Judge Bean
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,257
Something I noticed about JTs predictions
Did I call that or what?
Originally posted by Paul J. Lyon@Oct 19 2004, 04:05 PM
If you collate all of the polls since the DNC, and average the results, Bush rides into the White House with 1 or 2% popular and 20-30 Electoral College votes. The writing is on the wall, the election is in the bag, the course is set, and the metaphors are all mixed.
If you read what people have written in these two forums over the past year, you will see that the overall opinion is that a violent social upheaval, such as a revolution or civil war, is not either longed for or encouraged. On the contrary, the general idea here seems to be that we should resist the illegal government acts nonviolently, protest, and disobey-- but, perhaps taking the cue from Titor himself, there has been no talk of getting guns and ammunition ready.
My own repeated beliefs involve passive resistance to what I consider an illegal government (no matter who is in power, at this point and since the 1960s); and I have tried to make it clear that there is an actual Constitutional way to overthrow the government peacefully. That last would take a lot of things that people are not usually willing to give: effort, thought, debate, and a vote by the conscience and reason.
I should think that a federal interest in us would quickly lose its purpose if the reason were to root out Che Guevaras. But that's not really the point, is it? The fear is that such an investigation might stand as proof of Titor's claims. That is, the government, as usual, knows more than we do, keeps it all a secret, and has truck with UFOs and the like. Titor, if an actual timetraveler, would have to be a government agent, or, what amounts to the same thing, a corporate soldier of some kind. I don't buy the postapocalyptic farmers-in-macrame scenario; that's just me. I've seen it in too many movies.
We need to stop being afraid of the truth. It won't hurt us, and keeping it from us hurts Them more. Let me explain what I mean.
Obviously many here would find themselves brothers in arms in a revolution against a corrupt, bought, oppressive government. That simple truth does not expose anyone to government investigation or prosecution without proving the underlying proposition that that government needs to be overthrown. Simply stating the fact becomes a revolutionary act-- of the type that Americans like, one that doesn't draw blood or threaten their credit ratings. It also leaves the question open as to whether this government, or the one coming in January, is corrupt, bought, and oppressive; and whether there is not another way to replace it besides at gunpoint.
Calling for the overthrow of the government is an act of the highest patriotism if that government has betrayed its democratic charter. To compel violence in order to overthrow it would be the final betrayal. We have the right to the nonviolent overthrow of these criminals, spooks, and fat cats. They don't have the right to retain power through succeeding administrations.
I have explained in another thread how the lawful revolt can occur; it is licensed by the Second Amendment, of all things, and would require both a Constitutional Amendment and a national referendum election. It may sound difficult and boring, and it is true that the field of glory has more material in it to write novels and make movies about later, but, just as my opinion doesn't constitute the truth, the law doesn't constitute art. Civil war and violent revolution means that the law has failed, has been vacated; war means that law and language have been abandoned.
But it will take, as I say, work and thought-- is anyone up to it?
Did I call that or what?
