| From: | Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | New Installment in Continuing Lecture Series (III)... |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Apr 1995 05:14:51 -0500 |
Naturally, it is not in the interests of the modern government to either
re-write or do away with the Constitution, and at present is would be most
unlikely were any inclined to so so. There is the precedent for the evoking
of a Constitutional Convention for the proposition of amendments (although,
it should be noted that the Articles of Confederation were "amended out of
existence" and thus one had the federal revolution) if two-thirds of the
State legislatures apply for such, and if the fruits of such a meeting are
approved by three-fourths of the State legislatures. Thus far this has not
occured, lest my recollection deceive me, but there is such a potentially
revolutionary mechanic yet in place unused.
Many individuals with whom I speak often indicate to me 'tis their conviction
that "the revolution" (nice, vague term) shall occur within this generation.
Some feel the Congress shall be compelled and coerced into a re-adoption of
the Bill of Rights, the rationale being that any "meddling" with these
sacrosanct legislative tenets would incite such ire as to provoke bloody
revolution on the part of the populace. Others predict or fear that one
disenfranchised or o'erly powerful group shall agitate and achieve suzerainty
over the populace, imposing its Weltanshauung and philosophy upon the others.
Still more are unsure but perceive that the unrest and dissatisfaction is
indicative of undercurrents which shall lead to eventual drastic modification
of the American Republic and way of life.
Are such occurrences unprecedented? No.
The United States stands in a position almost unique in History. With the
defeat/economic exhaustion and subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Empire,
i.e., Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the U.S.A. presently is the one
remaining so-called Super-Power remaining (this, a modification of the Great
Power title granted to various European nations in diplomatic circles in the
previous centuries -- used a great deal in connection with World War I).
The great conflict of the generation and age has ceased, as it appears.
Such circumstances are possibly only echoed in the instance of the eve of the
Roman Republic. Rome had been engaged for greater than a century in a series
of wars with the other regional power, Carthage. The three Punic Wars
[264-241, 218-201 (which featured Hannibal's famous invasion of Italy), and
finally 149-146 BC] would ultimately climax in the destruction of Carthage.
This conflict, which had been prosecuted for generations, was finally ended,
with Rome as victor. With the salting of the Carthaginian fields, it was a
fairly confident prediction to state that Carthage wouldn't be a threat in
the foreseeable future, perhaps e'en e'er again. Rome was, as consequence, on
top of (its particular region of) the world; the lone Super Power.
The Carthaginian were a feared yet respected foe, and much of what constituted
the popular perception of a Noble Roman of what precisely it meant and implied
to be a Roman was defined by way of contrast with what was held to be typically
Carthaginian. Rather like the American contrast with what was Communist or
Soviet or Red (even with the dichotomy of the individualistic verses
collectivist society!). The difficulty was that with this ancient foe finally
destroyed, what ramifications precisely would this have upon the definition of
what it meant to be Roman?
The result was an identity crisis on the societal level of magnitude. It
should come as no sunrise that the succeeding period was not marked with a
smooth transition to the next form of government. Identity crises are not
pleasant, especially upon such a scale. There was class conflict, social
reformers (the Gracchus brothers, later assassinated), a few slave revolts,
and several civil wars (Marius vs. Sulla 88-82, Caesar vs. Pompey 49-45, the
Triumvirate v. Caesar's assassins 44-43, and Marc Antony v. Octavian 32-30).
This would eventually culminated in the transformation from a somewhat
aristocratic republican government with democratic elements to an Empire with
a deified monarch (Emperor Caesar Augustus, 27 BC - AD 14).
Still, even after such destructive civil war, sufficient remained to lay the
foundations for a state which would survive to AD 476 in the West (when the
last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by a Germanic tribal
chieftain) and to 1453 in the East (with the death of the the final Byzantine
Emperor, Constantine XI, on the walls of the final eastern stronghold of
Christendom, Constantinople).
This occured from, of all things, victory in a life or death struggle with
another culture with which it grappled for generations and the ensuing
ramifications it had for the society's identity and definition. America,
with the defeat of the Soviet Bloc, must now seek to redefine itself and its
role in the world . . . much of this discussion has already begun and is
taking place in academic, military, economic, and social circles. Perhaps,
America, too, shall encounter a change of comparable magnitude? Time shall
tell, and I, too, believe in the possibility of Revolution ...
"...revolution is a force, and one must know how to use it."
-- Chancellor Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen
IV. The Tenability of the Resistance of the Populace to the Government --
Depends upon parameters, certainly. An armed populace, especially a large
one, may conceivably effectively /resist/ the government in an insurrection
were the government popularly perceived to have overstepped its bounds. For
one, it must be admitted that were such a /broad-spectrum/ uprising to occur
(the operative qualifier being broad-spectrum, as localized disturbances have
been dispersed fairly effectively -- although few were truly /revolutionary/
in nature), certain politicians as well as military groups should be expected
to express loyalty to the rebellion.
(excerpted from earlier posting: "The Military -- to Cyber or not to Cyber?")
... There are cases where simple tenacity and larger, inferior forces
succeeded over more technological ones. Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon
Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler all learned the mistake of fighting the Russians
on Russian soil... The victory of the Communists over the forces of the
Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek in China... The Red Chinese entrance into
the Korean War, causing the "Great Bug-out"... Vietnam... the Muhajaden
which harried and eventually compelled the withdrawl of the Red Army from
Afghanistan... again, I could proceed ad nauseum.
[ Although it should be noted that not all guerrilla wars have met with
success...look to the successful repression of guerrilla forces in the
Philippines following the Spanish American War. ] (end excerpt)
If matters truly devolved to the situation which pitted the majority of the
populace verses the government of the United States, the degree to which this
shall occur is not for me to say as such depends largely upon the perceived
threat. (elements excerpted from earlier posting) Is the mob a threat to the
government which the Army loyally serves? Or is the government a threat to
the citizenry from which the members of the Army hail?
The military is used to put down rebellion; hence, where does the loyalty of
the military lie? To the people or to its sovereign, be it a legislative
assembly, an executive officer, or a monarch?
There are numerous cases in history where militaries have effectively and
categorically quelled localized uprisings, although there are instances where
the troups dispatched to put down seemingly larger rebellions have effectively
switched sides upon their meeting of the masses.
The French Revolution demonstrates to us what can occur when a goodly sum
sum of the military does elect to side with the insurgents. Lafayette was
a Royal Army officer who elected to side with the Revolution during its
earlier, conspicuously saner period.
In line with the earlier argument, the celebrated storming of the Bastille
by the Paris Mob was /not/ for the purpose of freeing political prisoners,
despite popular perceptions to the contrary: Discovered within there was
a grand total of less than ten, if I recollect accurately. The populace
was seeking to arm themselves with weapons which would be found in the
reviled fortress' arsenal.
There are also the largely peaceful collapse (relatively speaking, of course
-- it could have been far worse) of the Eastern European regimes during and
subsequent to 1989, in which members of the military often lent a hand,
especially in Rumania.
The United States' military and the National Guard have both been utilized
for the putting down insurrection by the populace (or civil disorder, if you
will). Riots, strikes, civil disobedience have not all been quelled by the
local constabulary, some required the presence of the military: The Whiskey
Rebellion following the Revolution, the Bonus Army's march on Washington, D.C.
during the Great Depression (World War I veterans verses active soldiers),
the great number of riots during the turbulent 1960s, and numerous strikes by
unions of dissatisfied workers. (end excerpts)
But in the case of the American government truly engaging in the unthinkable
and provoking such a wide-band reaction among the populace as to incite
pan-continental insurrection, it should be expected that elements within the
military would not unilaterally side with the government. I shall not speak
of percentages, but especially in the instance of an armed populace which may
at least be given the modicum of chance to resist a crack-down, the military
would be e'en more probable to side, in some cases, with the rebels.
It shall be determined by the military itself in ascertaining to whom shall
its loyalty be ascribed and where it perceives the threat to be. 'Tis a roll
of the dice, so to speak, but categorically possible or no, the Second
Amendment possesses dramatic relevancy to many Americans.
V. Specified Rejoinders -----------------------------------------------
A. Von Herrn Bob Ooton ---------------------------------------
>I can't really expect anyone who doesn't understand/live in the USA to try
>and interpret any of our laws in a sensible manner. Most of the people
>posting about how insane our laws are come from stagnant culture pools. The
I should very much like to see you defend such a ridiculous assertation. Most
Americans happen to hail from one or more of those supposedly stagnant culture
pools. In fact, whatever one might consider to be American culture is
arguably merely a mish-mash of many and myriad cultural elements all drawn
together. As to whe'er this qualifies as a /unique/ culture depends upon
whe'er you opt for the opinion that American society is greater than the sum
of its parts.
The proximity of several nations of peoples and cultures in Europe arguably set
the stage for the interaction in communication and the interplay of ideas which
made possible not only a long series of bitter rivalries and conflicts, but the
eventual control (at the close of the previous century) of the nearly 3/4ths of
the Earth's peoples by one continent.
Nor is America unique in its cosmopolitan nature, the Netherlands, for example,
have for centuries been a nation that has attracted refugees for varying
political and religious reasons. Australia has seen colonists from all manner
of cultures seek their fortunes in the rugged beauty of its interior. Nor are
the other contemporary European nations without their own waves of immigration
and settlement.
>same things get done in the same ways year after year, decade after decade,
>millenia after etc... Here, we have people from EVERYWHERE and things
>change on a daily basis.
If your perception is that the contemporary rapidity of change is a phenomena
localized to the United States, you are sadly mistaken.
> Just can't possibly understand what that's like
>unless you've lived here... So please don't try to? (you'll only attract
>flame...)
Mere absence of direct first hand experience regarding the way of life in
America does not preclude the possibility that foreigners may indeed have
something of merit to teach us. Let us not be so self-assured to believe
we possess all the answers, lest we attract flames.
B. Von Herrn Robert Watkins -----------------------------------
>Yep, those nasty barons held poor King John (ya know, Richard's brother...
>big bad Prince John of Robin Hood fame) at sword point and made him sign.
>Further more, I don't know of ANY system of government outside of the UK
>still based on the Magna Carta. The House of Lords thing kinda annoys
>republican parties.
The point was, I expect, that although the system established by the Magna
Charta is no longer existent /per se/, there are principles outlined within
the document which were retained after it itself no longer was the document
defining the government, such as the right to trial by jury.
C. Auch von Herrn Bob Ooton -----------------------------------
>Force views on others? Can't do that... that's fascist. And I don't think
>anyone anywhere would like the idea of a fascist USA.
The above statement is an example of the irresponsible use of an highly
emotionally charged term for effect rather than a demonstration of actual
comprehension of the implications and definition of said term.
The mere concept of imposing one's views upon another is not in an of itself
fascist. Were it so, the principle of Majority Rule /could/ be decried as
as such. Bigoted and close-minded it could be claimed in some instances, but
not fascist. Fascism is a political philosophy which exalts Nation and Race
above the Individual and calls for a centralized autocratic government directed
by a dictatorial leader, some to total state control of the means of industry
(the socialist side of National Socialism, in which it has much in common with
its supposedly diametrically-opposed system, communism), social regimentation
demanding complete obedience to the State, and the forcible suppression of
opposition. Especially in light of the decidedly poor track record that such
systems have in the course of History, to implement them in so lacidascial a
manner is as improper as it is inaccurate.
Do understand, my intent here is not to rush to the defense of fascism --
Heaven fortfend!, but rather to see that such terms are implemented accurately.
D. Von dem Grossen Cornholio (ending on a high note) ----------
>Hear hear, Fearless Leader. The consitution has become a tool for special
>interest groups to shove in other people's faces to say, "Hey! It says RIGHT
>HERE in the CONSTITUTION that *blah blha blah*." I know people that get
>totally offended when a mall preacher at the U of A comes up to them and
>says, 'It say RIGHT HERE in the BIBLE that *blah blah blah*."
Precisely. A wise man once suggested to me the following axiom:
TEXT out of CONTEXT becomes PRETEXT.
>peoples rights, and that misses the entire point of the constiution. In the
>famous words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?'
*sigh* Apparently not.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@*******.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"With respect to the true monarchial government, it is the best or the worst of
all others, accordingly as it is administered."
-- Frederick II, the Great, King of Prussia
