There Will Be No Second American Revolution: The Futility of an Armed Revolt


KenK's picture

Tell that to the BLM inspired mass murderers and the lone wolf jihadist assassins that have been plaguing us the last few weeks Mr. Whitehead. Clearly they didn't read your inspiring essay.

Samarami's picture

John Whitehead is persistent about whining and whimpering over the machinations of collectivism and "the-state". I've never seen him suggest to his readers that they abstain from beans -- the first step in the alleviation of the condition about which he complains.

Never trust a writer who habitually and incessantly uses the dangerous "we" word:

    "...Unfortunately, we waited too long to wake up to the government’s schemes...We did not anticipate that “we the people” would become the enemy..."

I can't speak for "we". I began the awakening process well over 50 years ago, last time I voted or participated in a bread-and-circus presentation called "election". Liberty for me began to arise the day I-the-individual divorced we-the-people between my ears.

    "...We are fast becoming an anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of our revolutionary forebears incapable of mounting a national uprising against a tyrannical regime..."

Whitehead might be "...anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of forebears..." So might you. I can't speak for John Whitehead -- or you. But I am not anemic, weak (well, at 81 I'm perhaps not as strong as I was at 40), or diluted "offspring of forebears..." I have no forebears that I know of.

His final two paragraphs disclose him as a strong proponent of state. He just believes "we" must elect the right people.

John Whitehead is not a friend of freedom or liberty. Sam

ReverendDraco's picture

Remember. . .

Any military commander worth the name knows he needs a 25% greater force than his opponent - minimum - to achieve victory. A 50% greater force is better, a 100% greater force is a virtual guarantee.

Lawful gun owners in the US enjoy - minimum - a 3,200% numerical advantage over the military. . . possibly 3,600% or even greater. . . not to mention, not all of the military (or the police) are going to side with the State.
Granted, some of those gun owners will side with the State. . . but not enough I think, to make a difference in the outcome

Don't sell Americans short. . . aside from the fact that no standing army has ever defeated a guerilla force.
Especially a guerilla force that outnumbers them 32-to-1.

Go whine up a rope.

Jim Davies's picture

Your comparison begins with "Any military commander..." and within the context of armies facing each other which have similar degrees of command, control and discipline, you may well be right.
But that doesn't apply here. The government forces have that structure; we their victims do not. Only a guerilla war might succeed in putting that 3200:1 advantage to good use.
There's a much better way than that long, arduous and bloody course. John Whitehead wrote "it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry", I reckon he's about right. Once that understanding of and desire for freedom is widespread, the government's goose is cooked - regardless of its military capability.
Here's how.

Samarami's picture
    '..."it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry"...'

Thanks for catching and pasting this caveat by Dr Whitehead. Perhaps I might well take back my diatribe (some of it). And, your "...Power of One..." is important. I'm in agreement -- I'll always lean toward the individualist, away from the collectivist, mindset. Collectivism is what the idea of war, even "guerilla war", is about. I had such traumatic experience as a snot-nose kid in Korea (too many arms, too much ammo, too much idle time on the hands of too many snot-nose kids -- too many stupid "accidents" leaving too many friends dead and permanently wounded) that I've shied away from firearms while raising a large group of kids in relative peace. I've learned to live a life of freedom and liberty without leaning on the idea of gun-ownership for myself -- not that I'm on the collectivists' "gun control" side of things by any means.

'Nuff said about that.

There are things one can do. Here are some videos (I think they're free, but you might discover they won't work for you, because we might be paying for Black's "Sovereign Man" newsletters):

I've said for years that it is not necessary for me to "make" anybody else free in order for me to be free. Yes, I can write and talk about freedom, and I can encourage my neighbors, friends and family by personal example (by the way I live my life); but when the final bell tolls it will be up to the individual as to whether she will be free or slave. It has to start between the ears. Individually. Sam

(Oh -- by the way. Please abstain from beans -- although I'm aware, Jim, that it is not necessary to admonish you in that regard :-] )

ReverendDraco's picture

I say "any military commander" because that's the sort of person who would command the State forces. . . and yes, in the context of a clash of armies, that's how it works.

In the context of a standing army fighting guerilla forces. . . no army has ever won.
With armed Americans having a 3,200% (to 3,600%) numerical advantage, the possibility of the standing forces achieving victory is closer to zero than at any time in history.
It will take a systemic realization of this if the State is to do what has never been done before . . having a change of heart.

Where John Whitehead's writings could convince the average person to give up hope, to believe that "Resistance is Futile," I counter with information that could shore up courage.

KenK's picture

The real tragedy of our age isn't the approaching apocalypse. It's that it never comes. The powers-that-be just muddle through it all and we have to endure our slow strangulation as best we're able. The truth: Abstain from hope. There is none. 

Samarami's picture

The only thing I'll disagree with, Ken, is your final "...there is none..." (hope). I believe there is. But it may not take place in the way most of us posting here at STR expect. However, I'm a believer in the internet reformation.

I'm not a religious man. In my past I've dabbled with this and some other organized "church" -- mainly as a youthful father, attempting sincerely (but somewhat futilely) to find answers for successful parenting among the religious. I had not been in the same room with a newborn infant until after I returned from murderous conscription (slavery) in a far-off land. Suddenly (9 months and 12 seconds :-] after landing back on "US soil") I became a father.

Mama had warned me about good Jewish boys marrying good Catholic girls. A few years after my return I discovered that I had become a national distributor of young Catholics. Mama was right.

It appeared to me at the time that the religious had solutions that I desperately needed in order to become a successful parent with no training whatsoever -- zilch.

And, as grandpa of many, I find myself tippy-toing around family members who are doing the same thing: subscribing to this and some other church or religion to provide "example" for the grand- and great-grandkids. My hope is that I've instilled in them a penchant for thinking as individuals in lieu of following as collectivists, and that the proclivity for individual liberty will win-out in time.


Samarami's picture

Something in me caused me to stop short in my allusion to the religion phenomenon. Perhaps it's because I want y'all to like me, and I know there is a mindset surrounding the venue here that discounts anything of a religious nature.

The human mind, or spirit, is a puzzler. The only libertarian writer I've encountered who seemed willing to tackle the human mind has been the late Delmar England, whom I never met either on-line or in person. And who gained little recognition or credibility in the "libertarian" world (quotes intended).

Yet, unless one broaches and tries to understand the human mind, she will make little headway in promulgating "libertarianism" -- or liberty. In my humble opinion (which ain't so humble). Enough about England.

I give certain credence to the Hebrew Bible. Not because I believe in an omni-god who's sitting up there somewhere "...making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice..." That has nothing to do with the methods I use to refrain from discounting the centerpiece apparently used by virtually all religious leaders we know of in this "bible-belt" part of the world. Even the Muslims use bits and parts of the Book to substantiate their ideals. To say nothing of, for, or against "the Jews" (most who use that term know nothing about to what or to whom they refer -- another topic for another thread, perhaps on another forum altogether).

I use four scientific observations to substantiate my claim (that the Book has certain reliance): 1) It's about the most popular book in town. I suspect you have at least one version, interpretation, rendition, translation and/or "exposition" somewhere. 2) It is utilized by and considered to provide the substance of almost all religion that we know of by their leaders and their promulgators. 3) Most who claim to preach from it drift so far afield from it's central theme that it's humorous -- if it were not so deadly tragic. 4) It's a book of anarchy from stem to stern.

I'll deal with the last (4th) observation as it pertains to STR and most of our discussions here. I look at this chapter to be the fulcrum, or central theme, that underpins the book -- and that ties it to anarchy, and to STR, and to most of the other forums to which many of us visit and subscribe.

It appears that there is an eerie, almost electromagnetic "pull" (I call it "spirit" for lack of less religious-sounding descriptor) in the human mind toward subservience -- the desire to be ruled, to be "protected", to be "secured" -- from "them" (the bad guys, whomever they might be). And, even though the evidence is right out in front of everybody, it only seems to occur to the .001% (that would be me, and, hopefully, thee) that the real, genuine threat comes from the "Protector" -- the "Securer" -- The King.

So, Ken, I have hope. Some might call it hope against hope. I have hope that somebody will read this and will seek to become free of that "pull", or "spirit", that lands them right back into belief in partisan politics, and rulership. I have faith, I guess you could say, in the Internet Reformation. Sam

Samarami's picture

I'm raising Whitehead's grade up to "almost".

At least he's getting pissed. Never will he urge us to abstain from beans, but he does say, at the end,

    "...Stop playing the game. Stop supporting the system. Stop defending the insanity. Just stop..."

Almost sounds like he's suggesting that I "opt out" -- but not quite.

    "...It takes a citizenry** willing to do more than grouse and complain. We must act—and act responsibly—keeping in mind that the duties of citizenship extend beyond the act of voting..."

**He doesn't explain what he means by the brainless abstraction, "citizenry". Would that be thee? Or me????

I'll stick with our old friend, Mark Davis' take of 11+ years ago:

    "...Working within the system means to become a part of the system.
    When you go into the voting booth, the only meaningful significance that your action will have is to show that one more person supports the state..."

    ~Mark Davis

From Be Free, by Mark Davis July 10, 2005.