The definition of a peaceful revolution, as far as I can tell, is that the people are beaten, abused, robbed and taxed for the privilege of being crushed. Then when the system has had enough foreplay to satisfy the blood lust, the people are sold a change that further crushes their inalienable rights.
The truth is “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” So we suffer, as will our children, their children, and so on until we have been backed into a corner from which there is no other way out.
This is the way of the world; lies, deceit, suffering, ambivalence, and cruelty. The lies, cruelty, and deceit are a form of government regulation through hatred, and intimidation. The suffering and ambivalence is all up to the individual who prostrates him or herself at the foot of some bureaucrat who was never lawfully given the power that they impose by force of arms.
We have been lied to so often that we can no longer reconcile what is truth, and what is fiction. In our struggle to discern what reality is we spin into a state of confusion mindlessly repeating some phrase that is continually broadcast from a talking head. This is our armor against a world that has been made hostile to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The problem with all those who profess the concept of a peaceful revolution is that they never truly understand what is taking place around them. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts recently stated that if the people in Libya succeed in overthrowing the government through arms, they will be more successful than the Egyptian’s.
Dr. Roberts understood what was actually taking place, and comments by Joel Skousen emphasized what Dr. Roberts realizes. Skousen makes the point that the Egyptian protests were theater, and that the U.S. has paid agents provocateurs throughout the Middle East. So, using the same propaganda that has become the religion of peace brought about by the Gandhi revolution, we work toward unachievable goals. To think that a few months down the road the people of Egypt will actually have freedom is just ‘rose colored glasses’.
Mahatma Gandhi said, “Peace is the most powerful weapon of mankind. It takes more courage to take a blow than to give one. It takes more courage to try and talk things through than to start a war.” In my opinion, it takes a man of common intelligence to understand the need for peace, but it takes a man of fortitude, and courage to stand up for what is right, and that may mean the ability to deliver a blow before all is lost.
I had a friend who was a prisoner of war. The details of which are unimportant except to note that he received the most brutal of treatments. So barbaric was the torture that he would never speak of it except for one occasion.
On that occasion he spoke before the congressional committee hearing testimony on women serving in combat. He described the torture he was subjected to, I’m sure in excruciating detail, and then asked the members of the committee if they expected a man to stand by and watch a women be subjected to such torture.
The truth of the matter is that we men have been neutered. At one time boys would fight, someone would intervene, and then the boys would shake hands and nothing further was said. Even in the catholic grammar school I attended, the priests or nuns would pull the boys apart, and nothing further was done except to facilitate a handshake.
Most schools in New York City had rifle teams. You could actually go on public transportation with a firearm, and no one would freak out, and scream bloody murder. There were no swat teams to come along to execute a person for carrying a lawfully owned firearm. Crime rates were much lower, we were more civilized, and it would not be considered any sort of crime to defend your girlfriend. As a matter of fact you were looked down upon if you did not defend the girl to which you were attached. Today self-defense, protecting another or any sort of fight can carry substantial penalties dished out by the state.
A reasonable person might ask, what is the claim upon which the state makes a case for actions against those of us who choose self defense? And the answer is that we must be kept in line so that when we awake from this coma we will have given up our arms in the name of peace, and receive serfdom for our efforts.
In order to protect our self esteem we lie to ourselves. We have convinced ourselves that what actually was did not exist. We have changed reality so that begging for mercy is seen as something admirable. I can’t believe that Gandhi subscribed to such a notion.
Did Gandhi actually say that “It takes more courage to take a blow than to give one.”, or was it fabricated for the public? If he did make such a statement, I have to ask what type of man can stand by and watch as others are beaten and murdered? Would not any man have the same reaction as my old buddy who pointed out his sentiments to the congressional committee?
Gandhi was also credited with stating, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” This quote might lead one to believe that Gandhi was a realist, and understood in the final analysis that it was less likely for a tyrant to come to power if the people in general were armed, and willing to fight for that which they believed.
The truth of the Gandhi movement was not as glorious as has been preached. Tens of thousands of Gandhi’s countrymen were killed. The British raped the nation while the ‘peaceful’ protests were taking place, and the country was left in a desperate state for decades. Gandhi is not revered among many Indians who are aware of the actual history of the movement. I can go as far as to say that some despise him, and the notion that he was a great leader.
My point is not to destroy Gandhi’s credibility, but to bring to light the fact that nothing is at it seems, and history can be manipulated for the benefit of those who wish to control. Obviously if we are imbued with the false hope of peaceful change then we will aspire to that goal even to our own demise.
In reality there is no record of a truly peaceful revolution. Our Founders were well aware of this and so they created a system of checks and balances in order to impede a tyrannical aspirant. The Founders created a central government with very limited powers. The states were given the duty to protect the rights of the people, who themselves are sovereign to the state, and well within their right to dismantle the government by force.
Our system, though not infallible, is designed to be the best effort against the state becoming abusive. While we slept and became re-educated by the controllers of the system each and every one of our checks has either been removed, or is in the process of being terminated.
Now, using tactics that we should abhor, such as the BATF facilitating gun sales to drug cartels, the Obama administration is seeking stricter gun regulation of American citizens. What he should be doing, if he at all had an ounce of honesty in his body, is asking why we have an agency that conducts such operations.
We must understand that some of us have to be educated to the truth, and those of us who know the nature of our problems must help in the education process. It is of paramount import that we enlighten others to the fact that what they believe is a free country was long ago taken away, and our ignorance has placed us on the path to violent revolution, or wretched slavery.
In order to accomplish a peaceful revolution we must first grasp that if we are even having this discussion then there is no chance of success. We must also understand that in this universe one thing that is certainly impossible is a ‘peaceful revolution’ as the words are in direct conflict with each other. Our Founders realized this after years of pleading for justice. “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”
If both parties were resolute in the idea of peace, we would have abolished the tools of government determined to cower the people; the police, prosecutors, and judges that have corrupted our system of law would have been gone long before the idea that a revolution was needed.
Peace is not a one way affair. It is not that moment when the vanquished surrenders and the victor is appeased. That is simply the end of a violent confrontation.
Peace is not the activist who is pummeled on the street at the hands of a government agent. That is what it is, a tyrant exhibiting his power over the hapless subject.
Peace is not you and I debating what move is needed next to wrest power from those who have ignored our Redress of Grievance, and given themselves immunity from our prosecutions.
Peace is, however, the coming together of like minds for the benefit of all. It is a lifting of all the minds and hearts of the people to harmony, and tranquility.
In the absence of peace we are left with the choice to surrender to the abuse of the other side, or to take a stand. To that end our Forefathers warned that “the security of a free State” was, and still is today “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
In order to affect change in a manner that is least likely to cause further harm to the Republic, we must engage and enlighten the sheriff as to his/her true responsibility to protect our inalienable rights. That includes arresting a judge if a juror complains about the conduct of the black robbed administrator.
It would also include the questioning of any indictment handed down by a grand jury controlled by a state prosecutor, and not in the hands of the people.
It must include the decommissioning of the current legal system to leave way for that of the common law. It must certainly include the power of the jury to stand in the way of government abuse, and to be backed by force of arms before arms are our only recourse.
There can be no peace until the people are on level ground with those who have been entrusted with the duty to protect, and defend the rule of law for the sake of us all.
‘Nick’
No Comments »
