Thursday, January 3, 2013

No Middle Class and No Guns Assures No Revolution, Ever! The Haves and Have-Nots of Futuristic America.

January 3th, 2013

It comes as no surprise to most Americans that the economic middle class has been under attack and the number of citizens in the ‘middle class’ has been on the decline for several decades in Our nation (regardless of how the middle class is defined).  At some point, one has to stop to ask, why would any just government of the American nation (or anywhere else for that matter) allow for such a realistic decrease in the number of citizens proclaiming to be a part of the middle class?  Why might Our government have any desire or tolerance towards the long-predicted levels of a nation of “haves” and “have-nots,” the fruition of which we have been warned against for decades?

Well, for starters, this blogger believes one must also ask yet another question:  By the generally accepted rules, what can not happen without the support of a middle class?  The accepted maxim has it that a revolution in any given nation can not successfully take place without the support of that nation’s middle class.  Obviously, there are some arguable exceptions to this general rule, but probably not many.  Nevertheless, with no middle class in existence, there would be no middle class to support any revolution.    

Now the time has come that the power structure in control of Our nation – a power structure which has seemingly allowed for Us to move closer to the foretold nation of “haves and have-nots” for whatever the reason and almost regardless of political party affiliation – is also requesting that the citizenry not be allowed to have weapons of any significant firepower.  Speaking hypothetically, guns of significant firepower would, of course, allow for any defense from, or assault upon, those who might stand in opposition of the citizenry and also for use against those who might be armed with military type weapons and standing in opposition of the citizenry as well.  To be sure and to clarify, one could not defend themselves against any modern military force or military weaponry when one is armed merely with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. 

I am not a radical revolutionary anarchist.  I am merely a Constitutionalist.  Regardless, I am not preaching nor calling for any revolution nor do I believe such a need to be anywhere on the near-term foreseeable horizon.  However, as this same power structure which is comprised of Our political leaders has clearly sold our birthright to unknown banking cartels and those same political leaders typically appear to be in collusion with an unelected entity which runs Our nation’s economy, and none of these parties really seem to care for the average citizen as much as they seem to care for lining their own pockets with wealth and power; and, as Our politicians have allowed for the continued prostitution of Our birthright to outside entities, it is not entirely unforeseeable that a day could come when a revolution of some sort might be necessary. 

With no middle class and no guns of any significant firepower, no such revolution could ever successfully take place should it ever be needed, we can be sure.  Who has the ability to foretell the future and whether the ability to maintain a revolution should still be vested with the populace of the American nation?  No one, that’s who! 

Who would prefer that the ability to sustain a viable revolution not be vested with the populace of the nation?  Those of the upper economic and power echelons would clearly seem to prefer the prevention of any such ability to maintain a revolution by the populace.  Just look at economic realities of Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, should anyone need any obvious and current examples of the “haves” wanting to prevent any vesting of power in the “have-nots.”
Worth noting on this matter, at some point during the last week or so in response to the Newtown Connecticut elementary school massacre and as discussed on the supposed cable news channel MSNBC – which appears more as a liberal’s editorial channel to this blogger, Mr. Chris Matthews asked another anti-gun advocate if it would ever be possible that anyone in this nation realistically would ever need guns with significant fire power to defend themselves against the governments of Our nation or against any other invading army for that matter. That is to say, Mr. Matthews asked if any guns with real fighting ability should be allowed to be owned by citizens at large.  To this end and as I have blogged previously, the Founding Fathers took for granted the ability to defend oneself and one’s property with deadly force, that was not the real impetus for the Right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution.  The Right to bear arms was given so that the citizenry/sovereigns of the new nation of the United States of America could defend themselves from tyrannical armies from within and from without of the nation (ie: as did the heroic Minutemen of American Revolution fame).  To answer Mr. Matthews question, then, LET’S SURMISE IT ALL TO SAY THAT WE WILL NEED GUNS WITH SUCH FIREPOWER WHEN THE FASCISTS COME TO TAKE THEM AWAY FROM US!! 

To be clear, I am no gun-toting fanatic nor am I a member of the NRA.  I don’t own any assault weapons nor do I feel the need to own any.  I am merely a realist and understand the inclination of many and their governments to lean towards fascist and non-pluralistic types of governments and societies.  The Right to bear arms helps to prevent the unjust subjugation of the populace!   

To restate my point in this blog:  The middle class appears to have been under prolonged attack for decades.  The power structure as it is in Our nation has allowed for this attack on the middle class.  Again, as say the historical maxims, absent any support from a middle class, no revolution can be effected.  Now, those in power and who have allowed for this attack on the middle class now desire to take away the Right of the citizenry to bear weapons of significant firepower. What is the likely connection between these two ends, I am asking?  While surely veiled in promises to protect the welfare of the public, I say the connection between these two ends is more likely an effort to emasculate the American populace and therefore to prevent the ability of the populace to undertake any revolution, should such ever be necessary.  And, by the way, there are plenty of additional examples to support this conclusion, should it strike anyone as too far-fetched and should anyone care to debate the matter further. 

Adam Vernon Trotter

Regarding the widespread, continued, and senseless killings in our nation, I would add the following:

Stop the Violence on Our Streets and in Our Society!!! If It Takes Violence to Do So, Well.... Damn the Torpedoes, Full Steam Ahead!!

Fuck the Stupid Drug War; Let’s Start a War on Violent Creeps!!!

See also:
Decline of the Middle Class: Behind the Numbers
An Inside Look at the Middle-Class Squeeze

The Coming Middle Class Revolution (I didn’t read it but it sounds on point and relevant to this blog)

The Great French Revolution, 1789-1793, The Popular Risings

Middle class

Hardball with Chris Matthews

Mass Murder in Norway – A Nation Where Few Civilians Are Allowed to Carry Guns for Self-Defense. What Say You, Mayor Bloomberg?

A Just Government Fears Not…