Friday, September 2, 2016

This Grows Tiresome...

Cossacks suppressing a peaceful demonstration in Russia (Scene from Dr. Zhivago - Source)
As the election approaches, and the media continue to lie to us, both sides mind you, there are those who are already calling for rebellion. Those folks need to understand a few things:

You will be expected to get your hands dirty, you will need to kill, or be killed.

The odds are that the folks you're rebelling against will be -
  • better armed,
  • better trained and
  • better supplied.
Rebellion is not a nine to five job, you don't get to go home at the end of the day, you will be expected to be out in all sorts of weather. Rebellions only stop when the rebellion is crushed, often with great bloodshed, or when the folks you're rebelling against decide to quit.

Expect to live outdoors, expect to not eat very often, expect to get sick.

Rebellions often turn into revolutions. Revolutions eat their young. Ask Robespierre.

Revolutions are safer against a foreign power than they are against a central government. In the American Revolution when the English had had enough, they sued for peace and went home. In the American Civil War the South was crushed and occupied. Not crushed you say?

Ruins of Atlanta Union Depot after burning by Sherman's troops, 1864. (Source)

Ruins of the railroad depot in Charleston, South Carolina (Source)

Shells of the buildings of Richmond, Virginia, silhouetted against a dark sky after the destruction by Confederates, 1865. (Source)

Looks crushed to me.

You will not succeed unless:
  • The world sits back and leaves you to it. (Unlikely in this day and age, if the central government is fighting a rebellion, who's going to keep the jihadis out?)
  • A foreign power decides to assist your rebellion. Who do you want helping you? Canada? Mexico? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Think about it. These things won't happen in isolation.
Consider this, a rebellion will not be supported by the bulk of the citizenry and most likely will not have any considerable support from military veterans. We fought for this type of government and see no reason to change it by force. Administrations come and go, politicians come and go, the Constitution is one of the few constants in this Nation. Try to overthrow the United States government because you're unhappy with the election result. Were there any anti-tank lessons in your self-defense class? No, I didn't think so.

I understand the growing disenchantment with this election. But don't talk about revolution unless you're willing to leave your family, your home, your job, and probably your community. Once the first shot is fired, it will be bloody. There are no mulligans, there are no do-overs. Serious people are out there and will shoot you dead if you rise up. And guess what, there won't be many of you, not many at all, within the first few weeks most of you will be dead or imprisoned, facing charges of insurrection, treason, or something worse. This isn't a freaking video game folks.

Patience. Think. Vote. If the government gets out of hand, work within the system to right those wrongs.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, argued that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
This was written in reference to Shay's Rebellion (1786 to 1787). I suggest you read up on that, it was a rebellion against the Federal Government. It was crushed by forces of that very same Federal Government.

Rebel casualties were 4 killed with dozens wounded and many arrested. Two men were hanged in the aftermath (John Bly and Charles Rose). Government casualties were one killed with (again) "dozens wounded."

While this rebellion had a large influence on subsequent constitutional events, I'm sure that was a great comfort to the families of those who died.

It is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson, for all his pronouncements about liberty, never shouldered a musket, never faced an armed enemy. Nope, that's for the common folk. The politicians then (as now) get others to do their dirty work.

So don't go spouting off about rebellion and stocking up on ammunition. Stay within the system until the system no longer works. That hasn't happened just yet.

For now, ballots, not bullets.

For governments have a way of making their influence "felt."


It will make the Sixties look like a tea party...


  1. All good points and valid. However....
    Sometimes the Federal Government needs to be reminded that "We the People" are the Masters and the federal government are the public servants.

    1. That can be done without resorting to violence, I hear too many hotheads these days advocating violence. I doubt many of them would be the first to take up arms.

  2. People want the nanny state.

    People want jihadis and blm and Colin kapernick.

    People want celebs telling them how to feel.

    People want gay marriage and sexless bathrooms and the war on police.

    Otherwise. It would not exist. Think about it.

    The country is lost. The barbarians have already won. We the people have spoken.

    Liberty is too hard. It requires work and sacrifice. Most people would rather simply be told what they can and can't do. It's safer.

    1. You have a point there, Joe. Sad though it is, we may have already lost.

    2. The demographics are clearly against us - the youth are total idiots - I know - I see them on facebook and instrgram - they're supplicants rather than men and women who understand they have the power.

      "However, there are lasting effects on that slavery, and if you think opressions towards African Americans is not a thing, then you are wrong. Straight up, wrong. And there is not a single thing anyone could say to convince me otherwise" a white boy who learning nothing in school

      "Also good to see the movement is getting traction, seahawks corner back Jeremy Lane also sat during the anthem along with Kaepernick last night - glad to see they aren't letting bigots get in the way" another white boy who has never served or worked a hard day in his life -

      It's lost Sarge. It just hasn't happened yet.

    3. I have no argument with that. Your logic is impeccable. Is there no hope?

  3. You made a point I've always made and no one else seems to: If civil order disintegrates, our enemies (Iran, ISIS, etc.) are sure to take advantage of it. The two sides in the Civil War were unmolested from outside because Europe had other things to worry about (and England and France came very close to intervening, anyway), and everyone else lacked the power or the will to come here and stir up even more trouble. That's not the case today.
    A serious "insurrection" today would most likely end up in a three- or four-way war, and the outsiders would have much less restrictive rules of engagement than either domestic side would.

  4. If/when it comes, it will be small and focused, what some call 4G warfare. The late Mike Vanderboegh pushed this idea.
    The disruptions could be severe. Look at the history of Northern Ireland. Read someplace the British Intelligence people estimated the Provos had about 100 active fighters out of a population of 10,000,000.
    Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of any of these groups.

  5. "Patience. Think. Vote. If the government gets out of hand, work within the system to right those wrongs."

    Convention of States, brother. That's where it's at. If those pining for rebellion would work within their State Legislatures to get enough states to sign on to a Convention of States, then the Constitution could work as designed.

    Great post, very well put. The rebellion and revolution types have no clue what they are in for. None. It's all "Modern Warfare" in their mother's basement to them. Pause to get a drink, respawn when you mess up and auto aim. Not in real life.

    Real blood, real fear, real agony, real death. That's all that awaits those who want to fight it out. And, honestly, is Europe or Canada going to help out a few rebels who want to stop this country from becoming more like Europe or Canada? Not bloody likely.

    1. Letting some of the folks running around out there with no clue whatsoever tinker with the Constitution terrifies me.

      If we could get our state and federal legislators to actually obey existing law, then a Convention wouldn't be necessary.

      That being said, changing the Constitution, which many in the government already ignore, will buy us nothing.

  6. Okay, that's all valid, Sarge.
    Rebellion is an extreme option.
    But, way too many people don't understand the system and don't have any patience, anyway.
    Have you any suggestions that might Kickstart adjustments?

    1. Start at the local level, hold your town and state representatives responsible to the law. That would be a start, the big problem is that not enough people are paying attention, and the rest just don't care. "You probably know me" further up summarized it pretty well.

    2. I wonder why that took so long to show?
      Anyway, maybe the Venezuelans are going about it civilly

    3. So far they seem to be, and they have much to be angry about!

  7. Honestly, as much as I *like* the US (sorry, not the best choice of wording to convey what I want to say), I don't particularly itself want any of you ... er, them moving here. Unless they're Lexicans, of course, who are in a completely different category. Well, for the most part, anyway. 😜

    1. Michelle, I know exactly what you mean. No offense given, none taken.

      There are many in this country, natural born citizens mind you, who don't deserve what we've got (had?) here.

      It is to weep.

  8. If you're going to have the conversation, Sarge, and since our little conversation yesterday appears to be the onus for this, let's be honest and make sure all the cards are on the table, shall we?

    It is unacceptable to you for Johnson/Weld to classify personal long arms as "scary black guns", because that means you're not permitted to stock up on ammunition for a possible bid of tyranny on the part of the Clintonian set. I admitted full agreement with that position.

    Yet it is also unacceptable to you for me to discuss the stocking up on arms for a possible bid of similar circumstances by *any* of the other players on the field, because "let's work within the system (that you admit you don't necessarily believe works anymore)" with, as I reminded, a guy who was comfortable with the Chinese response in Tienanmen, and has no discernible issue on the matter of Russian crackdowns on dissenters- or their movements into Georgia or Ukraine, for that matter.

    That's really what this exercise is about- you believe, or if not so much believe, are at least hoping on the outside chance, that Donald Trump is somehow going to stave off something hard and painful, if we just work within the system. I don't. What comparatively little money he has made given his start up capital versus his peers has been made exploiting that very system; expecting the leopard to change its spots to plaid because it found religion by swapping jerseys has no basis in science, or human history. See again: Putin.

    You'll note that at no point did I discuss rebellion. As a point of order that I would expect sensible individuals are willing to concede, I stated quite clearly- let's all simply get the hell out of dodge, and head to locales where it's going to take a concerted effort for the long arm of government to reach. Sure, it'll likely get there, but at least we'll be left alone for longer than those in the cities.

    And at the point that they get there, it's not rebellion- it's home defense.

    You're willing to admit contextually that you expect one through a single outcome; the difference between us is that I expect one through all of them. Am I looking for a fight? No. Do I want for one? No. Am I willing to not prepare for an eventuality because it's not a nice thought, or because "my team", that I no longer believes has my best interests at heart, might win an election?


    Shays and his cohort stood up because they'd run out of redress when confronting the political and economic elites. You have admitted on multiple occasions you believe we're there. They were put down with grape. That four died doesn't mean that what they did was conceptually or morally wrong- only that they lost. Their action gave us the fundamental change from the Articles to the Constitution, in which not only was opportunity for such action was kept- in the face of a stronger centralized government, but their options for redress greatly enhanced.

    When the full context is taken into account did they actually lose? Was the price worth it?

    You admit you demand our Founders required our holding onto the armed option, but only for your purposes, and to purposes you believe are useful.

    That, like the old lady says, isn't how any of this works.

    1. If you're looking for a scrap, you won't find it here. As of right now Trump is the only rational choice, Clinton is no choice at all, and any other vote is pissing into the wind. That being said, I don't disagree with your points, others are calling for a much more violent outcome, it's them I have a real issue with.

      If not Trump then who?

  9. I fully believe that if the center does not hold, that local police, up to state level, would sit out any sustained effort at restraining the power of the federal government. You would need at least 30 states to support such an action, leaving the most populous 'blue' states to support the central government.

    However, what is the issue? Now the American revolution was purely local - South Carolina had a different reason for throwing off the British than New York did, but the common thread was Britain. Whats the common thread here? 'Restrain the Feds?" Using what? Why? What;s the alternative? "Follow the constitution!" Too amorphous. "Dismantle the bureaucracy!" Again - why? Sure it overreaches - but how do you get Soccer Mom Brianna in Glastonbury CT to ignore it - which is the best you can hope for - active support is too dangerous for the average person today. My gosh, they don't have the balls to stand up to actual criminals.

    Any rebellion requires a charismatic leader, and a popular slogan - 'end the fed' ain't it. 'Roll back the Federal government' way too fuzzy a goal to get people to join you. or anyone else. The only way to do this is at the State level where the states take it to the central government, where places like Texas and SC and GA and WY and ID and AL/MS/OH/ etc etc etc form an organized opposition to the central government. Texas is the ONLY place that this can happen. Only Texas has the wealth and power to create a useful opposition.

    But - even if they do - what is the goal? Any effort at restraining the power and growth of the federal government will require a charismatic leader, a concrete goal and a good slogan. I have not heard that from anyone yet- and none of the Texas leadership is the man or woman for the job. Absent those three things, and the political will to fight in the forum of ideas and on the ground in many states connected by common borders to provide a unified front, its doomed to failure.

    The Second Amendment today is utterly meaningless as a basis to restrain the central government because for individuals, it is impossible politically to rise up - not militarily.

    We can have a long discussion about this - and should - but any effort at limiting federal power must happen in the states to provide it legitimacy.

    1. Concur, it has to happen at the state level first.

  10. I'm not looking for a scrap. Wasn't looking for one yesterday, either, but facts of voted legislative history as part of the Congressional Record aren't narrative alterations, especially when confronted with campaign talking points.

    Who, rationally? You've agreed with me that Trump isn't actually trying to win, so my logical process dictates he's not a logical choice. Frankly, my process finds none of them as logical from positions to win OR as winners. We are literally dealing with a Presidential Kobayashi Maru- winning is now a matter of character, rather than circumstance.

    So now if we want to win, we can only win down ballot, by trying to stop the bleeding. What's hopeful us that a majority of Americans want a Congress in place to stop Hillary's agenda.

    Which is actually disheartening when you consider the absolute beating Democrats have taken at the state level in House and Gubernatorial runs the last eight years.

    No Seventeenth Amendment, and we're laughing, today, about Hillary being a lame duck on the day she's sworn in.

    1. The Seventeenth still sticks in my craw. It's one of the reasons a Constitutional Convention scares the crap out of me.


  12. We need to go back to paper ballots if we really want voting to mean something. After what happened in Ohio in the last election, I don't trust that our elections aren't rigged if they want it to be.

    1. Little Rhody still uses paper ballots and requires photo ID. Not bad for a blue state. Now if the voters would just educate themselves instead of voting for the party of their dead ancestors.

  13. OAFS:

    Thanks for the words of wisdom. As you wrote, it is to weep.

    Paul L. Quandt


Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)