Revolution

'If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend,

I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.'

--E. M. Forster

A great deal of thought has been expended, both by myself and others, on the question of rebellion against the government of the United States as it stands and is likely to become. The problem comes in deciding when the nature of the State has passed the boundaries of protection into the realm of oppression. Many might argue, with justification, that those boundaries have long since been transgressed, but, as there are no troops in the streets on a regular basis, nor 'checkpoints' through which one must pass every day, most feel that this nation is still relatively free. The key word here, however, is 'relatively.'

When one speaks of revolution, the most ubiquitous example is the very conflict which spawned the United States itself. Every revolution, it is said, becomes what it displaces, and the fact that it has taken so long for this to occur here is a tribute, not to the founders and framers, but to the men who came after. [1] Indeed, it is the American character, as Thoreau pointed out so ably, which has led to today's surfeit of technology and wealth, and not the government, which has interfered at every opportunity. Now, however, the idea of the 'culture of peace' is gaining ascendancy here as it already has in Europe , along with the shallow, untutored miasma of popular culture currently destroying the values of self-reliance and independent thought. The instruments of government are propagandized as the pinnacle of the social hierarchy, such as the police and military, and men of true vision and worth are damned as anarchists. The cultural revolution is already underway, and we are losing.

Is the answer, then, a counter-revolution? A push on all fronts to spread the ideals of reason and individualism among the hordes of the unenlightened? Can people of good faith impose their views on others this way? The answer is, of course not. That is the difference between the collectivist and the individualist: one must control, while the other cannot. A true anarchist or libertarian can never tell another what to do. What can be done, however, is to suggest. Recently, I had a conversation with a young lady about the television show Law & Order (which I am proud to say I have never watched a complete episode of), during which I pointed out that it was propaganda for the State, in that it attempted to portray police officers and prosecutors as the guardians of society rather than its oppressors. She disagreed, so I asked her if her own experiences bore out the portrayal of the denizens of the State, and she said they did not, but she 'still like[d] the show.' Though I may not have gotten through directly, the next time she watches that program, a nagging doubt may tickle her powers of discrimination, and, one day, she may turn off that variety of pap, though she may substitute another. The process is slow, however, and a lot of people have to be conversed with to find those receptive to the idea of self-government.

No, an appeal to reason is unlikely to succeed, if only because it is so hard to find those familiar with its workings. What, then, to do? In truth, not a great deal can be done anymore, as the process is too far along. As Tyler (Alexander, not John B.) said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.' [2]

Franklin was even more explicit: "'there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The question is begged, however, in any discussion of revolution, with what shall the bloated State be replaced? How can the culture of dependency be overcome? Can it be overcome at all? The bureaucracy is so deeply entrenched, the incumbents so secure, the police so powerful, how could any revolt succeed? The federal government is the second-largest employer in this country, after the auto industry. What can be done against it?

The answer is: little or nothing at this time.

What would be the circumstances, however, when a rebellion, even just a guerilla campaign, would gain enough civil support to make it feasible?

The answer is: When the people being killed are not Americans, or are not wearing American uniforms.

The truth is, I fear, that the rebellion will have to wait until foreign troops, under the auspices of the United Nations, are stationed on American soil, which will likely happen when the United States cedes its sovereign power to the United Nations as a result of treaty. The putative reason for this occupation will be the confiscation and destruction of privately owned firearms, and it is even probable that United States troops will be the major participants. However, once a man puts on a blue helmet, he is no longer entitled to even the slight regard I would give to an American, because he has betrayed his country, as has every American Soldier who has obeyed the orders of the traitors above him and done so. Any politician, soldier, or other person who has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution yet allies himself with or serves under any other body politic is a traitor. When a United States elected official proclaims that the United Nations Charter has greater Power than the Constitution, he is a traitor. When a soldier acts as a 'peacekeeper' in any capacity, here or abroad, he is a traitor.

Of course, the possibility always exists that the police agencies of the United States will be the primary confiscators, in the same 'a few guns here and a few guns there' way they currently are pursuing. That is the reason I suggest starting the stockpiling now, the way many have already undertaken. Had I the money, I would buy a few cases of surplus rifles, such as Mosin-Nagants or Enfields, and a few crates of suitable ammunition, and bury them a goodly ways away from me. I would never visit the site, nor inform anyone of its existence, except by way of written instructions left with a reliable person, to be opened in the event of my death. I would watch all those programs on the television about military technology, and counter-insurgency tactics. I would do my best to obtain as surreptitiously as possible the texts necessary to prepare me for the struggle ahead. I would make up bills of sale for all my personal arms, dated to the last period when private, unregulated sales of arms are permissible, and bury them, as well, except for the one, the cheapest and most expendable, which I would let them have to prove I'm a 'good citizen.'

Most importantly, however, I would carry on my search for the people who will listen. The people who can see what is happening, but think they are alone, or that they are powerless. The people who will trust that what I say is not paranoia (for it isn't). [3] The people who wish to be free are my quarry, as they are the State's, though for different reasons.

Though the State holds no bit of my loyalty, I will never betray my country, for to do so may result in the death of innocent people (yes, there are a few). My country, however, is eminently capable of betraying me, and will likely do so as soon as politically possible, probably within the next two decades or so. I hope to be ready.