The right wing and armed revolution

|
(29)

Man, I'm getting old. When I was growing up, in the 1960s, and even when I was in college in the 1970s, and when I was first in San Francisco in the early 1980s, the only ones talking about "armed revolution" were the commies. The system was coming down, fast; the Black Panthers marched around with rifles. The RCP and the Weather Underground and a bunch of other offshoots and fringe groups talked about fighting in the streets. Mick Jagger once sang "hey, think the time is right for violent revolution," tho Mick was living in a posh condo in Manhattan and dating supermodels and building the first band ever to gross a billion dollars in sales.

Now nobody on the left talks about revolution much any more; it's the folks on the far right -- and, alarmingly, nearly half of the Republicans in this country -- who say that "armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties." The poll is a bit scary -- 18 percent of Democrats even agree that it's going to be time to pull out the assault rifles and have at the Gummint.

I wonder how this breaks down by age, and how much of it is (not-so) subtle racism aimed at the first Black president. Probably most of it comes from the gun nuts who think Obama is going to take away their weapons. But Jeez: "Armed revolution?" That's so 1968.

 

Comments

The far right and far left really aren't that different. Aim for the center.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

between divergent claims -- though reactionary interests will always prefer people to believe it since they have *no* intellectual integrity and are willing to do and say anything to get their way.

Leftists do espouse extreme views so as to later be able to "compromise" on a result they find to their advantage. Leftists for the most part hold Enlightenment ideals to heart and attempt to describe a world which they actually aspire to create.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 06, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

Rightists say and do the same things. They vilify their "opponents" as having no integrity. They aspire to an imaginary world, and don't believe in compromise (to the point where they put quotation marks around the word).

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2013 @ 3:43 pm

on Valencia street during occupy riots?

Posted by Matlock on May. 06, 2013 @ 3:44 pm

or do you just come here to smash and bash, Troll-lock?

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

I think if you asked your average Occupier, he or she would have had no problem with violence in aid of the revolution.

Posted by Hortencia on May. 06, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

"Man, I'm getting old."

You are if you think you are. It's in your mind despite your chronological age. The sheeple are programmed with that mentality.

You've made that "I'm getting old" reference before. My aunt is nearly 100 and if someone calls her "old" she'll resentfully let you know she's isn't "old." She has not chosen to be "old." She still gets up on the roof to repair shingles when needed. As she says, "old" is in your mind. Some people are "old" in their 20s and 30s because they've chosen to be "old" in their mind. I hear people say, "I'm too old to do that" and they're 42 and can barely walk. They've chosen to be "old" by societal programming. Other than having a medical condition which can keep one from doing something (completely unrelated to chronological age) and possibly age-related medical conditions (macular degeneration, for example) that can come with chronological age, age is irrelevant/moot. And one can remember the 1960s or any other year without being "old."

"Now nobody on the left talks about revolution much any more;"

That's because there's a guy in the White House with a faux D beside his name. It's called D party-line allegiance which you know all about since you and this site are part of it.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

Viva Viagra! Forever young, Boomer brother!

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2013 @ 7:39 pm

From my experience and the experience of people I know: the best "viagra" regardless of chronological age is eating healthy food (in my case vegetarian) and daily exercise, which most people don't do and are not going to do. So they resort to chemicals.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

In the 60's anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to open their borders to non-white immigrants. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to "integrate" or face consequences for being "naziswhowantokill6millionjews." Now anti-whites are counting down the days until ALL and ONLY white children become minorities and eventually extinct EVERYWHERE. It's Genocide. "Anti-racist" is a codeword for anti-white.

Posted by WhiteRabbit on May. 06, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

I am a lifelong liberal progressive that doesn't support the 2nd amendment, nor the right to bear arms.

I am one of those 18% this poll alludes to, in that my thoughts are seditious but in the bi-partisan, anti-capitalist vein.

Tim Redmond: so fuck you, and your subjective rubbish.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2013 @ 5:31 pm

"Now anti-whites are counting down the days until ALL and ONLY white children become minorities and eventually extinct EVERYWHERE..."

you're so fucking correct, I am pro abortion of white babies.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

I was also a Civil War Reenactor about twenty years. Take my word for it, Tim is pretty right on here. Not every reenactor is so reactionary, but I've met quite a few. I've worn both uniforms so I know both sides of the hobby. Quite a few have got angry with me for my support of background checks and waiting periods along with eliminating the gun show loophole. Criminy, they are so fearful the likes of us are going to drive down Main Street in a rusty old T34 with the ghost of Che grinning behind us. I try to tell them Obama is further away from being a Socialist than Hitler was a humanitarian,,but I just waste my breath doing so.

My God,,,I hate political absolutism so!

Posted by Guest N. L. Eakins on May. 06, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

counterforce to the government in order to constrain their worst excesses. That's the essence of a peoples' militia. Indeed, the entire Bill of rights is written espressly in terms of limiting what a government can do.

So it's not that an armed struggle is the province of only the right, but rather that it is always anti-government. And since the left typically has more faith in the government than the right does, it seems that the right are potentially more violent but that's an illusion.

Unless you think the Bill of Rights is right-wing, then the potential for armed resistance to the government isn't right wing - it's just American.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 6:14 am

Yea--what's wrong with your non-logic lies with the Boston Marathon Bombers. By your argument--they were exercising their 2nd Amendment prerogative...

Posted by StevenTorrey on May. 07, 2013 @ 7:22 am

innocent civilians? Explain, with cites and sources. That's a gross and dishonest distortion of the rationale for an important constitutional protection.

The 2nd allows for a peoples' militia to fight AGAINST such threats.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 7:52 am

It's difficult to read the radical right wing reactionary rhetoric from people with fourth grade mentalities. (NRA et. al.) That they believe the nonsense they write is truly astounding and frightening. (They demonstrate a lunacy worthy of Charles Manson.)

They do believe the 2nd Amendment was intended for armed revolt against a Federal government should it become a new tyranny. Though nothing in the Federalist Papers or Anti-Federalist Papers support that conclusion. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a system of open discourse, open and free elections, open processes of legislation responding to the needs of the moment; a Supreme Court to decide on the legality of those laws; and delineating the rights and responsibilities of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of Government; checks and balances to government. Armed insurrection short changes the Constitutional Process--one hates to believe the Founding Fathers intended armed insurrection as an alternative to Constitutional Processes. Jefferson and others were shocked by the excesses and violence of the French Revolution.

The new President of the NRA--James Porter--calls the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression" and exemplifies the implications of that radical right wing ideology of the NRA.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe are all credited with establishing precedents of administration that would be followed for 200 years. As always, the lunacy that was Aaron Burr highlights the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by StevenTorrey on May. 07, 2013 @ 7:19 am

conjecture that such a transition was never in the minds of the founding fathers is self-evidently false.

That said, there is clearly more to the 2nd than just to create a popular resistance to a government that goes out of control. It was also to deter foreign invasion (Switzerland does something very similar to this day) and it was also in keeping with the frontier mentality of the nation and it's manifest destiny.

But at the heart of the 2nd is that, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the right of the people to bear arms is to disincent a government from seeking to seize too many powers. It's not that the people can win an armed struggle against the military, but rather that the ensuing conflagration would be so dangerous that the government will think twice.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 7:25 am

that cites "manifest destiny" and "frontier mentality."

The 2nd Amendment was a concession to southern, especially Virginian, slaveholders for their support of the constitution. In exchange, the 2nd Amendment allowed slaveowners to legally arm militias to capture escaped slaves and to deter slave uprisings a la Haiti.

The government has already seized too many powers and has little fear of armed struggle of the residents here. Look how compliant "liberal" Bostonians were to de facto martial law when the police state locked down the entire metro area to search for a wounded suspect traveling on foot in a known area.

Now if there were a popular uprising and the police and military refused to protect the ruling class and its state or switched sides, then that would be a different story.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 10:00 am

doing it, which was exactly the criticism I raised at Tim's original article. So you are almost agreeing with me, ironically.

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, start a process to amend it.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 10:32 am

which represent both a misreading and misunderstanding of my comment.

Stick to "manifest destiny" and "frontier mentality."

Posted by No IOW, those are your words, on May. 07, 2013 @ 10:57 am

Because, after claiming violence in the pursuit of political ends was wrong, you than rationalized exceptions to it.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 11:41 am

General Washington led the Revolutionaries. They were not a band of marauders, which is what the NRA mentality degenerates into. In the late 1700s, the 'militia' was the homeowner with a weapon; that homeowner was expected to show his weapon to the city guardians on a regular basis to be certain that it was in working order so his weapon could be used in defense the community when it was under attack by Indians, villains, or bears. Look again at Shay's Rebellion (1786/1787) and the role of the 'militia' in suppressing it.

The argument that the thought of the late 1700s should apply to 2013 represents an absurdity. One can only suspect that the Founding Fathers would be shocked at the events of Newtown, as most decent people are. Only the NRA looks upon the event as 2nd Amendment collateral damage.

And as said earlier: the Boston Marathon Bombers cannot be seen as acting on a 2nd Amendment prerogative--that represents mayhem, chaos, disorder and early sorrow, and mob mentality--which encapsulates the NRA mentality.

Posted by StevenTorrey on May. 08, 2013 @ 8:07 am

because clearly it was written by people who has no knowledge of cars, planes, the internet etc. etc.

Wrong. The founding fathers understood that changes would happen, and so built in a method for changing the Constitution.

The fact that it hasn't changed in this regard shows how wrong you are about changing standards. We could debate whether the invasive gun control that exists in places like NYC and SF goes too far in shredding the Constitution, and not all Justices are literalists. But we still have the 2nd because we, the people, still want the 2nd.

Mess with it at your peril.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 10:04 am

'...in the early 1980s, the only ones talking about "armed revolution were the commies."...'

Huh ? Ever heard of the neo-nazis ? Tim, I know that was more of a rhetorical device than anything else but even those have to bear a little resemblance to what, at least we think, was going on...

Posted by kyoung on May. 07, 2013 @ 10:19 am

Yes. Never underestimate Tim's predilection to spout conventional (i.e. corporate or reactionary) platitudes. Such is the pratfall of those who are compelled to internalize criticism from the right.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 07, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

Lili, do you have any idea how stilted your writing is? You're sound so pompous, it's silly. Can't you speak like an ordinary person? Take a writing course or something.

Posted by Guest on May. 07, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

For a thoughtful -- and gallows-humorous! -- analysis of the "Fairleigh Dickinson University poll showing 29% of registered voters in the U.S. believe armed revolution to ‘protect liberties’ ", including party percentages, see Rob Urie's essay:

The Radical Center and Armed Revolution
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/the-radical-center-and-armed-revo...

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2013 @ 8:44 am

The far right and the faux left are't that different because Manson (like the SLA exposed as a federal operation in this paper a decade ago) was a black op to smear the love children and other progressive forces. ...and while it's true that people who make nonviolent redistribution of the wealth impossible make violent redistribution (guillotines, Bolshevics and Rigoberto Lopes Perez) inevitable, that's exactly why they try to do it...if we beat them at their own game they have us playing their game (the whole point in the 'strategy of tension' of encouraging a violent opposition) ...to paraphrase Col. Kitson in the California Specialized Training Institute program "Expansionist whites in a quest for power have seized this land and incarcerated the inhabitants for the last 2 centuries...only by understanding that illegitimate violence has its roots in causes of social injustice can you do your job...which is not to eliminate violence (which you need as an excuse to use your legitimate violence to purge these elements)

Posted by Greg Allen Getty on May. 13, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.