PDA

View Full Version : WE NEED A REVOLUTION, NOT A MOVEMENT



Ares
26th August 2010, 05:56 PM
By Chuck Baldwin
August 27, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

The elections of 2008 (and the early elections of 2010) produced two significant phenomena: the "Ron Paul Revolution," and the "Tea Party Movement." And, mark it down: both of them will have profound effects upon the upcoming November elections--and upon the 2012 elections as well. Call them what you want, however, America doesn't need another movement; it needs a genuine revolution.

The Tea Party movement, while still a force with which to be contended, has already been diluted and compromised. The primary elections plainly reveal the reality of this fact. The high spots so far are the defeats of Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Bob Bennett in Utah. The low spots so far are the reelection of John McCain in Arizona and the election of Dan Coats in Indiana.

John McCain's election, in particular, demonstrates how many conservatives and "revolutionaries" still don't get it. If any State in the union should have an up-close-and-personal look at what we are up against, it would be the people of Arizona. After all, they are on the front lines in the fight of one of the most important battles currently being waged in our country: illegal immigration. And John McCain is one of the worst offenders in terms of facilitating and encouraging this illegal invasion. Yet the people of Arizona reelected McCain to the US Senate. (It would interesting to know how many illegal aliens voted for McCain, would it not?)

Then again, John McCain received the enthusiastic endorsement of former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. This endorsement obviously brought McCain thousands of Tea Party votes that otherwise would have gone to his principal opponent, J.D. Hayworth. McCain is not the only Big-Government globalist neocon to receive Palin's endorsement. Many of Palin's endorsees are neocons; which leads to one of the biggest problems with any so-called conservative movement: allowing celebrity-type "conservatives" to become the de facto leaders and spokesmen for what should be a true grassroots, people-generated rebellion. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the two biggest culprits in this regard.

Mark my words: Palin and Beck may see themselves as part of a conservative "movement," but they want nothing to do with an old-fashioned, honest-to-God, Patrick Henry-style revolution. In fact, they are doing everything in their power to keep such a revolution from taking place.

This does not mean that Palin and Beck do not contribute some good things to freedom's fight. They do. The problem is, for every good thing they contribute they counterbalance it by supporting establishment principals, such as John McCain and Newt Gingrich, and attacking non-establishment players and ideas, which serves only to keep the Big-Government power structure firmly ensconced in Washington, D.C.

Get real, folks, and start thinking for yourselves. Ask yourself why Fox News never (or hardly ever) invites non-establishment patriots to appear on their network. Why do you not see former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts on Fox News? Why do you not see former Georgia congressman and Presidential candidate Bob Barr on Fox News? Why do you not see former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura on Fox News? Why do you not see former Director of the US Office of Economic Opportunity and Presidential candidate Howard Phillips on Fox News? Why do you not see Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin on Fox News? The list is endless.

Fox News is not "fair and balanced." It is as controlled and manipulated as any other media news network. The only thing it balances is the other networks' infatuation with the Democrat Party, by promoting Republican candidates and ideas. What it does not do is educate and inform the American people with the truth as to what both major parties are doing to destroy our country. But remember, Fox News is owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch, the same man who helped finance Hillary Clinton's campaign for the US Senate, and who is as much of a globalist as anyone in Washington, D.C., or New York City.

As an aside, and speaking of Hillary Rodham, I predict that she will replace Vice President Joe Biden BEFORE the 2012 elections. I've said that in private for many weeks, and now say it in this column--remember, you heard it here. The Clinton-Bush Crime Syndicate (CBCS) needs Hillary in the White House badly, and Obama has readily accepted a subservient role in the criminal affairs of CBCS (for very profitable reasons, no doubt). And with the CBCS bosses pretty much running things at the White House (they don't worry about domestic or social issues, providing that these do not interfere with their international criminal activities), is it any wonder that Obama has already taken more vacations than most Presidents take during an entire term?

And it is the influence of globalists and neocons upon national and international politics that the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck simply do not get--or do not want to get. And because many Tea Partiers are so enamored with these two (and allow them to do much of their thinking for them), they remain clueless as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, America is in the throes of socialist and Marxist political upheaval. The curtain could fall at any time. The American people need to wake up to this truism: a "conservative" movement--even a conservative Tea Party movement--will not save us. The only thing that will save us is an old-fashioned State revolt

Arizona had the opportunity to become a modern-day version of 1775 Massachusetts. But Arizona has probably forfeited that leadership role by 1) reelecting John McCain, and 2) being willing to allow federal courts to dictate law to a sovereign State. Instead of taking its case to the federal courts, Arizona should simply tell the federal government that it will enforce its own State laws (including the newly enacted anti-illegal immigration law) regardless of what any federal court says or doesn't say. At some point, that is exactly what some State (or group of states) in this union is going to have to do, or liberty will be forever lost.

As long as freedom lovers are content to remain satisfied with the status quo by allowing party politics and media celebrities to dominate their efforts, there will be no stopping this socialist avalanche that is crashing down upon us. The Tea Party movement of 2010 (if left free of Big-Government neocons) could certainly translate into positive developments this November; that is for sure. A revival of the "Ron Paul Revolution" in 2012 could also make a significant contribution, but it is going to take a State revolution to seal the deal. I, for one, am ready.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin612.htm

Fortyone
26th August 2010, 05:57 PM
Ron Paul has been there far too long NOT to be one of them. He has zero chance of winning ,and even if he did, would be like the others.

Ponce
26th August 2010, 06:23 PM
A revolution means blood and war........a "devolution" means to return to the people what just to belong to the people.

We should beat them at their own game by changing the government and if that doesn't work then by all means have your revolution..........after all the people are the real government and not those few who we have entrusted with the power for a couple of years.

Wolverinesssssssssssss

wildcard
26th August 2010, 08:23 PM
Ron Paul has been there far too long NOT to be one of them. He has zero chance of winning ,and even if he did, would be like the others.


In the original Tea Party, men went and took action. RP says let's give love a chance! Don't be violent! Don't take any action! We'll vote our way out of this. :oo-->

Book
26th August 2010, 09:49 PM
No such thing as a non-violent revolution...lol.

:D

Phoenix
26th August 2010, 11:22 PM
No such thing as a non-violent revolution...lol.

:D




In a world of Jewish DOUBLETHINK, there is.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z2Plm-yHL.jpg

Joe King
27th August 2010, 12:05 AM
No such thing as a non-violent revolution...lol.

:D


What if people were to simply stop participating?
You know, based upon a little thing called principle.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 12:10 AM
What happens when people stop participating? Waco? Ruby Ridge? The Browns?

Joe King
27th August 2010, 12:45 AM
What happens when people stop participating? Waco? Ruby Ridge? The Browns?
The only reason those things happened was because they were all alone.
i.e. cant "Ruby Ridge" everyone.

Besides, how do you "force" people to go ask for loans against their own future earning potential if they don't want to?

wildcard
27th August 2010, 12:50 AM
Have you ever heard "kill one to control ten thousand"? If TPTB send in the goons and televise it and spread it around the net day and night...how many will be camped out over night trying to be first in line to get their arrears caught up?

*how do you starve a machine of revenue that can print more out of thin air?

**you can't ignore a parasite in the body or ask it nicely to stop and leave. No, it requires poisons (anti-biotics = against life) or the scalpel to remove it.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 01:18 AM
Have you ever heard "kill one to control ten thousand"? If TPTB send in the goons and televise it and spread it around the net day and night...how many will be camped out over night trying to be first in line to get their arrears caught up?

*how do you starve a machine of revenue that can print more out of thin air?

**you can't ignore a parasite in the body or ask it nicely to stop and leave. No, it requires poisons (anti-biotics = against life) or the scalpel to remove it.


That parasite lives off of interest and the gov can only fill the gap, created by lack of individual participation, to a point.
Which is what the gov is trying to do by upping its borrowing in all our names collectively, because wer're not doing it individually to the degree we need to to keep the pool of "money" that we all use, filled up.
...but as we all can see, they aren't doing a real good job of it as the pool is still pretty low in spite of all their "printing".

wildcard
27th August 2010, 01:22 AM
I don't believe they need our money at all. I think they simply tax and fee us down to keep us under control.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 01:51 AM
I don't believe they need our money at all. I think they simply tax and fee us down to keep us under control.
They may not need our "money", but they do need us to keep the ponzi-scheme of an economy running as they benefit from it more than anyone.
i.e. the base of the pyramid needs to step out from under the rest of it.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 02:16 AM
Why would they "need" our paper? They have the press. If you mean they have to keep the illusion going so the herd doesn't turn on them then I agree. But everyone in America could not pay taxes for 50 years and not stop them.

*until they used the fruit of their labors to their own ends.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 02:52 AM
Why would they "need" our paper? They have the press. If you mean they have to keep the illusion going so the herd doesn't turn on them then I agree. But everyone in America could not pay taxes for 50 years and not stop them.

*until they used the fruit of their labors to their own ends.

It's our labor that they need, as they benefit from this machine that the economy is, too.
i.e. the bigger that economy is, the more there is to skim off the top. And boy do they like to skim alot.

We're the serfs willingly participating in our own enslavement by helping to keep a system that benefits the few, going.
Or most of us, anyways.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 03:23 AM
So when you say stop participating you mean quit working?

*let's ride that wave out Ayn Rand :P Sure it may work for a week or two until the pantry runs clean and then what? Say we magically get everyone to quit, TPTB don't care they can simply go have snails in France and wait us out. Their minions have stockpiles I'm sure. And the military would probably start pressing folks into service. Think about everyone not producing for a year. Sure we have the politicks begging for mercy, but TPTB with their trillions are still living it up just waiting to dance back in. Where every joe schmoe except a few are barely subsisting. Everyone is poor. Poor people don't have the means to resist. We can NOT be reactionary and we can NOT out wait them.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 03:38 AM
Can you count suckers? I say the future is ours, if you can count!


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:4J87WyrCi4R7gM:http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/6028/still308jk.jpg&t=1

SWRichmond
27th August 2010, 04:15 AM
Besides, how do you "force" people to go ask for loans against their own future earning potential if they don't want to?


It's called "The National Debt."

Joe King
27th August 2010, 04:52 AM
So when you say stop participating you mean quit working?

*let's ride that wave out Ayn Rand :P Sure it may work for a week or two until the pantry runs clean and then what? Say we magically get everyone to quit, TPTB don't care they can simply go have snails in France and wait us out. Their minions have stockpiles I'm sure. And the military would probably start pressing folks into service. Think about everyone not producing for a year. Sure we have the politicks begging for mercy, but TPTB with their trillions are still living it up just waiting to dance back in. Where every joe schmoe except a few are barely subsisting. Everyone is poor. Poor people don't have the means to resist. We can NOT be reactionary and we can NOT out wait them.

No, not quit working.

Quit the banking system.
i.e. force it into irrelevancy by ignoring it.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 04:54 AM
The banksters have probably 100 times the world's yearly product. You can NOT out wait them. They may go offshore for a bit, but they'll be back lugging trunks full of bribe money.

*we have to slay the dragon, cut its head off, draw and quarter it and leave monuments to its destruction. Enact laws that make it a death sentence to promote usury or central banking.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 05:18 AM
If we stop paying local taxes then we weaken the local gov. Not that I'm for the local gov, but it will only allow central gov to take even more power. I saw something where teachers are asking local parents to buy TP for the school. They are making a damned fortune, taxing the county til it squeaks and still asking for the parents to contribute more? Maybe I should put them in touch with Ponce for the charmin.

*it's time we tell the gov no, we're not going to be raped.

http://www.a-human-right.com/no.JPG

Joe King
27th August 2010, 05:27 AM
If we stop paying local taxes then we weaken the local gov. Not that I'm for the local gov, but it will only allow central gov to take even more power. I saw something where teachers are asking local parents to buy TP for the school. They are making a damned fortune, taxing the county til it squeaks and still asking for the parents to contribute more? Maybe I should put them in touch with Ponce for the charmin.
What does choosing to borrow against ones future earning potential have to do with paying taxes?
Is the latter not possible without doing the former?

The point I'm getting at is, if the gov and banksters saw that the people weren't enticed by their product, they'd change it to something that was.
i.e. it takes two to tango.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 05:39 AM
Yeah, well that starts with education. Education that the banking system made sure to displace. Both parents are working and the school system was built by the same shysters that built the banking system. It's hard to blame the victim when they aren't fully informed. And don't say it's their own fault because they have access to stuff that we don't. I've learned a ton of inside stuff from listening to Max Keiser. Things that people on gim1 weren't talking about, so that tells me there just as ignorant to the big schemes as the masses are to the stuff we see.

*100 years ago most folks knew that usury and debt was immoral and intrinsically wrong. What happened? It was marketed and sold.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 05:50 AM
Yeah, well that starts with education. Education that the banking system made sure to displace. Both parents are working and the school system was built by the same shysters that built the banking system. It's hard to blame the victim when they aren't fully informed. And don't say it's their own fault because they have access to stuff that we don't. I've learned a ton of inside stuff from listening to Max Keiser. Things that people on gim1 weren't talking about, so that tells me there just as ignorant to the big schemes as the masses are to the stuff we see.

*100 years ago most folks knew that usury and debt was immoral and intrinsically wrong. What happened? It was marketed and sold.
Exactly!
...and the zombies bought it.

I'd say that what I'm askin' for is a lot easier to come by than what you're implying, because in order to have "hot" Resistance people will also need to be informed as to the "why" of it all.
Once you know the "why", you can just refuse to play the game anymore and there's not a damn thing they could do about it.

Your solution? There's a whole lot they could do about that.


And yea, Max is awesome. ;D

iOWNme
27th August 2010, 06:03 AM
Revolution = Communist infiltration and subversion and the transforming of Republic into Democracy.


Restoration = Returning to a competitive Capitalistic Republic.




Watch out for code words like 'Revolution' and 'Change'.

wildcard
27th August 2010, 06:09 AM
Yeah, because if we're not careful we could slip into a totalitarian state....oh wait...

Joe King
27th August 2010, 06:18 AM
Yeah, because if we're not careful we could slip into a totalitarian state....oh wait...


If the people go off "half-cocked" simply because they're pissed and without any kind of understanding about the situation, all that'll happen is you'll end up with a Hitler-type telling people what they want to hear as opposed to what they'll be needing to hear.

Oh....wait a minute. Maybe that's the plan?

wildcard
27th August 2010, 06:20 AM
Wait, you said Hitler was jew, so that means they planned it the first time and they're planning it again. Kill a bunch of whites along the way.

*and I'd rather see the USA break into 50 civil wars than be 1984 ZOG land.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 06:38 AM
Wait, you said Hitler was jew, so that means they planned it the first time and they're planning it again. Kill a bunch of whites along the way.

*and I'd rather see the USA break into 50 civil wars than be 1984 ZOG land.
If those two choices are the only choices, most certainly the former.

But we're not there yet.


Perhaps Hitler was planned. Who knows.
All I do know is that I don't want to see it happen here.

Book
27th August 2010, 06:44 AM
If the people go off "half-cocked" simply because they're pissed and without any kind of understanding about the situation, all that'll happen is you'll end up with a Hitler-type telling people what they want to hear as opposed to what they'll be needing to hear.



http://incogman.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/rahmemanuel.jpg

Yeah...the sheeple learning about ZOG and starting the next pogrom would be really bad for America.

:oo-->

wildcard
27th August 2010, 06:45 AM
Yeah, I get that strong denial vibe. :P

It's coming whether we want it to or not. The choice will be to resist or let it wash over us like Britain.

nunaem
27th August 2010, 08:27 AM
The only thing I fear more than the state is the people. If there is to be a revolution I hope it's an unpopular one instead of ochlocracy.

Ponce
27th August 2010, 08:30 AM
As long as we have guns we can have certain kind freedom but once we give them up we will be eating Monsanto food.

Phoenix
27th August 2010, 04:06 PM
you'll end up with a Hitler-type


The American population doesn't deserve a Hitler. It got what it deserves...an incompetent Niqqer.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 04:11 PM
you'll end up with a Hitler-type


The American population doesn't deserve a Hitler. It got what it deserves...an incompetent Niqqer.
I sure hope you're right about that, as we certainly don't deserve a thief and a fag as POTUSA.

Phoenix
27th August 2010, 04:11 PM
The only thing I fear more than the state is the people. If there is to be a revolution I hope it's an unpopular one instead of ochlocracy.


I share your fears. The American population is a huge horde of Niqqers, both those with black-skin and ape-like features, as well as white-skin and supposedly human features. The American People of Jefferson's era is no more. We now have a horde of degenerates, most of whom would kill you and laugh if they could get away with it.

I don't relish a "President" Palin any more than a "President" Obama. The end game of this system - whether the "right" or the "left" is in charge - is Total Government ruling over a Total Security State. Think of East Germany with supercomputers and TV cameras everywhere. If the networks of technology continue, we are ever-more doomed as human beings with freedom to do the right thing.

I don't see a "revolution" benefiting us. I do see the possibility of technological breakdown benefiting us, as it will simply starve away the hordes of sub-humans of all races, while rendering government impotent in most areas.

Phoenix
27th August 2010, 04:12 PM
I sure hope you're right about that, as we certainly don't deserve a thief and a fag as POTUSA.


I didn't know you wanted to run for president.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 04:25 PM
I sure hope you're right about that, as we certainly don't deserve a thief and a fag as POTUSA.


I didn't know you wanted to run for president.
I don't, as I'm not a power-junkie who seeks to control others.
Although someone with viewpoints similar to mine is probably what's needed.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 04:37 PM
I don't see a "revolution" benefiting us. I do see the possibility of technological breakdown benefiting us, as it will simply starve away the hordes of sub-humans of all races, while rendering government impotent in most areas.


Rooting for a massive CME that knocks everyone back to the 16th Century, huh? lol

nunaem
27th August 2010, 05:42 PM
I don't see a "revolution" benefiting us. I do see the possibility of technological breakdown benefiting us, as it will simply starve away the hordes of sub-humans of all races, while rendering government impotent in most areas.


Rooting for a massive CME that knocks everyone back to the 16th Century, huh? lol



The social mores of the 16th century would be too much to hope for immediately following a disaster. It will take some time to regain that level of civilisation.

Joe King
27th August 2010, 05:53 PM
I don't see a "revolution" benefiting us. I do see the possibility of technological breakdown benefiting us, as it will simply starve away the hordes of sub-humans of all races, while rendering government impotent in most areas.


Rooting for a massive CME that knocks everyone back to the 16th Century, huh? lol



The social mores of the 16th century would be too much to hope for immediately following a disaster. It will take some time to regain that level of civilisation.
I was referring more to the technology of the 16th Century.
But IMHO, the social mores of the time weren't all that great anyways.
The ones in power still did what they wanted, while subjugating everyone else.

nunaem
27th August 2010, 06:06 PM
I was referring more to the technology of the 16th Century.
But IMHO, the social mores of the time weren't all that great anyways.
The ones in power still did what they wanted, while subjugating everyone else.



Even the technological diffusion of the 16th century would be too much to hope for. In the 16th century 90% of the people grew what they ate and made what they needed. Today 10% grow and make what the other 90% need, the 90% know how to make sh*t they don't need or to get what they need handed to them. And even that 10% wouldn't know how to make squat without John Deers and modern assembly lines. Take those away and there would be starvation and cargo-cultism that would even make Africans blush somehow.