An Old Issue

I'm going through some old files in search of an article on the subject of moral boundaries. Specifically when is an armed uprising morally necessary.

So far I found the following piece. I submitted it to editor Steven M. Barry (a.k.a. J.F.A. Davidson) for publication in The Resister. But SMB always had something better to publish. And the assumption at the time I wrote it was that Big Bubba was going to be the chief enemy. This still applies to The Big Zero.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL?

After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.

After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:

What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States, you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote. You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.

In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.

The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood and treasure.

The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.

The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's

The fundamental problem with the enemy is that they value power. Loot has always been a secondary issue for them. It is their lust for power that is currently driving their efforts to silence and disarm the People. And it is these efforts that will ultimately bring about the revolution that will destroy them.