so theres my line. i fughin well wont go quietly -
unless i get a kel-tech sub 2000 with a silencer.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Wouldn't a violent revolution who's goal it is to remove the Constitutionally elected government of the United States count as war against the United States?

Or is this just a thinly veiled verbal threat in order to influence votes in the upcoming race? Are you basically saying that if we don't vote for whom you want us to vote for, then there will be a violent revolution and those that opposed your candidates will be targeted?

Ho hum.

A question is posed.

"At what point do we mutually agree that we will not only object to the authorities, but attempt to stop them in some way?"

There is a problem, however. Many of us have objected to this authorities ever since we were old enough to comprehend the injustice of following the tyrannical regime set forth to guide us. Many, will draw no line whatsoever and continue to follow through with their allegiance no matter how controlling it gets. Others might be somewhere in the middle.

The problem is the word "mutually". There will never be a point when people mutually agree because the system itself is designed to have us in constant disagreement. Every single issue and defining moment in our lives is lead to be a choice that will set us apart from fellow man, and every "news anchor" and politician has the job of pointing out our differences and expanding on them. This situation is no different.

The sad fact is, the people that give an absolute "NO" to any kind of revolution, will never agree to it. We live in society where minds are made up before the options or information is even known. Therefore, much like any other revolution in the past, it will be made up of the few "enlightened" ones while those who are against such things will either try to get in the way or step aside.

Am I saying that those who DO want revolution are more enlightened than those who don't? Absolutely at this point. Is anybody going to stand there and say that the colonies were wrong to revolt against England? Is anyone going to say that the French DIDN'T deserve their independence and should have gone about it differently?

At the very least, those who teeter on the edge of revolution at least have the guts to step out of the pipe dream of trying to change the system using the system itself. It is the equivalent of trying to cook a chili pepper using it's own heat. Try as much as you like but no matter how "hot" that pepper might be, it will NEVER cook itself. That being said, the system will never "cook" itself either, and will never allow it to get far enough that it would be capable. Therefore, when such a situation exists, the only way to move forward is to work outside of the system to change it. Revolution is a way to do such.

As far as drawing lines, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence do it well enough. They are BOTH standing documents in our history and thus both hold ground when it comes to what the people are allowed and not allowed to do under such circumstances. While it can be stretched that the Constitution vaguely prohibits a declaration of war against the United States as treason, the Declaration of Independence paints it clear that the people of the country are bestowed with the RIGHT and DUTY to revolt should the government itself step outside the bounds of the Constitution - which it clearly has.

The purpose of a revolution would have one goal in mind: to restore the Constitutional Republic that is supposed to be instated. This includes rebuilding the current system from the ground up, limiting the amount of government power and influence over the people, disbanding various government entities on many different levels, and carefully going over every single law to make sure that it does not interfere with our rights as citizens and human beings as is given to us. There is no need for a king or leader unless it is a vote held by the people. Yes, in such a revolution "leaders" will be needed to organize, but anyone fighting as I would for Constitutional Liberty would know that they could never hope to attain power under the new system without securing the will of the people first and foremost.



"After that, how far do we go before we mutually agree to stand down and complete the job politically?"

This is perhaps the most difficult question and hard to conclude without first encountering the situation at hand. As far as completing the "job" politically without revolution, you would be living in a fairy tale to believe it is possible. However, if referring to after such a revolution, as in "when do we call it quits", it gets a little more gray.

The revolution would have to hold ground until the opposition is ousted from their positions of power. Basically every political or power position would have to be usurped, law would have to be reestablished, the Constitution would have to be fully restored, and once that happens it would be time for the people to vote on who their leaders will be. One those leaders are in office, then, and only then, would it be time to declare a victory of sorts and stand down to complete the job politically.






The more that time goes on, the more I only confirm in my mind that revolution or complete collapse of this country will result in any hope for change. Revolution, however, would provide for a more guided change, whereas collapse would allow the corruptness to continue, multiply, and the people to be taken advantage of. Civil disobedience is a good step towards change, but the people are so lazy and disconnected that no one will ever accomplish anything on a big enough scale. Even if they did, all it would take is one lunatic or one government plant to kill someone or blow something up before even more laws and restrictions are placed, causing people to crawl back into their holes of safety.


Lastly, the catalyst that would ignite revolution in this country would be the most difficult part. It would take a group of people to make a large scale statement in some way, without harming any people, and also getting the truth out and spread beforehand to prevent the government and MSM spin of making their own agendas. Using the internet as a global media, the truth of a freedom movement or an even that would take place could be spread before it even happens and could become viral. All most people would have to see is a sign that there are people out there ready to fight for freedom and ready to take the country back to where it belongs.

At such a point the people would amass, and perhaps yes, a bloodless victory could be one. The revolution would begin as peaceful demands but more than likely those in power will be the first to make a mistake. They will mistakenly pull the trigger and thousands of an angry mob will take up arms against them. That is perhaps the only way that will happen.




Look at me, discussing revolution out in the open again. I said I wouldn't do that any more. Oh well, I will consider this the exception.

reply to post by whatukno


There certainly are some people in this country who are making veiled threats of violence, and then there are even more people who like to talk about it just to drum up fear against the other side. I'm coming from a slightly different angle. I'm not saying that there will be violence unless a certain path is pursued. I'm afraid that there will be violence regardless of what path is pursued, unless we elevate our political thinking beyond our own narrow interests and reaffirm our belief in a social contract rooted both in respect for natural rights and in a commitment to democracy.

My whole point is to undermine these dangerous tendencies by looking for some shared understanding among the majority of what is and is not a legitimate cause and method of revolution, which I believe would prove substantially different from the state of things at this time, especially in that it would require a specifically defined mandate of the people to act strictly in the interest of enforcing the social contract (as embodied primarily in our constitution).

It is my opinion that a revolution which met shared standards of legitimacy would, by its very nature, succeed strictly through legal political means unless those in power responded to it by violating our laws and constitution, and in that instance that it would stand a better chance than any other movement of overcoming such tyranny without violence. Violence is never objectively positive for such a movement- as it represents so much to be lost- and would necessarily be the last resort, and only then if it were the lesser evil.

At the end of the day, this thread is almost about how and why NOT to have a violent revolution, however it comes from the other angle in recognition of the fact that there is a significant opposition to government in this country that does demand to be addressed. That opposition may have to be willing to adjust its goals in order to get what it wants- that is the nature of democracy- but it cannot go completely unaddressed, because that too is the nature of democracy.

reply to post by whatukno


One more thought. The People of the United States are living beings with rights and needs. They are important in their own right.
The United States is a series of written documents that the People of the United States use to provide for themselves. It has no importance apart from people.
There would be nothing wrong with the People of the United States making war on the United States if that were in their best collective interest.

And that's my point- how do we know when we have reached that point where it is in our collective interest- not only so we can do it then, but so we DON'T do it before then.

reply to post by gwydionblack


The Constitution draws more than one line though. It draws many. Are all of these lines to be fought over immediately regardless of other options and possible consequences?

I believe that the key to a mutual agreement is to narrow down those lines to the bare bones of what it takes to run a democracy, and protect the remaining lines politically, at least to the extent possible.

We will probably never have a mutual agreement on where it's time to fight over taxation, redistribution of wealth, etc etc, and I wouldn't want us to. But I think we probably can form much simpler agreements on how to make the political process on those questions more accurately reflect the will of the people, and that such an agreement could be popular enough to succeed without violence.

Keep in mind that just because the establishment is there does not mean that it is a foregone conclusion. Things don't happen on their own- people do them. So the tendency of people to "get out of the way" can in fact work in favor of the people rather against them, if the revolution is easier than the status quo. This is not only possible but likely, precisely because as you say, the status quo is complex and divisive and scary. All the people need to do is set goals that are simple, inclusive, and promising.

Anyone who says that violent revolution never solved anything has obviously never read a history book.

Show me one instance where an underclass of people used peace and understanding to release their shackles or to free themselves from the tyranny of their oppressor. Please reference one single revolution that successfully brought about real change that wasn't saturated with the blood of the hopeful, and that of the ruling class.

True revolution is done within the mind and within the spirit, but it cannot be implemented and carried out without bloodshed and violent uprising.

If you want your freedom then you have to take it by force, as you cannot expect the dominating class to willfully submit and give up their position of authority. It must be taken by force, man must fight and die for his right to live as a free being. Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely trying to gain power, themselves.

You can go far with a kind word and a handshake, but you can go a lot further with a kind word, a handshake and a loaded gun. All just my own opinion, of course.

I think lines have already been crossed. Does anybody know someone that thinks the government represents them? I don't. I also think that a non-violent approach would be very successful. However the problem is that people are divided on where they think the government is wrong. Without a clear goal that people can agree on we will won't be organized enough to change anything.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Anyone who says that violent revolution never solved anything has obviously never read a history book.

When has violence secured the peace for any length of time?

Show me one instance where an underclass of people used peace and understanding to release their shackles or to free themselves from the tyranny of their oppressor. Please reference one single revolution that successfully brought about real change that wasn't saturated with the blood of the hopeful, and that of the ruling class.

Just off the top of my head -India overthrew the British without violence, the civil rights movement in the US, South Africa once they started boycotts, the fall of the Soviet empire - These were all non-voilent movements perhaps you should read a few more history books.

reply to post by The Vagabond


I simply must question the logic of people who see the only way to fix what is wrong with the world is through the bloodshed of others.

I have to wonder, is it really freedom these people who propose violent revolution are after? Doesn't seem like freedom to me at all. After all, they are saying that if I don't agree with their world view, and choose for myself how I want to be governed. Then to these people I am the enemy. And my rights are therefore suspended. My vote does not count, my freedoms do not count, and therefore I am a target for them to attempt to hunt down and destroy.

Where I actually propose a non violent method of refreshing and renewing the principals and values that are shared by the majority in America.

Think Globally, Act Locally.

Originally an environmental slogan, I feel that it can be incorporated in order to actually steer the way this country is run to a mutually beneficial end. I know it doesn't have the same kill Americans fun of a violent revolution. And it's not an instantaneous process. But in time it will work.

Participate in your local government, attend town meetings whenever possible, write your state and national representatives and meet them when they are available. In time, we the people can take our country back. But again, it's not an instantaneous process and it's not as easy as shooting your fellow countrymen.

It's apathy that got us in this country where we are today and that will not be fixed through the killing of Americans by Americans. The only way to truly fix what is wrong with this country is the constant and continuous involvement in every aspect of our government by the people.

So I guess in the end I still have to say, there is no "point of no return" involved here. There is always and let me repeat that so I am clear. ALWAYS a rational, non violent course of action that will in time produce the exact same results. People must learn to think for themselves, investigate for themselves, educate themselves, and involve themselves in our government at all levels. In that and only that way can we truly fix what is wrong in our nation together.

Those that would choose to violently overthrow the government still in my opinion have absolutely no desire to bring about freedom. Instead they are just people who want to forcibly instill their will upon the people of this nation and that is not freedom.

One way or another, you will all bow down to the NWO. Your family will kneel, your friends will kneel, your leaders will kneel. This is the way it will be.

You want to be honest...let's be honest.

All the internet revolutionaries are delusional. They like to romanticize the original American revolution...and they are clueless.

They speak of the "founding fathers" as if they were poor men being held down by England...no..they were rich and powerful men being held down by England. They saw America as an opportunity...to grab even more power and more riches...and that is why the revolution happened. All wars need justification...freedom and taxation was their call to the common people...only so they could replace the same taxation but now with it being kept in America.

Let's be even more honest...those that want a revolution...are a very small small minority. You are even outnumbered on ATS...and that should tell you something. Go ahead...start a revolution...and watch the majority of the country cheer on the military as they squash it.

While we are on the topic of the military...let's address that delusion as well. If ordered to...the military will take down a revolution.

Internet revolutionaries really need to find a hobby...find some happiness and joy in your lives...find something worth living for rather than whining about how bad things are...as you are sitting in your air conditioned or heated building...on a computer...on the internet...probably with a full belly and a comfy bed to sleep in. Yeah...things are so bad.


I'll tell you what...here is where I draw my line. When a bunch of crazy revolutionaries threaten my country, and my society, and my way of life...that is when I will draw the line and defend it from extremist idealouge "revolutionist"...but I'll just go ahead and call them what they really are....traitors.

Ghandi's passive resistance is far more effective for after revolution the rule of the mob comes the absolute tyrant,its very simple if no-one in America showed up for work for a week tptb would be desperate to negotiate.

I'm getting the impression that some people think the purpose of this thread is to advocate or organize a revolution. It is not. It is possible to discuss something simply because you think it might be relevant to the future and want to test and expand your understanding of the subject. I would suggest that such a desire for understanding with others is very much out of character for the selfish would-be tyrants who seek to call their dreams of a coup a revolution, and may even be somewhat useful in countering them.

reply to post by righteyered


If you believe the American or South African civil rights movements didnt involve violence and bloodshed you may want to think again. No violence during apartheid South Africa? You must be mad. Just because MLK preached non-violence doesnt mean there wasnt plenty of clashing and fighting to go around.

Soviet Russia collapse? Well, the Bolshevik Revolution actually began with an armed insurrection in Petrograd during the month of October, hence the term "Red October". As for the fall of Russia during the 90's, this wasnt a revolution as much as it was an economic collapse.

How about the American revolution, the French revolution, the Babylonian revolt against the Assyrians, the Celtic revolts in Spain, the Roman slave rebellion, the Kitos war, the Saxon revolt against Charlemagne, the war of Scottish Independance, Hannibals army, the Revolution of 1848, the great European peasant uprising's in England, the Haitian revolution, the Mexican war of independance, virtually every war for independence ranging from South America all the way to Asia?

People have always historically had to fight and die to be free. Diplomacy and peaceful resistance will only go so far.

Second, a disclaimer: It is not my intent to advocate any criminal or otherwise violent act, or even really to discuss whether or not there should be a revolution in the US.

Above is from the op of this thread and it is proof that people are afraid of speech and that free speech is therefore dead. Now we have "limited speech," it doesn't matter what you are argue when it is ILLEGAL TO SAY ANYTHING then speech is not free, no matter how controversial the speech is, if it is illegal, free speech does not exist in the society where that speech is not allowed.

Just saying.

edit: After talking to vagabond, it's become clear that he posted the disclaimer out of respect for ATS's terms and conditions, and not for any other reason. I rescind this post before this edit.

edit on 23-10-2010 by sremmos because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm getting the impression that some people think the purpose of this thread is to advocate or organize a revolution. It is not. It is possible to discuss something simply because you think it might be relevant to the future and want to test and expand your understanding of the subject. I would suggest that such a desire for understanding with others is very much out of character for the selfish would-be tyrants who seek to call their dreams of a coup a revolution, and may even be somewhat useful in countering them.

Im neither advocating nor organizing or even suggesting that any revolution armed or otherwise take place. Im simply making a point that any successful attempt at a revolution of any sort will not be done passively and it wont be pretty. Something people should consider when even entertaining the notion of any sort of uprising.

It comes with a heavy cost.

reply to post by The Vagabond


No it is not time for revolution and that should never happen in America.... Martial Law is not a game or to be tested.... unlimited power for these clowns? Nah man keep it..... Any form of dissension will affect the economy worse than anything else and would be disastrous for everyone involved... " from bad to worse" seemingly overnight... the only hope is you can adapt to a new way of life without losing your principles.... yeah like a very wise man told me " change is inevitable, growth is optional"... but you know before anyone gets all tissy about it, the revolution needs a spark so before you start recruiting people to your "cause" try and lead by example... I feel American sentiment is misplaced right now and the sense of hopelessness to understand the changes and the reason for change is what is causing these violent thoughts.... maybe if people researched the changes to come the whole "conspiracy" would cease to be because what is known is no conspiracy.... then with an educated argument you can state your case... maybe then they will listen, they the PTB, and maybe some forms of compromise can be found.... TPTB right now, no matter how poerful, would hate to have insurrection on their hands and have to risk losing face by squelching any resistance.... be at peace and worry about educating yourselves everyday to what is going on and have some faith that the answer will come when it must