Revolution from the Right?
Loose talk about Revolution is all over the internet and Right Wing media these days. From Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to the coy secession talk of Texas Governor Rick Perry, the idea of armed resistance is being floated on a nearly daily basis ever since Barak Obama won the election. Militia groups, both “Patriot” groups and more sinister White Supremacist groups, are on the rise, and the Tea Party movement uses the symbolism of the revolutionary war in its banners and rhetoric. With all this apparent enthusiasm for killing one’s neighbors, one wonders what the chance of a revolution from the Right really is. In my opinion, it is zero.
By “revolution,” I mean an organized uprising by armed citizens against the Federal government, with the idea of fighting a protracted guerrilla war and defeating the government. I’m not referring to ethnic or religious conflicts, though those are elements of the mix here. In a country where arming yourself is as simple as going down to the corner store and plunking down a few hundred dollars for a 12 gauge shotgun or semi-automatic rifle, why do I doubt the possibility of Revolution from such an angry and seemingly motivated Right Wing?
Realize that there are strong disincentives to joining a revolution. Not only does one risk life and property, but the targets in a revolution tend not to be evil Wall Street bankers and crooked politicians. They tend to be policemen, soldiers, security guards and bystanders. Challenging an intact state with an elected government whose legitimacy is recognized by the vast majority of its citizens has very little possibility of gaining popular support.
That’s always the case, but there are other issues specific to the Right Wing.
The Right doesn’t do Revolution
History over the last hundred years doesn’t offer a single example of a Right wing revolution. The Right favors military coups and death squads. Hitler was voted into office and seized power in a coup. Mussolini seized power in a coup. Pinochet took control in a coup. Franco, arguably was part of a revolution, but this occurred after a failed Right-wing coup attempt and was against a government that was already deeply divided. While many of these groups had considerable popular support they were not popular insurrections. Even in Communist dictatorships, where the Right is out of power and would theoretically form the Resistance, organized opposition usually comes from the intelligentsia or from labor unions.
Of course, past performance is not an indicator of future results. But there are other ingredients missing from the revolutionary stew.
Hitler had a Vision
For a revolution to succeed, it has to have a vision that will make its followers risk life and limb for it. Hitler had a dynamic vision for his country, as did Mussolini. In present day America, after eight years of corruption and plunder, the Right’s leadership has no real vision of why they should be back in power. What can they offer? More profiteering? More war? More financial heists? More off-shoring of jobs? The Right had everything it wanted under the Bush Administration and they left disaster in their wake, and if you cruised the Right wing websites in 2007, you would have seen a deep uneasiness and anger with how the country was going, long before Obama came to power.
Obama the Fascist. Obama the Communist
As much as people enjoy throwing around bombastic terms and engaging in an overly dramatic sense of danger (especially on internet message boards), most sane Conservatives realize that Obama is a fairly middle-of-the-road politician. There are still plenty of people on the Right who know what Fascism and Communism really is. Franco was able to rally troops to fight against anti-Church Communists, but real Communists, Socialists and Anarchists existed in Spain, he didn’t have to make them up. Most Americans will not spill their own or their neighbors blood because Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama a Communist.
This is not to say that there won’t be violence from the Right. From unbalanced White Supremacists like James Von Brunn to the meth heads who plotted to assassinate Barak Obama, we are more susceptible these days to violence from fringe actors who see their lethal fantasies validated in Right Wing media. Likewise fanatics like Timothy McVeigh. But these are borderline personalities and groups, not mainstream, Americans who happen to be Right of center.
So what are the conditions necessary to a Revolution? Many books have been written on this subject, but here are some important factors that are relevant to our situation in the United States.
1) A middle-class intelligentsia that has been excluded from power or upward mobility.
Revolution nearly always comes from the Middle class, and stepping on them, the favorite sport of our elites since 1980, is stepping on a serpent. However, our middle class is still fabulously wealthy and still has access to education, employment, and political power.
While the Republican party may be out of power for the moment, the Right is not shut out of the civil service or the levers of government. Right Wing media and politicians are flourishing. It’s not in the interests of Republicans to destroy the system when they have the chance to get back in power. It’s more conceivable that elements of the Republican party might encourage or sponsor Right Wing violence to intimidate the center and Left, a more extreme version of how Dick Armey and other corporate elements worked behind the scenes to disrupt Town Hall discussions about health care this past summer. (Note: While these tactics were used by the Left in the 60’s and 70’s, they were not Corporate or Party sponsored.)
2) Lack of a genuine democratic process
While there are still problems posed by Bush-era electronic voting and continuing efforts to discourage voting by poor people, most mainstream citizens in the United States are confident in their ability to influence their government by voting if they so choose, at both the local and national level.
3) Crushed expectations for lower and middle class citizens.
It’s a truism that dashed hopes lead to political foment, and this is the most worrisome element. While a complete Weimar-like collapse has been averted, at least for now, the great architects of Wall Street and Free Trade may have created a large permanent lower and lower-middle class. People who lost their houses are not going to be buying new ones with their $14/hour service sector jobs, and off-shored manufacturing is not coming back in the near future under our present Free Trade policy. Those who have been kicked to a lower rung of the economic ladder won’t be climbing back up anytime soon. For the moment, Americans are still rich and still believe in their own upward mobility, but a complete collapse of the system could push Americans in a radical new direction. In that scenario, the 24 hour barrage of fantasy and hate speech emanating from the Limbaughs, Becks, Savages, Fox and elements of the Republican party may amp the alienation of the Right to widespread violence. If a Right Wing Corporate government is in power during a collapse, that scenario could also energize a violent Left, spawning a climate of terrorism, state repression and extra-legal death squads from Right and Left.
We’re Better Than That
I am still optimistic that none of these scenarios will come to pass. Americans of all persuasions are generally a fair-minded people that believe in the democratic process. We have a record of settling political differences relatively peacefully. Our rich political culture, once the envy of the world, is like money that we have banked over the last 230 years. It got us through the Red Scare, the Depression, McCarthyism and the Civil Rights struggle. Can it continue in a society where the Right is constantly being told to hate the Left, where contempt is regarded as Patriotism? Can Americans still pull together in an increasingly unequal economic order? I’m not entirely sure. Let’s hope we aren’t tested.
Stuart Archer Cohen is the author of ">The Army of the Republic (Picador), a novel about an American insurgency. His previous novels have been translated into 10 languages. www.StuartArcherCohen.com
- sacohen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
While I agree with you about
While I agree with you about the unlikelihood of a genuine armed guerilla style insurrection by the right (or by anyone else), you're whole premise is a bit off base. The goal for freedom loving people should specifically not be to "pull together", but rather to splinter apart into as many, explicitly voluntarily entered into, bodies as possible. As long as people are different, any pull to keep them together, will act as a limitation on their freedom.
Seen in this light, we should welcome the efforts of the voices of the right of alienating its listeners from the current administration. That is not their failure. Instead, it is that they failed to also work to alienate those listeners from the former administration. In other words, they do not go far enough, in explaining the problem is not with this government, or the last government, but with any possible government, save perhaps a tiny, tiny one somewhere in size and scope between the one authorized by the Articles of Confederation, and the one authorized by the narrowest and most literal possible interpretation of the Constitution.
The less faith in and respect people have for any political institution, the less likely they are to support statism in any form, which ought to be the central goal of all those out to promote liberty. Not getting people to "pull together."
As a practical matter, one thing some on the right are starting to champion, and which we should encourage, is state level "secession", or at least state level refusal to comply with federal demands. Wish the left had been so vigilant back when the nominal right were in control federally. Regardless, it's a good thing. The more independently each state, and for that matter each city, neighborhood and even individual address, is governed, the better. The ability of voting with ones feet is always preferable to voting with a ballot. In fact, the fiction that "democracy", or rule by lynch mob, is something to exalt, is one of the chief obstacles to freedom anywhere. And the more people realize this, even if it is by listening to Rush telling them "they" have no real representation in Obama's Socialist New World, the better. Or, more succinctly, people should hate the state, and all its champions.
I have a different take on Government
I think if we want to have an industrial economy, or even 300 million people living together in this part of north America, we're going to have to have some kind of government. Traditionally, it was monarchy and feudalism: rule by the strongest. Democracy didn't spread widely until the last 250 years or so.
I don't think atomizing into smaller and smaller units of government is going to create more freedom, it's just going to lead to unelected governments seizing power either locally, statewide or nationally. I think believing in Utopian Anarchy is kind of like believing in Communism: you've got to have a lot of faith in the incorruptibility human nature.
When people lose complete faith in government it doesn't lead to more Freedom, it leads to a strongman taking power and making everyone a lot less free. I don't buy the whole "Statism" thing. That seems to have turned into the insult du jour on this site, up there with "sheeple." My opinion.
Areyou kidding me...
The sheeple will lay down like a $2.00 whore. We are screwed. I pity future generations.
The above is
opinion stated as fact. Aka propaganda. Puke......
sacohen What Your Point? And Why Didn't You Insert All The...
links into the post??? To complicated for you???
First link in article did it for me http://www.splcenter.org/...
SA Cohen is crap and so is your posting.And yes I read the entire article.
http://www.ronpaulsingles...
Paper Ballots Hand Counted At The Precinct Or Bust
Support WTP Federal Supreme Court Case To Ban All Electronic Voting Or Forget 2010 or 2012
http://www.wethepeoplefou...
Sorry Thomas
I guess I'm just not as clever as you are, as far as links.
The SPLC is actually tracing militia groups. You aren't. I am personally not as alarmed by them as the SPLC is, at least the non-white supremacist ones, but the SPLC is probably the most reliable source of that sort of information, as opposed to a guy who claims to live in militia country and hasn't seen any increase in activity. Well, there's a lot of country out there besides where he lives. And sure, maybe you hate the SPLC and think they're a communist front or something, but out here in reality-ville, they're looked at as a pretty reliable source. The other source would probably be the FBI.
Right sacohen They Are So Reliable They Managed To Get...
Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr and all their supporters that means you me Ron Paul and everyone else here on the Miac list that that went out to all 50 State data bases that were set up through the DHS. Pretty reliable source, yeah right...
http://www.lewrockwell.co...
http://www.google.com/cus...
I think we should start a chip in to fund suing that snake Morris Dees for defamation and shutting down the SPLC.
http://www.ronpaulsingles...
Paper Ballots Hand Counted At The Precinct Or Bust
Support WTP Federal Supreme Court Case To Ban All Electronic Voting Or Forget 2010 or 2012
http://www.wethepeoplefou...
I don't find obama to be.....
a middle of the road politician.He is a repressive leftwing extremist.Nor do I feel that the SPLC is a respectable organization.They are more worried about Oathkeepers than any of the questionable policies of the obama administration.They also have a long history of ignoring leftwing assaults on liberty,while "warning" us about alleged right-wing groups....
"Repressive Left Wing Extremist?"
Okay, tell me: How is Obama "repressing" you? And I mean real repression, as experienced in truly repressive countries, not things like "I have to pay taxes," or "I can't carry a concealed fully automatic weapon to the supermarket." I've heard the repressive claim from many people, and it always strikes me about the same way the "serfdom" claim does, which is, in the real world, "repression" and "serfdom" have specific definitions which don't apply to anything in the United States. But obviously, you feel that way, and I am genuinely curious as to what it stems from.
As to the SPLC: there's such a thing as degree. The SPLC is clear that there is a spectrum in militias from white supremacist to "Patriot" groups, and that the former is increasingly infiltrating the latter. They made that pretty clear. All the countries I've seen with active paramilitary groups ultimately end up having trouble from them, whether it's Columbia, Guatemala, Afganistan, Brazil, etc. I have nothing against people having a Right Wing ideology, but when they start forming paramilitary groups, yeah, it's significant and it should be tracked. You'd be surprised how quickly paramilitary groups turn into death squads when the right circumstances come around.
As to Oathkeepers, what makes them relevant is that they take on themselves the task of deciding what's constitutional. In the United States we generally have 9 supposedly learned judges to decide that, not an officer in the Army or a policeman. The great thing about the military in the US is that it is non-political, as opposed to, say, Latin America, where a heavily politicized Right Wing military is often involved in coups, repression (real repression) and the occasional bloodbath. That's why I don't view Oathkeepers as a wholesome, Constitution protecting group, as you may. Not that its members are evil, but the Constitution says 9 men should be deciding, not individual members pledged to uphold it.
Sure, if they're ordered to put people in concentration camps, then every man should follow his conscience, but these people are organizing because . . we might get government health care, like Medicare? I haven't studied them, but I suspect they are a Right Wing group unhappy because we have a centrist politician, or they would have organized when Bush passed the Patriot act.
As to paranoia that SPLC is out to get Lew Rockwell . . . whatever makes you happy.
Almost anyone who speaks of "Right"
and "Left" today is out of touch with the fast-moving political landscape.
Your views seem to come largely from the conventional media which has gone through successive stages of shock that people dare to severely criticize Obama's policies, since he was supposed to be the antidote to all that was evil in the Bush years.
Even those who flatteringly call themselves "Progressives" are mostly unable to deal with the reality of a president from their own camp who openly makes indefensible wars and panders to the banker/financial elite, to the detriment of all ordinary Americans.
Many in Obama's camp still work hard to believe their guy was just dealt a bad hand and isn't really to blame. Those of us who actually listened all during his campaign heard from the beginning that there was no fundamental change coming, only a new puppet with a more appealing style than the uncool Bush, but the same policies.
Unable to accept the reality that's blowing up in their faces, Obama supporters (including most of the media) are still looking to put the blame elsewhere: tea party tax protesters, or the militia, rude town hall resisters of centralized programs, 2nd Ammendment supporters, people whose ideas are so alien to smug upholders of the status quo as to
seem threatening and scary.
The revolution that's really happening is one of ideas. It has been almost totally missed by huge swaths of "Progressives" because they are in abject denial of what their movement has become. To honestly look at revolutionaries today, they would have to deal with ideas that challenge the foundations of all they believe.
But the revolution of ideas popularized by Ron Paul started decades ago, and grew unnoticed; the literature (books, videos, audios) of freedom ideas developed under the radar of people still enamored by the establishment.
Now that every other ideology, from socialism to corporatism to neocon imperialism has utterly failed, the only ideas new to the scene are from the freedom movement.
While the old Left and Right still flail to hold onto their failed principles, many Independents and ordinary unstuck Americans are using good common sense and a new awakening to the very real dangers they face from Republican/Democrat governance; the honest ones are finding an abundance of information, both scholarly and popular, explaining why and how this country veered toward tyranny, and showing the high road toward a culture based on peace and freedom.
<> People on this board just
<>
People on this board just love to make assumptions about other people they've never met. It tells you something about how they formulate their views about the rest of the world.
I agree that on this board the definition of Right and Left doesn't really apply so much, but remember that Libertarians are a tiny slice of the country. Even the Tea Party movement is a very small percentage. Right and Left are never set in stone, but they do exist in a general way, and if you don't think there's a Right and Left in this country, well, you're free to believe that. Obviously I'm not going to convince you. Likewise, if you don't think the Republicans are Right Wing. In many people's minds (on this board) maybe it's all about Statists versus non-Statists, but there's a lot of different kinds of states out there, and a large complex industrial society is always going to be one of those kinds. It's a matter of choosing what kind.
I don't know why you think people who voted for Obama aren't disappointed with him and don't hold him responsible. They do. But as to him being dealt bad hand, I'd say inheriting two wars and a financial meltdown really is a bad hand. I don't know what you call it. Again, if you don't think that's had a major effect on what Obama's actions are, then I'm obviously not going to convince you.
coincidental post about alan greenspan's belief in 1967
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
well i didn't read your reply till now but it seems it's not new to you how greenspan has contradicted himself. but anyway here's a link that appeared on sunday the same week you posted your blog and it furthers the argument that greenspan just doesn't have anything to do with free market capitalism in terms of the policies he implement because even his own definition of a free market contradicts his doings.
Interesting article. Looks
Interesting article. Looks like Alan's come a long way from the gold standard to managing the money supply.
Matrix '09
Mr. Cohen is so stuck in the left/right paradigm he is atrophying.
Here Stuart
http://www.theadvocates.o...
http://www.nolanchart.com...
Your false premise laid out
Your false premise laid out in the first paragraph is not supported by fact or other empirical evidence. You have never heard Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Rick Perry advocate armed revolution. You made that up. You may have heard them offer 'resistance' remarks regarding our current march down the road to Obama's Marxism - with tongue planted firmly in cheek and smiling - but you, nor anyone else, ever heard any of those people advocate "revolt" - never!
Also, I reside in “militia territory” and there is absolutely no evidence that “patriot” groups or “militias” are on the rise – NONE. National Rifle Association (NRA) membership, on the other hand, IS on the rise but your ignorance tells me that you do not even know what the NRA really stands for - preservation of 2nd Amendment rights. Where, from all that, did you ever hear openly advocated "armed revolt"?
For the most part, your premise is hyperbole – taken from the pages of Janet Napolitano’s earlier DHS staff memoranda, which have been admitted to be pure left wing paranoid speculation - which further surprises as to your reliance thereupon.
And, there is no significant account of any discussion among Americans which is, as you exaggerate, “….with all this apparent enthusiasm for killing one’s neighbors…”.
Your entire premise is false except for one fairly insignificant observation that any master of the obvious could reach - that a right wing armed revolt is unlikely - and my bet is that Dr. Paul would tell you that to your face.
Further, there will be no “armed revolt” from the “right” because the “right” in today’s America consists predominately of millions of non-violent religious believers (....by the way, less than 25% of them voted in 2008, unlike 2000 and 2004 - and based upon current discussions among that group, believe me, that won't happen again in 2010 or 2012.....). The entire political spectrum with the exception of that significantly large group has shifted to the left toward socialism in America since the 1960’s, and if any armed revolt is to be, it will come from the left and dissident neo-cons in the middle – just as it did in the 1960’s and 1970’s. All you have to do for proof is look at the violence currently perpetrated by demonstrators in the streets - and THEY ARE NOT "Tea Party" people.
As to your description of “Tea Party” folks, it is evident that you know none. The Tea Party movement is non-partisan and non-violent and, generally, fun loving - the word "Party" is operative at every gathering I have attended. Our approach is somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek' and poking fun at the organizational stupidity and obvious paranoia of Congress and this Administration - and we will continue to do so in growing numbers.
Yes, there is purpose and a serious determination to be heard – a 1st Amendment right that most Libertarians profess to believe in. Yes there is a penchant for large assemblies – also an American right. Yes, there are American Revolution flags and other significant symbols of the struggle for freedom in the 1600’s and 1700’s – but because I wrap myself proudly in the American flag as a former combat veteran or my wife does so as a mother of children who are being poisoned in our Marxist education system - does not in any way imply that I support “armed revolution”. And for you to suggest that demonstrates your lack of intelligence and logical thought.
If you ever attend an actual Tea Party, instead of offering your trite speculation as to the make up of individuals therein, then you would know that there are no overriding discussions about “violence” or calls for “armed revolt” as you have implied. That is pure nonsense.
In fact, the White House minions peering from behind the curtains watching the "Tea Party" and "Anti-government run health care" demonstrations, have sent SEIU and ACORN organizers (...in uniform - a stupid act in and of itself....) to disrupt and create violence at the Tea Parties. Any denying of that fact, further discredits your opinions.
May I suggest that you use facts and hard evidence to support your dirvel in the future.... get off the computer and out of the house once in a while. It is truly a vibrant, alive world in the streets - and less than one-one thousandth of the population is carrying a gun as you pass them by - without a care as to their makeup or their opinions - you moron.
"A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men" ...Skousen's 22nd Principle, "5000 Year Leap"
Quick question...
Do you see much difference between the current administration and the previous one? I ask because not because I disagree with you rather I agree with most of your comments, but I see some of your words contradict one another.
The Tea Party movement is non-partisan and non-violent and, generally, fun loving - the word "Party" is operative at every gathering I have attended. Our approach is somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek' and poking fun at the organizational stupidity and obvious paranoia of Congress and this Administration
The Tea Party movement is non-partisan but you only refer to "this administration". Why didn't Bush give you alarm enough to "Tea Party"? I too am a combat veteran (light infantry type) and I was "Tea Partying" prior to 9/12 involvement.
No need for the moron comment.
Welcome to the Daily Paul.
When Did Hitler Become A "Rightist?'
He was a big government guy if there ever was one.
Suddenly he's H.L. Mencken?
These labels have become meaningless.
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Right wing doesn't
Right wing doesn't necessarily mean small government. Ronald Reagan and GWBush were both Right Wing, and they both expanded government. They just tended to spend it on arms and war, which is, yes, government.
I agree though, Hitler is hard to place. I addressed this in a different response.
Actually....
Hitler is EASY to place, because he was a collectivist, just like Stalin and Mao were. Nazism and Communism are cousins when you think about it, because they both represent absolute government and no individual freedom.The main difference between Nazism and Communism is that in Communism, the state controlled all production and means of production. Hitler allowed corporations to control some of the means of production, but the state had a final say in such matters. This system of government is called fascism, and was practiced by Bennito Mussolini as well as Saddam Hussein. As far as "right wing" and "left wing" goes, the true political spectrum has anarchy at the very far right, and absolute government at the very far left. This absolute government includes modern totalitarianism as well as its predecessor, absolute monarchy. A constitutional government, envisioned by our founders, is probably 3/4 to the right of the spectrum. The problem with "right wing" and "left wing" lies in the fact that many people believe as they were told that there is socialism in the right, left, and middle, and we have no other choice but to accept it. We the people have been dumbed down and brainwashed for years and don't even know it.
Reagan was somewhat better than Bush in ...
containing the growth of government increase.Bush was more like a very liberal Democrat.
Bush was Bush!
I don't feel it's sheds much light to just say "he was more like a Liberal Democrat." The fact is, he expanded government and ran up huge deficits, and in those respects he's like every Republican since Ronald Reagan. None of them has shrunk government and none of them has balanced a budget. The only President recently to balance a budget was Clinton (Liberal Democrat), and that was over the objections of Republicans who wanted to grant more tax cuts rather than paying down the debt. So, I don't think it's really fair to simply say: "He was more like a Liberal Democrat." In fact, he was very much like a Right Wing Republican. At a certain point you have to say, that's how they are.
(I personally believe that Reagan-Bush run up deficits to destroy government while Democrats do it to increase services, but that's another argument.)
Bush also expanded govt. surveillance and incorporated telecoms in the effort. You may hate Liberal Democrats, or not, but the fact is, he was from the Right by any conventional measure, and was in character with how the Right really behaves, not with an idealized Right that many people would like to believe in.
Revolution From the Right
Hi;
I am not able to actually vote for Ron Paul as I live in Canada. This dosen't mean we up here can't be fed up with whats going on. Your talk of a seeming revolution has me worried, and plays right into the hands of anyone from the right or left to use as a reason to impose laws, etc.
I can think back to the late 60's early 70's when the FLQ was blowing up mailboxes and kidnapping people left and right in Quebec. This allowed our then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, to impose the War Measures Act. I can remember driving my wife to work and having to pass through military check points, manned by armed soldiers. This was an outright revolution and most citizens, at the time, supported the Prime Minister.
In hindsight, perhaps he overreacted, but it is up to the government to keep peace and order. Don't let a bunch of crazies highjack a legitimate movement.
Getting people on your side will be hard, but it has happened before, remember Ghandi.
As a canadian
you most likely do not understand this document (sarcasm intended).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
Continued
Do I want to see a revolution in military sense? No way, the majority of the public are undereducated in what the role of government ought to be. We would end up in the same if not worse situation we are in now. But we are making headway. People are waking up to the fact that the problems we face are more or less created by our elected officials and the beaurocratic agencies they create.
If we are successful with our movement the established power will begin to feel threatened not by force but by voters altering our government systematically reducing their power over every facit of our lives, it is more likely that the government itself instigates force and violence to protect itself even though it is no longer relevent to common citizens.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." - Ghandi
Welcome to the Daily Paul.
Uh, your Ghandi quote, is
Uh, your Ghandi quote, is offered out of context, but then perhaps you intended that.
"A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men" ...Skousen's 22nd Principle, "5000 Year Leap"
fromIdaho
I think I understand the document, perhaps more than you think.
From what I read both here and on many other blogs and see on Fox/CNN, I'm not so sure that you are all going forward in the same direction.
The great mass of people both in the US and Canada are happy with how things are now and think anyone thinking the way you or I do is nuts.
So, my point is; sure you could have an armed revolution again, would the results be what you want? Would they be what the vaste majority of Americans want? I'm not so sure.
Don't wish for too much, the results might not be what you expect or wanted.
Look I'll make it simple for you
I am not calling for an armed revolution nor wish for one. But revolution is inevitable eventually due to the State growing exponentially. The State will at some point become to overbearing and my argument with the writer is that revolution will come from the Right (see the logical definition below) due to that fact.
If you're calling for an
If you're calling for an armed rebellion, then you're a fool. I assume you're not, however, and perhaps just misguided. Whoever fires the first shot will always be regarded as the aggressor, and therefore in the wrong . You are correct in your evaluation of the 'right'. Jefferson, Paine, Henry, Mason, et al, were Liberals. But neither left or right, liberal or conservative, have any relation to their original meaning. Of course this leads us to the old axiom, 'Those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it.'
my reply
i read a couple of your posts, not just this one, and i thought i would just respond in generality.
the problem with limiting your vision to the recent 20, 50, 60 years-- if you haven't realized, there is very much a cycle going on, and it has very much to do with our financial system, which is the federal reserve. the last severe economic depression was back in the late 1920s just before world war 2, and right now we're on a borderline depression. it's safe to say that there are very much historical and economical cycles that come in periods that can sometimes last longer than people's life span. keep in mind that most contemporary authors you might happen to read spent their entire adult life living in an economic boom that is unsustainable if its check against time becomes extremely long. and needless to say, financial reality is interconnected with our foreign policy, as well as every detail of the daily lives of common uninformed people. yes it very much affects a country as well as the world from top to the bottom, especially that the united states is the greatest technology exporter of the world, our well being affects very much how the rest of the world functions.
so in essence, the problem of contemporary thinkers and these short term wisdom is that they have lived in a short lived fantasy that cannot be sustained. you need to study real history throughout a sufficiently long period that beyond the shadow of a doubt provides accurate reference to the complete cycle of the rise and fall of a nation. you need to study what destroys an empire, or a nation, whatever you want to call it-- and that is the inflation of the monetary supply, the destruction of the currency, endless military adventurism, the collapse of the financial system, the growing civil unrest of the population, and the government's response in attempt to suppress civil unrest. yes they have been arranged in a cause-and-effect order. i would assume you already know about the fundamental root of problems of our financial system, which is the federal reserve? you didn't seem to in your arguments, but if you did, you would realize what we have had was corporatism, not free market capitalism. the establishment of a central bank to control interest rate and money supply is not capitalism. interest rate is supposed to be determined by the market and saving--interest rate sends out signals to investors in regards to the available resource that is available to be invested, so investors can use that information to avoid over-investing. therefore without a central bank manipulating interest rate, it's just logically impossible to develop an economic bubble, which just means "over-investing" in essence. but of course, you have to go back almost 100 years or more to study that.
the above was mostly a response to your attack on the free market, confusing capitalism with corporatism in many of your posts.
let's also talk about the revolutionary theme you seem to get at in regards to what's been around the internet lately. i don't know if you support the idea of any armed resistance at all, but the fact is every single empire in history has failed in time, and every single time the cause has been civil unrest and economic difficulty. perhaps you don't realize that ron paul's stance is actually peaceful resistance and he encourages civil disobedience and changing the government through the legal process, so in terms of your hope that it doesn't come to civil unrest, you're mostly preaching to the choir here if you're against armed resistance. however the assumption that making changes through the political process is possible is that our freedom of speech is preserved, and the public is not in any sense of an urgency that they can simply go on in their lives and wait for something good to happen. i just saw this video maybe 30 minutes ago so i haven't had time to fact check, the person was talking about an effort through UN to limit the freedom of speech in religious matters and it's happening in europe. http://www.youtube.com/wa... if civil unrest breaks out, do you think freedom of speech would still be preserved, and government won't put people on their payroll to pre-emp any arrest just based on speech? i think that's wishful thinking.
if unemployment reaches 25% like what we had in the previous depression, which is not impossible since our unemployment is already around 20% based on how we calculated it back in the previous depression--the new method excludes discouraged workers and it's at 10%, which is just unrealistic-- while this time around we already lost a good portion of our manufacture base to china, and we have no saving to slow down how fast the debt-financed consumption is destroying the value of our currency in the global market, which you might realize is pretty harmful to the average citizens that you seem to hope just won't resist no matter how badly things go. the assumption that we can rise out of this unscathed is just juvenile. we are trying to do this in a peaceful manner, that's why this is a political grass roots movement.
it's also quite illogical to assume that a president can accomplish much in an empire that has undergone not 8 years, but decades of decline. it just had nothing to do with him, but if he does anything wrong that doesn't help the people revert the system to how it once worked, of course he will get caught in the fire. we have a systematic problem, we don't have a personality problem. i'm not apt in fighting, i hope America can rise out of this without violence, but the anger behind most people, even the uninformed ones, is mostly due to economic difficulty and the uncertainty about this country's future. bashing obama as a socialist or anyone else in that matter, is just a way to vent anger verbally for a portion of the confused mass, the real motivation is the difficulty they are going through. engaging in word games with them without focusing on the real issue hardly helps so i'm not sure why you even mention it. if we had 6% unemployment, you seriously think the public reaction would be the same? so is the real cause the federal reserve system and warfare-welfare state or someone who happens to be named obama? i hope you're not opposed to the second amendment. in the worst scenario if we have run away inflation where the dollar devalues 50% (mind you, several countries have gone to practically 0), and we have 25% to 30% unemployment, people will do whatever it takes to save themselves whether you like it or not. something will be done either way, and it seems that the so called uninformed "right" will be the ones who will be the first ones pushed over the edge, but it's only a matter of time, because every person has a limit. the left-right discussion is irrelevant here.
2. unchecked popular myths--no offense, but as i have touched on in my first point, your misunderstanding of the us financial system in confusing corporatism with free market capitalism is a very shallow error that is most present in the mass media, normally displayed by news hosts who know very little about economics and history. this is evident if you have actually spent time watching how the very same people who provided this false argument failed to display any economic knowledge when their guests questioned them further on their shows. even michael moore, after lots of "feedback" and criticism from his viewers regarding his film which fails to distinguish the difference between corporatism and capitalism, admitted that there is a difference between free market capitalism and corporatism, here's the link http://www.youtube.com/wa...
and that what he was trying to criticize was actually corporatism. so in fact, he admitted that the title "capitalism, a love story" was actually a mistake, it should have been "corporatism, a love story". but given the opportunity, i doubt he would go back in time to change it. why? because it's a popular myth for people with shallow understanding of history, economics, and politics. i have already explained the reasons for booms and busts, and no, free market capitalism is not magical, it doesn't magically solve all our problems. people solve our problems, what honest capitalism does is encourage people to take risks and fail, so that in the process of doing so a few of them can come up with ideas that improve the lives of everybody. it's just logic. the evidence is in our everyday lives. the government has been involved in medicine since the 1960s and today they pay for over half of what our doctors do. but the government is only responsible for roughly 5% of our invented drugs.
advice for your next post-- look deeper in the quotes you provide, discuss both side of the argument and don't just drop one quote that has often been disproved and move on like the quote alan greenspan said on tv attacking capitalism and saying he didn't expect investors to be this foolish, which i think you paraphrased in your "An Assassin's Lessons About the Financial Crisis" post-- "Alan Greenspan expressed his surprise at discovering, at the age of 80, that a certain percentage of rich white men, given complete license, will steal the shirt off your back then grab your wristwatch when you extend your hand to save them." even though he was one of the greatest disciples of Ayn Rand, who considered the federal reserve to be the greatest enemy that distorts capitalism, and even though greenspan i believe in the 50s or 60s wrote an article supporting those theories, he reversed his position and became a central banker himself. he went on to become arguably the worst single person that has contributed to our financial bubble by bringing interest rate down to nothing, yet he lumps the two opposing theories that can't co-exist together and call it all capitalism.. he is very confused. he is already completely discredited by most people who understand real economics, yet you're trying to cite his take on the financial crisis, and that's just beyond me. he was right when he first associated himself to free market capitalism, then he abandoned it and joined the entity that all free market capitalists, including his teacher, advised against, he became the worst interest rate setter even among the central bankers themselves, and after a crisis occurred he associated that with capitalism. he is one very confused individual.
this brings it to my next advice: try to explain why the person you quote is correct or incorrect instead of just throwing questions or criticisms out and not finish the thought or provide solutions, and read from older literature once in a while such as those from our founders or from nobel winner economist Friedrich Hayek, not from people who contributed to our systematic failure like alan greenspan. or read ron paul's end the fed.
Response
I appreciate your thoughful comments. I'll try to respond to them briefly.
1) Alan Greenspan and my "attack on the Free Market."
I made the mistake in that post of not putting parentheses around the term "Free Market" all the way through. The fact is, the term "Free Market" has been used by every sort of political con man as an excuse for doing whatever they want to do, no matter how un-free it is. Chiefly, it's been used by Corporations and their allies to create a playing field that favors them. So, yes, I know the difference between the ideal free market and the present Corporate dominated markets.
My point about Alan Greenspan was ironic, but basically, either he's incredibly obtuse a, and my suspicion would be the latter. Maybe he truly believed in the incorruptibility of businessmen, and of Free Markets because that's his tribe and people generally uphold the mores of their tribe, whether they're elites, workers or whatever group you choose. I used Alan Greenspan as an example because, lapsed Ayn Randian or not, he was one of the architects of our boom economy and mouthed the "Free Market" mantra along with everyone else. That article is not so much about the free market, but about the way the terms "Free Market" were used to lead the country down the garden path.
Free Market
As to the Free Market, I think believing in an ideal Free Market as a near-utopian system is the same as believing in Scientific Socialism as the solution. Both ideals fail for the same reason: Human nature. Human nature and psychology causes unregulated markets to boom, bust, and become monopolized by the strongest players, with or without the Fed. I'm sure you've heard of the Panic of 1893, and the Panic of 1907, the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1837, all of which took place here before the Fed was created. Likewise, the South Seas Bubble, the Tulip Mania in Holland, and more examples all over the world than we have time for here. Markets are created by human nature, and are subject to all our ills. They are not perfect machines. They need courts and regulations, and the strongest, biggest players will ALWAYS try to control those courts and regulations, which is a big part of how we got into our present mess.
I just received End the Fed before I left on a long business trip (I am writing this from Beijing), but am looking forward to reading it when I get home. Then I'll read Secrets of the Temple, to get another take on it.
2) Limiting my vision to no more than 50 years.
The assumption on these boards is often that if someone doesn't agree with you they must not know the subject, and I won't give you a long tiresome bibliography here, but, yes, I was pretty thorough when I was researching the subject.
The subject was revolution, and I narrowed my comarisons Western industrialized economies with an intact state and modern communications, because that's most relevant to us now. Yes, there have been peasant uprisings, noble uprisings, martial arts uprisings (the Boxer Rebellion) and every flavor of uprising that you or I can imagine, but I was trying to stick to what's most relevant to us now.
I agree with your list of your causes for the end of empires, though they vary from situation to situation. However, I was taking a much narrower focus.
I appreciate the comments.
The American Revolution
I've heard this equation of "revolution" with "leftism" etc. but its simply not true.
The denial that the American Revolution was a "revolution" is a relatively new rhetorical maneuver. Does anyone have any idea of exactly when and where this redefinition of "revolution" originated?
Land is a natural right.
A natural right?
The American revolution was a revolution, but it wasn't a Right Wing revolution. Did someone say it wasn't a revolution?
How is land a natural right? Land has always been a right to the degree that someone has the force to hold onto it, or lives in a country where rights of ownership are upheld. Natural right? I think it's the opposite.
It was certainly a revolt against...
taxation agaiinst representation and the excessive power of the colonial crown.That is pretty close to a "right-wing " revolution as one can get in modern parlance.
Facepalm
I read your book and liked it, but you obviously are still a sheep. You still fall for the left-right paradigm and haven't woken up...
Left Wing Paradigm
Hey, I can't be unhappy with anyone who likes my books, but I'm not seeing what Left Wing paradigm I'm falling for here. You'd have to explain to me. Sheep? Ummm . . . okay.
LOL
"The Right favors military coups and death squads. Hitler was voted into office and seized power in a coup. Mussolini seized power in a coup. Pinochet took control in a coup. Franco, arguably was part of a revolution, but this occurred after a failed Right-wing coup attempt and was against a government that was already deeply divided."
It is a common misnomer that these individuals followed "Rightwing" ideals. In reality they were all Leftists or better yet Statists. That is the real war of ideology, Statists vs. Individuals.
In Defense of Franco ...
He has been demonized by the communists and by the West because, as a Spanish general, he actually rallied his troops and the Spanish people to rout the (Wall Street created and funded) communist insurgents shipped into Spain to take it over.
We should be so lucky as to have an American General Franco in our midst. He managed to keep Spain out of WWII and did his best to keep in out of the clutches of the NWO. THAT IS WHY THEY HATE HIM SO ... he wouldn't play their game. Too bad his successors were not up to the task. Today, Spain is as pathetic as the rest of Europe ... graying and dying of underpopulation.
Franco was counter-revolutionary ... the communists were the revolutionaries. Certainly, Franco wasn't perfect. He was just better than any modern US president I can think of. Besides, we don't know what he was dealing with at home (subversives) and internationally. PLUS he actually fought ... put his own life on the line ... for Spain and for his people.
You all need to start realizing that everything you think you know about history has been well massaged by the NWO.
Right on
I am not that versed in history with regards to Franco thanks for the heads up. I will have to read a little about him perhaps. But my point to the author was that he was pacing a right wing label on Statists and I argue that Statists are on the left of the political spectrum.
Good point
You've got a good point there. Mussolini and Hitler don't group well into either Left or Right. They were for a Totalitarian state involved in every aspect of business (Communist?) but hated actual Communists (Right Wing?). Pinochet and Franco were definitely Right Wing, and I could name a dozen other generals who followed the same track as Pinochet. Generally, they followed Right Wing ideals of giving free reign to business and foreign capital, and authoritarian government. The result was usually crony capitalism. I know crony capitalism isn't a right-wing ideal, but that's how it usually shakes out. Same with authoritarian government. Not that the Right has a monopoly on that!
G W Bush is a good example here. Compare him to another Republican like Eisenhower and you get the picture of where the Republicans have gone in the last 50 years. You could argue that Bush didn't exemplify Right Wing ideals, but if he didn't, who did that actually has held power?
Apparently our definitions
of Right and Left differ. As long as we are talking about a linear view of the political spectrum I view it as on the Left Statism and on the Right Anarchy.
Statism <----------------------------------->Anarchy
Communism <---------------------------->Minarchism
Fascism <---------------------------------->Republic
And varying political and governmental structures in between like Democracy.
If we view the Left and the Right as you propose with Fascists on the Right and Communists on the Left then all that remains is a Centrist or Third Way (Socialist in nature) political standpoint for those that seek something other than an over bearing government.
You're correct
in that it's very hard to define Right and Left, especially since they both blend into each other at the extremes. One could write an entire book and that subject, and probably have.
I'm going with the very simplistic definition that puts Communism at the extreme Left and Authoritarian, Nationalist, Pro-Business, Pro-Corporate at the extreme Right. Of course, extreme states of either political philosophy are authoritarian and repressive.
Let's see now, your
Let's see now, your generalities are confusing me. Given those parameters, the following grossly rich, authoritarian, nationalist, pro-business, pro-corporate, capitalists would all be "right wing nuts" according to your definition, correct?
Bill Gates
George Soros
Ben Bernanke
Barbara Streisand
Robert Rubin
Madonna
Steven Jobs
Michael Moore
Bill Clinton
Robert Redford
Peter B. Lewis
Mick Jagger
Eric Schmidt
Steven Speilberg
Jim Cramer
Warren Buffet
Are those the 'right wing revolutionaries' of whom you speak?
Where do you get this stuff?
"A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men" ...Skousen's 22nd Principle, "5000 Year Leap"
So now that we have that ironed out,
I believe that a revolution (hopefully peaceful in nature) could come from the right for the similar reasons as in 1775. Too much government too little representation for the individual. I'm not referring to the blind Bush followers, some used to be but more or less people are waking up to the idea that government is not the answer to our problems but the cause of them.
A Ronald Reagan moment, if
A Ronald Reagan moment, if ever I heard one.
I think we're all dilusional if we believe for two seconds that a cabal of capitalists - regardless of political orientation - are going to cave in to the rainbow world of one-ness. Besides, I just can't imagine very many machine guns being fired at the masses from the inside of limousines. Can you?
Men are the predominant source of violence and, when you get down to it, It's the old adage.... don't mess with my money or my woman.
Think about that for a moment - your discussion completely leaves out the extreme pressure that will come from American women in unemployed inner city and suburban families after the government benefit checks run out around Christmas time, 2009. Perhaps a chauvinistic concept, but real. Do you think they are right wingers too?
Picture, for just a moment, the all mouth "wise Latina" preparing dinner from last week's beans and tortillas, holding a new baby in one hand and a butcher knife in the other - while her man is trying to engage in a rational discussion about household finances and his "green job" search while he watches cage fighting on TV - with him knowing that his last resort for peace - is the Smith & Wesson or the Glock and the ammo hidden in the top shelf of his closet, or the shotgun in the trunk of his car. Not pretty.
Do you really think either of them is worried about their union card or voter registration card at that point? .... or talk radio and our blog opinions, for that matter? I don't think so, ....Homies.
Time to start thinking LA and Oakland riots - burning houses in New Orleans and Miami, and even more daily shooting in the streets of Detroit, as the flash points, people. We have about 500,000 active duty military, three-fourths of which are deployed to the hinter lands - How fast do you think this incendiary situation will become completely out of control if it were ever to start? With 15-Million unemployed, and 30% of it in the 18 to 24 category - several million gun owners - pushed to the brink by Obama's racial justice agenda - are you joking?
We give American idealism and political posturing far too much credit!
"A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men" ...Skousen's 22nd Principle, "5000 Year Leap"
Revolution is not always
Revolution is not always uprising by armed citizens... but you are right that The Right usually doesn’t do Revolutions.
Civil Rights Revolution in 60s was sometimes very violent and people lost their lives fighting... but it was not uprising by armed citizens. MLK chose Ghandi's way fighting for freedom.
In the most recent history the most successful revolution happened in my native country... where citizens had no rights to own a single gun. I don't want to belittle sacrifice of over hundred people who fought this revolution and lost their lives and I am not claiming this revolution was without violence... I experienced it on my own back and through my own nose... but relative to Millitary Coups or Nazi or Communist death squads it was not a blood bath or genocide as in case of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Suharto, or even Pinochet "revolutions".
I don't think revolution in USA is going to happen anytime soon... people here are too divided and they are not sure who is enemy...some blame liberals some blame republicans... and others blame illegal immigrants... closer to understanding the enemy are those that write posts on this board but even this relativelly small group do not realize that to change things you have to consider other people views and not oppose things that makes society civilized... I wish those people learn true meaning of world liberal... changing a few letters at the end and calling himself libertarian.. do not change the fact that it originate from world Liberty.
I wish people on this board learn some other important words beside Liberty, Freedom, Free Market that is why I uploaded short you tube video about the revolution I participated when I was young and pissed off.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
With all due respect for
With all due respect for your other comments, I would offer this:
"Civil Rights Revolution in 60s was sometimes very violent and people lost their lives fighting... but it was not uprising by armed citizens."
If you segregate the "Civil Rights movement" (black vs. white) and Dr. King's desired non-violent approach from any discussion about the 60's, then you are left with very violent armed "revolt" in America by radical socialist elements in the South and by self-avowed communists in the San Francisco/Oakland bay area and in the Northeast and Midwest - largely by the Ku Klux Klan, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army and others - who not only advocated "armed violence" in those years but who enforced it repeatedly in our streets from 1960 through 1972. And, they had a LOT of like minded but less determined armed followers - many of whom we refer to as "militia" today. There were numerous lynchings, assassinations, armed confrontations, bank and armored car robberies, murders, and bombings all finally attributed to these people, but the groups behind it were relatively small in comparison to something like the great Civil War.
By the way, many of those violence advocates and their followers are in Congress, the White House, and active in State government or government funded national educational organizations, today,
Some specific example are Congressman Bobby Rush, Bernadine Dohrn (wife of Bill Ayers), Bill Ayers himself, Jeff Jones, etc. Even if they do not possess it today, there was most certainly a time when they had killing on their minds - as socialist revolutionaries - and they enforced it, or tried to, or voiced loud support for it. They might deny it today but I would offer this truth from Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich".... when man embraces crime there is no such thing as turning back.
For reference, one of the best books about the socialist cabal during that era is by Cathy Wilkerson called "FLYING CLOSE TO THE SUN: My Life And Times As A Weatherman". Try reading the first 10 pages and you will not be able to put it down. She is very good at weaving her story - a story I can tell you is mostly true - that "the truth" becomes more entertaining than fiction - and I remain a staunch, anti-violent conservative in saying that.
Overall, I agree with the premise that "armed revolt" is unlikely in these times. There are two undeniable facts, however. Americans were not armed in the 1960's they way they are today. Crimes were committed in those days using 6-shot revolvers, shot guns, and long rifles. There were almost no automatic or semi-automatic weapons in the hands of private citizns. Dirty Harry's vaunted six-shot "44 magnum" was truly the "most powerful hand gun in the world". Today, no decent thug would be caught with a revolver and a militia member wouldn't be caught dead with less than multiple semi-automatic weapons - and at least one friend who owns a semi-automatic 50-caliber rifle or a variation of the M-16 or AK-47 - a totally different world.
Secondly, and conservatively estimated, there are more than 85,000,000 known guns in the hands of private citizens, with estimates closer to 230 Million. Those who are willing to put their "face" on it belong to various national lobbies like the NRA with some 4.5 million current members - up some 100% from just 10-years ago - and my guess is up more than ten-fold from the 1960's era. There are far more who operate under the radar and who do not want their "face" on this, especially considering the fact that that there are at least 10 million former combat veterans from World War II through today, plus their families, who are alive - and largely "conservative" politically.
So, I wouldn't take the situation too lightly. And I am relatively sure the Obama Administration - which does not enjoy the support of military members as did Bush, or Clinton for that matter - are fully aware that they can push just so far, before Americans push back. An interesting dilima and one that provoked this article, no doubt.
"A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men" ...Skousen's 22nd Principle, "5000 Year Leap"
I never studied Civil Rights
I never studied Civil Rights Movement so I have very limited knowledge of scale of violence ... I always thought that it was generally peaceful "revolution".... looks like I was wrong.
I am aware though that there is danger of extreme violence in this country but it will be violence that will have nothing common with revolution...It will be the same kind of violence we see in Somalia or Afghanistan, similar to violence in Balkan region in Europe or even similar to what is going on in Mexico close to USA borders. To have revolution you have to have common goal that is supported by big chunk of population - to have Mad Max violence it is enough to have very divided population, discredited local , state and federal government and strong believe that you can protect your freedom by owning 44 magnum or AK 47...
Health Care Crisis Solution
LEGACYWILLANDTRUST.COM
"ENDEAVOR TO PERSEVERE"
THIS WEBSITE WILL ENABLE YOU TO CREATE YOUR OWN LIVING WILL AND TRUST FREE OF CHARGE.
AFTER A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, YOU MAY PRINT YOUR DOCUMENT, HAVE YOUR SIGNATURE NOTARIZED AND FILE PROPERLY.
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHO WILL MAKE LIFE SUSTAINING DECISIONS ON YOUR BEHALF,
HANDLE YOUR FINAL AFFAIRS WITH YOUR IMMEDIATE LOVED ONES
AND DIRECT THE REST OF YOUR WORLDLY POSSESSIONS TO ALL OF YOUR HEIRS, COUNTRY, CHARITIES, PASSIONS AND GOD.
THE LEGACY YOU LEAVE ON THIS EARTH WILL YIELD FRUIT TO THE BENEFACTORS OF YOUR CHOICE FOR AN ETERNITY.
YOUR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT WILL NEVER BE TOUCHED.
A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR YIELD WILL BE RE-INVESTED AND THE REMAINDER TO BE DISBURSED AT YOUR DIRECTION.
YOUR BENEFACTORS WILL RECEIVE DIVIDEND CHECKS FROM YOUR LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION THAT IS NAMED BY YOU.
THE NAME OF THIS LLC IS WHAT WILL BE PRINTED ON EVERY LEGACY CHECK DISBURSED TO ALL OF YOUR LOVED ONES FOR AN ETERNITY.
BE CREATIVE AND LET THE WORLD KNOW YOUR WERE HERE AND LEFT YOUR MARK WITH A LEGACY.
THE LEGACY THAT YOU LEAVE TO ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS OF YOUR BLOODLINE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A GOVERNMENTAL TAX.
I PRAY THAT OUR GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE IT MODEST AND USE THIS NEW FOUND TAXABLE INCOME STREAM TO RE-BUILD SOCIAL SECURITY.
THE LEGACY THAT YOU LEAVE TO YOUR FAVORITE CHARITIES AND PASSIONS WILL CONTINUALLY BLESS THEM WITH A LEGACY CHECK FROM YOUR LLC FOR AN ETERNITY.
THE LEGACY THAT YOU LEAVE WILL BE INVESTED INTO WHAT EVER ECONOMY YOU DIRECT IT TO SO IT WILL CREATE JOBS.
THE LEGACY THAT YOU LEAVE FOR GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC WILL PROVIDE BASIC HEALTH CARE TO THE UNINSURED AT NO EXPENSE TO YOUR HEIRS. FOR MORE INFO
WWW.GODSLEGACYTRUST.COM
THE LEGACY THAT YOU WILL BE A PART OF IS A GENERATION THAT LEFT THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.
GOD has put onto my heart a Gift.
He wishes me to share it with Mankind.
GOD desires an Entity through which his
people can praise HIM and He can Bless
them ten fold. For all future generations
and for an Eternity.
- Your Humble Servant Nathan
EXAMPLE OF HOW THE LEGACY WILL AND TRUST CAN WORK IN A
PERFECT WORLD WITH ILLUSTRATIVE BENEFITS
TOTAL BENEFIT - $1 MILLION
YEAR STARTED - 1985
ANNUAL INTEREST YIELDED – 10 %
BALANCE
AFTER
YEAR -50 % REINVEST-50% DISBURSED -TAX 15% -CHARITIES 10% -HEIRS
1986 1050000 50000 7500 5000 37500
1987 1102500 55125 8268 5512 41343
1988 1157625 57881 8682 5788 43410
1989 1215506 60775 9116 6077 45581
1990 1276281 63814 9572 6381 47860
1991 1340095 67004 10050 6700 50253
1992 1407100 70355 10553 7035 52766
1993 1477455 73872 11080 7387 55404
1994 1551327 77566 11634 7756 58174
1995 1628894 81444 12216 8144 61083
1996 1710338 85516 12827 8551 64137
1997 1795855 89792 13468 8979 67344
1998 1885648 94282 14142 9428 70711
1999 1979930 98996 14849 9899 74247
2000 2078927 103946 15591 10394 77959
RULE OF 72’S 72/5 = 14.4 YEARS
OUR PRINCIPLE BALANCE HAS DOUBLED
2001 2182873 109143 16371 10914 81857
2002 2292017 114600 17190 11460 85950
2003 2406618 120330 18049 12033 90248
2004 2526949 126347 18952 12634 94760
2005 2653296 132664 19899 13266 99498
2006 2785961 139298 20894 13929 104473
2007 2925259 146262 21939 14626 109697
2008 3071522 153576 23036 15357 115182
______________
$2,172,598 $325,889 $217,259 $1,629,448
IF IN 1985 $1 MILLION WAS PUT INTO A LEGACY WILL AND TRUST, THE
PRINCIPLE BALANCE WOULD BE $3,071,522. TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
WOULD HAVE BEEN $2,171,598. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE
COLLECTED $325,889 BASED ON A TAX RATE OF 15 %. CHARITIES
$217,259 BASED ON 10% AND THE HEIRS WOULD HAVE SHARED A TOTAL
OF $1,629,448. THE 2008 DISBURSEMENTS WOULD BE: GOVERNMENT
$23,036 – CHARITIES $15,357 AND HEIRS $115,182.
MY VISION
GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC
GROWING GOD BACK INTO OUR WORLD
ONE GENERATION AT A TIME
LORD, HOW WILL YOUR ENTITY HEAL THE SICK?
"MOVE THAT BUS" FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS. FIND DONORS OF BUILDINGS THAT CAN BE RENOVATED TO ACCOMODATE A MODEST HEALTH CENTER. THE DONORS OF THIS CHARITABLE GIFT WILL HAVE A PLAQUE RECOGNIZING THEIR LEGACY TO THEIR COMMUNITY AND GOD.
THESE CENTERS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR GENERAL PRACTITIONERS. THE COMMUNITY WILL RENOVATE THESE BUILDINGS. A STAFF WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE NEEDS AND ACCOMODATIONS. THE STAFF PAYROLL AND INSURANCE WILL BE PAID BY GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC VIA A DIVIDEND CHECK INTO THE LLC CREATED BY THE CENTER/DONOR. ALL VARIABLE EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY VOLUNTEER CO-PAYS AND CHARITABLE GIFTS TO THE CENTERS.
THESE CENTERS WILL HAVE AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT SIGNED BY ALL THAT WISH TO USE THE CENTER. THEY WILL AGREE TO A $250,000 CAP ON LITIGATION PAYOUTS. THE PLANTIFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THEIR OWN LEGAL EXPENSES IF THEIR SUIT DOES NOT WIN BEFORE AN ARBITRATOR.
THE ONLY EFFECT THAT THESE CENTERS WILL HAVE ON SOMEONE THAT PRESENTLY MAINTAINS THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE IS SHORTER WAITS, LESS TAXES AND THE GRATIFICATION THAT THE UNINSURED IS RECEIVING HEALTH CARE. NO ONE NEED EVER HURT AGAIN AND BE HELPLESS. GOD LOVES AND HEALS HIS PEOPLE.
THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC AND EACH LLC THAT RECEIVES DIVIDENDS WILL BE ACCESSIBLE THROUGH PUBLIC RECORDS. THE FINANCIAL PLANNER FOR GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC AND THE LLC'S THEMSELVES WILL POST THEM TO THE WEB.
EVERYONE THAT RECEIVES A DIVIDEND CHECK FROM GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC QUALIFIES AS A STOCKHOLDER AND IS ENTITLED TO ONE VOTE. AT THE TIME OF MY DEATH, CONTROL OF GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC BECOMES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL STOCKHOLDERS TO ENSURE THE SURVIVAL OF GODS LEGACY TRUST LLC.
YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF, WHAT AM I GETTING OUT OF THIS?
FIRST: I AM FULFILLING MY PURPOSE FOR GOD. THAT WOULD BE A GRATIFICATION THAT COULD NOT BE ARTICULATED ONLY EXPERIENCED.
SECOND: I AM LOOKING OUT FOR THE FUTURE OF MY HEIRS, COUNTRY AND MANKIND.
THIRD: "GODS LEGACY TRUST" 90% AND "FROM THE ESTATE OF NATHAN J. ISBELL" "ENDEAVOR TO PERSEVERE" 10% FROM THE CONCESSION STAND FOR AN ETERNITY. YEAH, YOU GUESSED IT. I HAVE A BOOK AND SOME COOL T-SHIRT IDEAS. LOL
I PRAY TO YOU FATHER THAT MY VISION FOR YOU, BY YOU WILL SATISFY YOUR DESIRE FOR AN ENTITY TO HEAL YOUR PEOPLE. NOT A HOUSE MADE OF CEDAR, BUT AN ENTITY AND IDENTITY THAT ALL YOUR CHILDREN WILL REJOICE IN YOUR NAME AND COME TO KNOW THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER IS THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. THE ONLY MANGOD TO EVER GRACE OUR HUMBLE EXISTENCE BY GIVING HIS OWN LIFE FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND.
THANK YOU FATHER FOR ALL OF YOUR WONDERFUL GIFTS THAT WE MAY HAVE LOST SIGHT OF AND TAKEN FOR GRANTED. LET THIS GIFT OF YOURS TO US, BE AN AWAKENING THAT JESUS LIVES IN ALL OF US.
AMEN - YOUR HUMBLE SERVANT NATHAN