"The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty." ~ Justice William O. Douglas
'War is an applied science, with well-defined principle tested in history; analogous solutions may be found from ballista to H-bomb. But every revolution is a freak, a mutant, a monstrosity, its conditions never to be repeated and its operations carried out by amateurs and individualists.'
~ Robert Heinlein, 'If This Goes On''
I have felt compelled to expand upon the thoughts I expressed in 'Revolution.' A decent respect, as the saying goes, for the individuals who read my missives, obliges me.
When I spoke of rebellion only when the agents of a foreign power engaged in operations on American soil, I express the same sentiments as are demonstrated daily by all resistors of oppression. When a competing or overwhelming power has invaded your country, it is only natural that whatever force may be brought to bear upon it should be so employed.
That this invasion may occur as a result of treaty is irrelevant. If the United States government signs a treaty ceding sovereign rights to another power, no matter its identity, it is in violation of the Constitution, and no citizen is bound to obey the regulation of any such treaty. Indeed, the Constitution itself may be declared in abeyance, since the government has ignored it in such action. When the government has decided that the instrument which gives it its very existence is irrelevant, then that government itself is irrelevant, and may be ignored if possible, and resisted if not. Likewise any whom the government has invited onto American soil.
Upon further reflection and research, however, I find it highly likely that the agents of the confiscation of personal weapons will be American citizens, either federal agents or local police forces. This will take place in advance of cession of power to the United Nations, to better facilitate their installation, and will be in the piecemeal fashion currently employed. This underscores my previous admonition to stockpile now, while it is possible, not to wait until purchase of suitable arms is legally impossible. The problem lies in the draconian regulation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (I have always found it fascinating that these three were lumped together in one agency'the three things the socialists most want to ban, along with automobiles). Whenever a firearms dealer leaves the business, for whatever reason, he must surrender his bound book of transactions, all transactions, to the BATF. This will lead federal agents to the door of anyone who has made multiple purchases of military surplus weapons. Speak to your dealer of choice about his fire insurance prior to your purchase.
There is a reason for the United Nations, and, indeed, any government, to want personal weapons removed from civilian hands, and it is being played out in the Near East as I write these lines. Anyone who watches regularly the dozens of television programs showing the advance of military technology will readily understand why open mobilization of a civil militia will result in carnage and death for the militia. Organized resistance is possible, however, and must be undertaken, whatever the cost. Some, however, may ask why. Is resistance to the machinations of an international elite really needful? Many, particularly those who believe world government to be a good idea, will assert that the guarantee of human rights has been explicitly documented in the United Nations' own charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Will not the United Nations be obliged to heed these principles? In answer, I can only ask if the reader believes the United States government seems to obey the Constitution, and further, if a government to which there is not even the plebiscitary remedy Americans are told they possess will adhere to words on paper once ascendant power is gained. The answer is, probably not. There are many and excellent expositions of the lie at the back of the 'high-minded idealism' of the United Nations, and one has only to pierce the cloak of wordy bureaucratic obfuscation to be enlightened. [i] There is no hope of consistency or liberty under the rule of the United Nations, and so little as to be nonexistent under the current regime. Politicians lie. The bigger the State, the bigger the lies.
The failure of social democracy has been amply demonstrated in Europe , as this is written, by the double-digit unemployment, spiraling debt, and suffocating regulation engendered by the socialist policies these democracies have voted for themselves. This is the fate to which the United States is moving, as surely as the budget deficit swells. One day, as in France , a license from the State will be obligatory in order to ride a bicycle. One day, as in England , a man who defends his home with deadly force will be tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. One day, as in most of Western Europe , it will be next to impossible to find gainful employment, because employers will know that, once hired, the penalty of law will make it virtually impossible to fire even the worst of sloths. This is where 'high-minded idealism' is leading us. Any politician who claims to be working for tomorrow should be instantly mistrusted and dismissed. If he's working for tomorrow, he's not interested in you.
So, where, in all this, does revolution fit? It fits insofar as the only way a revolution may succeed in this country: disaffection of the enforcer. Only when more of the agents of the State are disengaged philosophically from the State's aims can real progress be made. Only when officers and men can be made to see what the future has in store for them as tools of oppression, rather than guardians of freedom as they now are convinced they are by the propaganda machine of the news media, can the spell of the State be broken.
But how may this be accomplished? If one knows a police officer, or a soldier, converse with him. Odds are, he will have gripes about his job which he will be only too happy to share. Reasoning from the specific to the general, point out (gently, gently) the inconsistencies which afflict all government. He will likely say that, 'Oh, well, that's just the way it is. There must be government, or there'll be anarchy!' Agree, and then ask what's wrong with anarchy. Police officers in particular, dealing as they do with the lowest products of the culture of dependency they themselves have helped perpetuate, will believe that there must be government in order to prevent these people from committing depredation. Do not press if the officer seems to grow angry. He is not going to be swayed by argument. Leave it alone, and find a man of reason, if such exists among the ranks of the enforcers. Most importantly, never, never, never, suggest the commission of any illegal act to a law officer. He must make the first move.
But to quote Heinlein again, 'Before a revolution can take place, the population must lose faith in both the police and the courts.' [ii] The viewership of police dramas and military programs must plummet. The reporting of crime must cease. The label 'informer' must once again connote betrayal. The people must see that they are not free, and have not ever been. There must be civil disturbance, on a scale unknown in the past, and there must be men of resolution to do what must be done to stop tyranny.
None of these things will be easy, and still less pleasant. I, for one, despise violence, and one source of my disdain for these promulgators of socialist dogma is that their wrong-headed, idiotic, power-mad push to take my liberty may force me to it. I have no wish to give up my life as I lead it in order to hide, and scurry, and hit from ambush, and constantly wonder if I may be sold out at any time. I have no wish to risk the lives of myself or others in acts we should not have to take at all, if only people would not assume they know what is best for me. I do not hate them, for in order to hate, one must have loved, and I knew socialism for the evil it is when I first read its tenets. But, if driven to it, I will kill them. And I will weep.