Civil War (Upheaval) = Bond Market Collapse
George Sodini
I am convinced that more drastic action is required to bring the country
back to the Constitutional order that it was 200 years ago. I don't
think any group of political leaders will achieve this for us.
One problem I fear is that any kind of Civil War or large disorder caused by
militia action can cause the investors holding the $4.8 trillion debt to
panic. If a portion of them decide to sell their dollars and buy
something more stable such as yen, mark, gold etc. it can cause the
dollar to plummet like in 1923 Germany with the German mark. We'd be
forced to print all that damn paper when the bond holders came a callin'.
If anyone believes that investers will risk capital in a battle torn
country, I have some prime property in Bosnia for sale or lease.
If the dollar became worthless, we would have another big problem:
Military intervention to "settle things". In a time of serious crisis,
many people would probably welcome this which would end up the US would
be some type of Socialist or Communist police state.
Any comments?
Hudson Luce
sod...@telerama.lm.com (George Sodini) writes:
> I am convinced that more drastic action is required to bring the country
>back to the Constitutional order that it was 200 years ago. I don't
>think any group of political leaders will achieve this for us.
I'm not exactly sure how starting a shooting war between the militias
and the various forces of Government is going to achieve any sort of
positive result which could not be otherwise achieved in the political
arena. Perhaps you could elaborate?
> One problem I fear is that any kind of Civil War or large disorder caused by
>militia action can cause the investors holding the $4.8 trillion debt to
>panic. If a portion of them decide to sell their dollars and buy
>something more stable such as yen, mark, gold etc. it can cause the
>dollar to plummet like in 1923 Germany with the German mark. We'd be
>forced to print all that damn paper when the bond holders came a callin'.
>If anyone believes that investers will risk capital in a battle torn
>country, I have some prime property in Bosnia for sale or lease.
Since some of Japan's largest banks have been forced by their Government
to mark their assets to market, and to treat non-performing loans and
mortgages as liabilities and not as assets, the opposite scenario to the
one you propose is more likely. I.e., at the next Treasury auction about
the 1st of October, in about 3 weeks, the Japanese and other foreign
investors won't be there to buy our debt obligations, forcing one or
a mixture of both of the following: The Fed moves in and buys the
debt, monetizing it (sort of like printing money out of thin air), which
creates inflationary pressures, and/or the Treasury has to kick up the
interest rates to attract investors, kind of like what happened in
March, when we had an "interest rate spike", resulting from a lack of
buyers at a Treasury auction. President Clinton went hat in hand to
30 central banks around the world, and basically said that if the dollar
craters, so does everyone else... and so all the central banks bought
our debt. Maybe this won't happen this time, and we'll end up with
skyrocketing interest rates, like Sweden a couple of years ago.
Incidentally, October 1 is the date on which the "train wreck" occurs -
either the budget is passed, or the Government gets shut down, at least
in part. This sort of thing doesn't look very good to foreign investors,
either, and I wouldn't be surprised to see foreigners pulling their
money out of the US and putting it in economies that are either more
stable, like Western Europe, or more on the road to recovery, like
Japan. This goes for domestic investors too, hence the bills in
Congress about "domestic" vs "non-domestic" dollars.
It's funny how people think. They see the militias as a big threat to
government, when all the militias are is a bunch of disgruntled middle
class people who, with just cause, are angry about government usurpation
of power, interference in their lives, and the loss of their economic
security. Actually, the only thing this Government has to fear is
Government itself, to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt.
> If the dollar became worthless, we would have another big problem:
>Military intervention to "settle things". In a time of serious crisis,
>many people would probably welcome this which would end up the US would
>be some type of Socialist or Communist police state.
We already are, in a lot of ways, a Socialist police state. The trouble
begins when the money runs out to pay the police, and they start having
to "live off the land" so to speak...
> Any comments?
Adam Bridge
> sod...@telerama.lm.com (George Sodini) writes:
>
>
> > I am convinced that more drastic action is required to bring the country
> >back to the Constitutional order that it was 200 years ago. I don't
> >think any group of political leaders will achieve this for us.
>
> I'm not exactly sure how starting a shooting war between the militias
> and the various forces of Government is going to achieve any sort of
> positive result which could not be otherwise achieved in the political
> arena. Perhaps you could elaborate?
>
> > One problem I fear is that any kind of Civil War or large disorder
caused by
> >militia action can cause the investors holding the $4.8 trillion debt to
> >panic. If a portion of them decide to sell their dollars and buy
> >something more stable such as yen, mark, gold etc. it can cause the
> >dollar to plummet like in 1923 Germany with the German mark. We'd be
> >forced to print all that damn paper when the bond holders came a callin'.
> >If anyone believes that investers will risk capital in a battle torn
> >country, I have some prime property in Bosnia for sale or lease.
>
They might not panic but they'd sure think we were stupid. I think before
anyone runs around talking about civil war they ought to think of who will
benefit, who will lead them, and why. There's no one around with the
stature of a Jefferson or a Franklin to form a new country. The world in
which the Constitution was forged is very different from this one. So if
people are talking about insurrection against the government you have to
ask what they might gain: local power is certainly the principle factor.
There's nothing like being behind the barrel of a gun and ready to enforce
"your own" version of the law to attract nasty people. It will be very
difficult to find out in advance who those folks are as they'll sound
perfectly reasonable and on your side from the very beginning -- until
crunch time when you find out who really has control: and it's them.
> Since some of Japan's largest banks have been forced by their Government
> to mark their assets to market, and to treat non-performing loans and
> mortgages as liabilities and not as assets, the opposite scenario to the
> one you propose is more likely. I.e., at the next Treasury auction about
> the 1st of October, in about 3 weeks, the Japanese and other foreign
> investors won't be there to buy our debt obligations, forcing one or
> a mixture of both of the following: The Fed moves in and buys the
> debt, monetizing it (sort of like printing money out of thin air), which
> creates inflationary pressures, and/or the Treasury has to kick up the
> interest rates to attract investors, kind of like what happened in
> March, when we had an "interest rate spike", resulting from a lack of
> buyers at a Treasury auction. President Clinton went hat in hand to
> 30 central banks around the world, and basically said that if the dollar
> craters, so does everyone else... and so all the central banks bought
> our debt. Maybe this won't happen this time, and we'll end up with
> skyrocketing interest rates, like Sweden a couple of years ago.
>
An interesting scenario but not one considered very likely or the folks
who have the bucks would be hedging in a major way -- which isn't
happening. If you are involved in a pension fund you might ask to find
out what those managers are doing.
> Incidentally, October 1 is the date on which the "train wreck" occurs -
> either the budget is passed, or the Government gets shut down, at least
> in part. This sort of thing doesn't look very good to foreign investors,
> either, and I wouldn't be surprised to see foreigners pulling their
> money out of the US and putting it in economies that are either more
> stable, like Western Europe, or more on the road to recovery, like
> Japan. This goes for domestic investors too, hence the bills in
> Congress about "domestic" vs "non-domestic" dollars.
>
We've had promises of "train wrecks" for years now. It's a yawn. I'd be
surprised if someone didn't blink. Of course it might play out like
California where they've had train wrecks for years now and no one seems
to care anymore...not a good sign in iteself, by the way.
> It's funny how people think. They see the militias as a big threat to
> government, when all the militias are is a bunch of disgruntled middle
> class people who, with just cause, are angry about government usurpation
> of power, interference in their lives, and the loss of their economic
> security. Actually, the only thing this Government has to fear is
> Government itself, to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt.
>
Your right in saying the Government has itself to fear. An armed group
interested in enforcing it's ideals by force of arms rather than law,
however, is quite another. Those who suggest an armed insurrection (while
probably the lunatic fringe) add to this image.
> > If the dollar became worthless, we would have another big problem:
> >Military intervention to "settle things". In a time of serious crisis,
> >many people would probably welcome this which would end up the US would
> >be some type of Socialist or Communist police state.
>
There is no history of military intervention within the United
States...except, of course, the Civil War.
> We already are, in a lot of ways, a Socialist police state. The trouble
> begins when the money runs out to pay the police, and they start having
> to "live off the land" so to speak...
>
> > Any comments?
--
-------------------------------------------
Adam Bridge
Internet: abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
CompuServe: 72707,401
eWorld: ABridge
Voice: (916) 756-4695
FAX: (916) 753-1553
Larry Devich
abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) wrote:
><much snipped>
>Your right in saying the Government has itself to fear. An armed group
>interested in enforcing it's ideals by force of arms rather than law,
>however, is quite another. Those who suggest an armed insurrection (while
>probably the lunatic fringe) add to this image.
Adam, where have you been for the past few years? Our government has
*become* an armed group interested in enforcing it's ideals by force
of arms rather than law. It's the federal government that are the
lunatics, not us fringe folks :-)
Larry Devich
lar...@hooked.net
***************************************
The Race is not always to the swift
But to those who keep on running.
****************************************
Hudson Luce
abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
Trouble is, the local militias lack the firepower of the Federal
government. The only thing militias can do at this point is to fight
a limited low-intensity type of guerilla warfare, including sabotage
and attacks on logistics. I don't know of any militia group that has
the manpower, much less the organization, discipline, or training, to
impose its will on the population of a large metro area, or an entire
state. My greatest concern is that the cycle of escalation will continue,
each side moving tit for tat, until we start calling in the armed forces
to keep order and enforce the laws. We are coming into an election year,
and people, when confronted with threats to their security and comfort,
tend to be very willing to give up liberties in order counteract these
threats. The greatest danger that we face is Fascism with a "human face",
and we have a good chance of getting it. Try listening to Chuck Harder
sometime, and you'll see what I mean. Chuck wants "our jobs back" and is
willing to forego certain liberties to get them back. Listen closely to
what he is saying, and you'll see what I mean. Chuck is both Nationalistic
and Socialistic at the same time.
I can see that we might get a "dark horse" Presidential candidate coming in,
at the same time as militias are starting to become a threat to public
order, either in actuality, or seemingly, via the propaganda line churned
out by the press. This candidate might push for a number of things,
including going to a cashless economy (e-cash) to deprive the militias, many
of whom use the underground economy for funds, of cash to arm their members,
and to enable law enforcement to track all purchases of arms, food, survival
supplies, or whatever. This e-cash card might also double as a national
driver's license, passport, and national ID card. At the same time, this
candidate might push for the elimination of the income and capital gains
taxes, and push taxation over to a national sales tax, and/or VAT, which
could be easily incorporated into the card.
Of course, the financial privacy of each individual would be no more, since
any Government agency would have the ability to trace all financial trans-
actions. Moreover, it would be easy for the Government to limit travel by
political opponents, or to track them. For most people, though, the card
would be very much of a convenience, and perhaps in the initial stages,
there might be an ATT-style ad campaign to get people to sign up
voluntarily.
>> Since some of Japan's largest banks have been forced by their Government
>> to mark their assets to market, and to treat non-performing loans and
>> mortgages as liabilities and not as assets, the opposite scenario to the
>> one you propose is more likely. I.e., at the next Treasury auction about
>> the 1st of October, in about 3 weeks, the Japanese and other foreign
>> investors won't be there to buy our debt obligations, forcing one or
>> a mixture of both of the following: The Fed moves in and buys the
>> debt, monetizing it (sort of like printing money out of thin air), which
>> creates inflationary pressures, and/or the Treasury has to kick up the
>> interest rates to attract investors, kind of like what happened in
>> March, when we had an "interest rate spike", resulting from a lack of
>> buyers at a Treasury auction. President Clinton went hat in hand to
>> 30 central banks around the world, and basically said that if the dollar
>> craters, so does everyone else... and so all the central banks bought
>> our debt. Maybe this won't happen this time, and we'll end up with
>> skyrocketing interest rates, like Sweden a couple of years ago.
>>
>An interesting scenario but not one considered very likely or the folks
>who have the bucks would be hedging in a major way -- which isn't
>happening. If you are involved in a pension fund you might ask to find
>out what those managers are doing.
I don't look to pension fund managers to see who is doing hedging. Pension
funds are all tied up in derivatives, anyway, and they're involved right
now in trying to get out of that mess. There are other groups of people
to look at, mainly central banks in other countries - and this is the main
concern, that those countries which had been buying our debt, such as
Japan, will no longer be willing or able to do so.
>> Incidentally, October 1 is the date on which the "train wreck" occurs -
>> either the budget is passed, or the Government gets shut down, at least
>> in part. This sort of thing doesn't look very good to foreign investors,
>> either, and I wouldn't be surprised to see foreigners pulling their
>> money out of the US and putting it in economies that are either more
>> stable, like Western Europe, or more on the road to recovery, like
>> Japan. This goes for domestic investors too, hence the bills in
>> Congress about "domestic" vs "non-domestic" dollars.
>>
>We've had promises of "train wrecks" for years now. It's a yawn. I'd be
>surprised if someone didn't blink. Of course it might play out like
>California where they've had train wrecks for years now and no one seems
>to care anymore...not a good sign in iteself, by the way.
We seem to be engaging in a lot of denial in this country. Look to what
the countries of Western Europe and Japan are doing with respect to the
US economy, and our Federal debt instruments. If we hadn't had the interest
rate "spike" in March, this current "train wreck" might not be of much
concern; unfortunately, we have been going around to central banks and
begging for bailouts, and we've been monetizing debt like crazy. Now we
have both a "train wreck", a Treasury auction, and the Japanese are making
their big banks mark their assets to market, all in the same month. And
to underscore their seriousness, the Japanese government let two big banks
go under, a la Barings.
>> It's funny how people think. They see the militias as a big threat to
>> government, when all the militias are is a bunch of disgruntled middle
>> class people who, with just cause, are angry about government usurpation
>> of power, interference in their lives, and the loss of their economic
>> security. Actually, the only thing this Government has to fear is
>> Government itself, to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt.
>>
Frank R
Excellent and well-stated post. One of the more lucid that I've seen
on this group.
The fault I see in your argument is with your first sentence. It's
dangerous to mythicize the founding fathers, the American
constitution, or anything else for that matter.
There was probably no more constitutional order in our country 200
years ago than there is today. If so, it was only fleeting, because our
nation's history is replete with instances of rabid dissent and revolt.
So our current cultural situation -- in spite of many people hoping it
is some kind of apocalyptic fulfillment -- is really nothing more than
the logical extension of our historic past.
Coming out of a revolutionary war, and pressed by what they viewed
as the needs of the moment, our founding fathers didn't write the
constitution as some blueprint, structure, brilliant plan for this
nation's future. They only hoped to impose a little order onto their
own chaotic situation.
When you say, therefore, that drastic action is needed to restore this
fictional "constitutional order," all you are really saying is that you
want to force everyone else to comply with your particular version of
history and style of governance.
And don't take that as criticism, either. I see what you're doing as
very similar to what our founding fathers did: looking at the present
moment and searching for a way to impose (you say restore) some
sense of order and purpose in our society.
Your arguments regarding the economic situation are extremely
perceptive and well-stated. I for one hope there is no sort of civil
strife and unrest. But, unfortunately, I do see it coming. I have a
child that I would like to raise peacefully, and every day I see more
indications that we are headed down the "Bosnian" highway that you
refer to in your post.
There seem to be regular cycles in human existence, and sometimes
war, like winter, is inevitable. I hope it is not so, and would do
anything in my power to stop that war. It is very evident, however,
that our society, our government, even our revolutionaries, are
cancerously sick. Like a pimple just below the surface of our
collective skin, war is just waiting to erupt.
I choose to believe, hope, and pray that we can still stop it and simply
and politely learn how to get along with one another. :)
Bob Evans
Hudson Luce (hl...@netcom.com) wrote:
: abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
What a minute here ... The above indicates that the militias
are responsible for the present gov't crackdowns. I haven't
heard of any militia's "escalating" violence. Its been
strictly a one-way street here, with the Feds racking up
the body count.
: each side moving tit for tat, until we start calling in the armed forces
: to keep order and enforce the laws. We are coming into an election year,
: and people, when confronted with threats to their security and comfort,
: tend to be very willing to give up liberties in order counteract these
: threats. The greatest danger that we face is Fascism with a "human face",
: and we have a good chance of getting it. Try listening to Chuck Harder
Only if we let it. Fascists may be clever, but an intelligent
informed individual can see through the charade. Above all,
we mustn't let ourselves be disarmed. Period.
: sometime, and you'll see what I mean. Chuck wants "our jobs back" and is
: willing to forego certain liberties to get them back. Listen closely to
: what he is saying, and you'll see what I mean. Chuck is both Nationalistic
: and Socialistic at the same time.
Who is Chuck Harder?
: I can see that we might get a "dark horse" Presidential candidate coming in,
: at the same time as militias are starting to become a threat to public
: order, either in actuality, or seemingly, via the propaganda line churned
The only threat to public order is the gov't. Of course,
demonizing the enemy and creating "emergencies" is a fascist
tactic.
: out by the press. This candidate might push for a number of things,
: including going to a cashless economy (e-cash) to deprive the militias, many
: of whom use the underground economy for funds, of cash to arm their members,
: and to enable law enforcement to track all purchases of arms, food, survival
: supplies, or whatever. This e-cash card might also double as a national
: driver's license, passport, and national ID card. At the same time, this
: candidate might push for the elimination of the income and capital gains
: taxes, and push taxation over to a national sales tax, and/or VAT, which
: could be easily incorporated into the card.
These schemes have been around for years, and its true, they
could be implemented.
: Of course, the financial privacy of each individual would be no more, since
: any Government agency would have the ability to trace all financial trans-
: actions. Moreover, it would be easy for the Government to limit travel by
: political opponents, or to track them. For most people, though, the card
: would be very much of a convenience, and perhaps in the initial stages,
: there might be an ATT-style ad campaign to get people to sign up
: voluntarily.
Do as the old Soviet citizens did - nothing. Do lousy work,
don't show any initiative, go to the barter economy, etc.
The police state there collapsed under its our incompetence.
One only has to look at the efficiency of our gov't to see
how truly incompetent they are. Your assuming that gov't
personnel are whiz kids and go getters, when in fact, they
are lazy (not all, but most) and apathetic to boot.
: >> Since some of Japan's largest banks have been forced by their Government
Robert Bleakney
You seem to have given the possibility for civil war a lot of thought,
and I appreciate your doing this while still hoping that such a day will
never come.
Here are some reasons why I share similar concerns: James Davision
Hunter's books Culture Wars and Before the Shooting Begins underscore how
extremely polarized our society has become on a broad range of issues, and
the potential for violence which can arise given this polarization, such
as re the abortion issue. Was the last time our nation was in a similar
situation before the Civil War? Even the Constitution, which should be a
common ground, sometimes seems more like a field of battle, at least
ideologically and potentially other ways as well. The Weaver and Waco
massacres can be seen as conflicts arising out of disputes over both the
First and Second Amendments. I suspect conflicts may be especially
volatile when they relate to both of these amendments; then they relate to
both the instinctual need for self-defense and both freedom of religion
and speech. That is to say, not only might someone feel his/her right to
self-defense is at peril, but also his right to express and live by his
deepest and most sacred convictions.
Anyway, those are some reasons I wonder if civil conflict may be ahead,
though I don't yet see the signs for a broader upheaval on a scale
approaching anything like the Civil War. Do you see such signs? It
seems like you've given the matter serious thought. What do you think?
Rob Bleakney
Bob Evans
Frank R (Fra...@uoknor.edu) wrote:
: Excellent and well-stated post. One of the more lucid that I've seen
: on this group.
: The fault I see in your argument is with your first sentence. It's
: dangerous to mythicize the founding fathers, the American
: constitution, or anything else for that matter.
: There was probably no more constitutional order in our country 200
: years ago than there is today. If so, it was only fleeting, because our
: nation's history is replete with instances of rabid dissent and revolt.
: So our current cultural situation -- in spite of many people hoping it
: is some kind of apocalyptic fulfillment -- is really nothing more than
: the logical extension of our historic past.
: Coming out of a revolutionary war, and pressed by what they viewed
: as the needs of the moment, our founding fathers didn't write the
: constitution as some blueprint, structure, brilliant plan for this
: nation's future. They only hoped to impose a little order onto their
: own chaotic situation.
: When you say, therefore, that drastic action is needed to restore this
: fictional "constitutional order," all you are really saying is that you
: want to force everyone else to comply with your particular version of
: history and style of governance.
: And don't take that as criticism, either. I see what you're doing as
: very similar to what our founding fathers did: looking at the present
: moment and searching for a way to impose (you say restore) some
: sense of order and purpose in our society.
: Your arguments regarding the economic situation are extremely
: perceptive and well-stated. I for one hope there is no sort of civil
: strife and unrest. But, unfortunately, I do see it coming. I have a
: child that I would like to raise peacefully, and every day I see more
: indications that we are headed down the "Bosnian" highway that you
: refer to in your post.
: There seem to be regular cycles in human existence, and sometimes
: war, like winter, is inevitable. I hope it is not so, and would do
: anything in my power to stop that war. It is very evident, however,
: that our society, our government, even our revolutionaries, are
: cancerously sick. Like a pimple just below the surface of our
: collective skin, war is just waiting to erupt.
: I choose to believe, hope, and pray that we can still stop it and simply
: and politely learn how to get along with one another. :)
Your post is very touching and humane, and I too would hope
that war does not devestate our country. But like you, I can
see it coming. As a matter of fact, I got glimpses of it
back in the 60's with the rise of big gov't and its agenices.
Though initiated with good faith, they will pave the way for
destruction of our Republic. Now those same Great Society
good intention programs carry guns, shoot citizens and destroy
property with impunity.
I can see why many people who post to this group are Christians.
They have to hang on to something.
bob evans
Bob Evans
Larry Devich (lar...@hooked.net) wrote:
: abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) wrote:
: ><much snipped>
: >Your right in saying the Government has itself to fear. An armed group
: >interested in enforcing it's ideals by force of arms rather than law,
: >however, is quite another. Those who suggest an armed insurrection (while
: >probably the lunatic fringe) add to this image.
: Adam, where have you been for the past few years? Our government has
: *become* an armed group interested in enforcing it's ideals by force
: of arms rather than law. It's the federal government that are the
: lunatics, not us fringe folks :-)
Indeed they are. Have you (Adam) listened to the Waco tapes?
Weavers? Our nations finest (pun intended) nearly laughing
at Vicki Weavers body laying on the floor of the shack. They
were jeering Weaver about his dead wife. Are not these people
the lunatics? If Weaver was on tape laughing at Degans death,
he'd be in an asylum rubber room and the Feds would be
vindicated with "See, see, we told you so" bullshit.
I'm ashamed that they are my countrymen.
: Larry Devich
Frank R
I am a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma. I have spent
the past two years investigating the Waco incident, studying the
many ways in which David Koresh is a logical result of this nation's
religious history and impulse. As a result of my studies, I do see the
possibility of broader civil unrest on the horizon. I live only 18 miles
from where the federal building was blown up, so I got to see first
hand the result of the "culture wars" we are now hearing about.
In my earlier post I said that the nature of war seems to be cyclical.
Every so often, it just seems as if war and revolution is inevitable. I
think we see this happening right now, but we've seen it in the past
as well.
Consider what historians call the "First and Second Great Awakenings"
in this country. These were periods when intense revivalism and
neo-religious conservatism swept the middle and lower classes of our
nation. Out of these periods were born the American Methodist and
Baptist denominations (as we know them), Seventh-Day Adventism
(which spawned Koresh), Jehovah's Witnesses and even Latter Day
Saints (Mormonism).
Now consider that these "great awakenings" (First - circa1730-40;
Second -1830-40) occured in the periods just preceding the
Revolutionary and Civil Wars. I view our nation's recent swing back
to a religious conservatism as very similar to the religious fervor
which swept our nation's spirit in earlier times. I fear they may be
an indication of future conflict as well.
My feeling that there will be a wider civil unrest also is corroborated
by reading this newsgroup. This newsgroup offers a revealing
glimpse into the gut level motivation of the militia movement and
"apocalypse now" thinking (which are really just exaggerated versions
of a greater portion of our culture). I see here the same heated
rhetoric which characterized debate surrounding divisive issues in
earlier times: independence from the king, slavery and temperance,
etc. I also see blantant displays of the fanaticism and lust for war
and killing that most people keep hidden except in times of war
fever. Many in our country now have this war fever, and they will
bring about their own apocalypse much the same way Koresh and his
followers did.
Finally, I don't see how anyone can discount the many gang killings
and conflicts which currently characterize our inner-cities as anything
but revolution. Right now the gang war lords are busy fighting it out
among themselves, but given even the slightest opportunity (ala L.A.
Riots), their anger will be spread to the broader populace.
Again, I hope I am wrong. I've been told I have an overweening
sense of doom. But I fear that I am not wrong on this count.
Sorry for the lengthy post. I have a big mouth. :0
Robert Bleakney
Frank, thanks for your thoughtful post. You don't need to apologize for
its length; what you wrote was interesting. The Oklahoma City bombing
must have been quite a major event in your life, coming so close to your
home. I hope no one you know was harmed in it, though it's a horror is
not diminished either way.
I wouldn't speak in historical determinist terms by saying that parallels
between our current situation and prior periods of civil tension
necessarily mean that armed conflict is inevitably part of our future, but
I think the parallels can still serve as cautions lest people allow
present trends to continue. And I think that when the intellectual elite
spend so much time deconstructing the Constituion, it can detract from its
ability to serve as a social glue providing a framework for civic order.
I'm a doctoral student in religion and social ethics at the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles. One of my areas of interest is the
relationship between modern populist politics (e.g., Liberty Lobby) to
historic evangelical populism (e.g., William Jennings Bryan), which in
some important respects (e.g., controversies re Israel, race relations)
seems different. One of the texts we looked at in a course on
pentecostalism was Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity,
which looked at earlier awakenings. This book identifies a populist
impulse in American religious and political history as related to
America's redefinition following the Revolutionary War, and might tie in
to your comment re lower and middle classes, though I would note that
contemporary pentecostalism does sometimes reach upper income groups
(e.g., Orange County, CA's Vineyard movement is strong), and deprivation
hypotheses for the origin of religious impulses sometimes have
shortcomings. But I like the question you're raising, and it corresponds
with my own fears.
I've taken out of the library James Tabor's book on Waco, and have also
read James Bovard's Lost Rights and Wayne LaPierre's Guns, Crime and
Freedom, both of which also discuss it. So I have some introductory
knowledge of the events, but I'm sure I haven't begun to scratch the
surface compared to your extensive studies. I'm glad that people are
already giving it the kind of scrutiny that you have; it is a major
cultural turning point, and its implications for the future of our civic
order may well be far-reaching.
I wonder if you might have talked with any Mormons about this. (Are
there any Mormons reading this post with commentary?) My hunch is that
Mormons might well have especially strong reactions to what happened in
Waco given their community's historical experiences with federal
government crackdowns after being labeled by many as a cult (a vague term
which can be applied to about any religious group at some point in the
group's history). Also, have you found any differences in responses to
Waco along religious or political lines? What seems to be the key
factors dividing supporters vs. critics of what happened in Waco?
I'd be interested in hearing more about your project. Sounds very
worthwhile.
Regards,
Rob Bleakney
Larry Vandewalle
Robert Bleakney <blea...@chaph.usc.edu> wrote:
//snip//
>Here are some reasons why I share similar concerns: James Davision
>Hunter's books Culture Wars and Before the Shooting Begins underscore how
>extremely polarized our society has become on a broad range of issues, and
>the potential for violence which can arise given this polarization, such
>as re the abortion issue. Was the last time our nation was in a similar
>situation before the Civil War? Even the Constitution, which should be a
>common ground, sometimes seems more like a field of battle, at least
>ideologically and potentially other ways as well. The Weaver and Waco
>massacres can be seen as conflicts arising out of disputes over both the
>First and Second Amendments. I suspect conflicts may be especially
>volatile when they relate to both of these amendments; then they relate to
>both the instinctual need for self-defense and both freedom of religion
>and speech. That is to say, not only might someone feel his/her right to
>self-defense is at peril, but also his right to express and live by his
>deepest and most sacred convictions.
>Anyway, those are some reasons I wonder if civil conflict may be ahead,
>though I don't yet see the signs for a broader upheaval on a scale
>approaching anything like the Civil War. Do you see such signs? It
>seems like you've given the matter serious thought. What do you think?
I believe that the United States is a vast and multi-cultured land. We
can either build upon these cultures, freely; or we can supress them,
and attempt to impose another (ala Yugoslavia).
States Rights.
In the fifties and sixties this phrase became associated with racism
(and rightly so, given that "States Rights" was the rational behind
denying "Human Rights"). We must remember that ALL rights begin with the
individual human, and work up from there.
People have rights. They also have different preferences, and different
cultures. Not necessarily better or worse; simply different. Any
attempts to force people to change these views WILL be met with
hostility and resistance.
Now, if we allow people to organise into different groups, and keep
their individual cultural differences (without interference from an
external influence) and go about their own business in their own way,
yet interact with (and positively towards) other groups within an even
broader cultural mileau, we can hope to avaoid the "Balkanization" of
America.
These "groups" I'm talking about are (or SHOULD be) the States.
These rights, that the people collectively bestow upon their local
government are called "States Rights".
By allowing the "safety valve" of different cultures to occur within the
broader scope of a republic, we can build upon what unites us, and revel
in (and ENJOY) our differences.
States Rights. It should not be a wedge to separate us, but rather the
glue that binds us together as a Nation.
Larry Vandewalle
The United States
is too big for
One-Size-Fits-All
Government
Mike Chapman
In article <810922702$32...@atype.com>, Frank R <Fra...@uoknor.edu> wrote:
>I am a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma. I have spent
>the past two years investigating the Waco incident, studying the
>many ways in which David Koresh is a logical result of this nation's
>religious history and impulse. As a result of my studies, I do see the
>possibility of broader civil unrest on the horizon. I live only 18 miles
>from where the federal building was blown up, so I got to see first
>hand the result of the "culture wars" we are now hearing about.
"culture wars" eh? I see one side as a culture of lies and the other
as truth. Just a war for truth and reason as far as I'm concerned.
>My feeling that there will be a wider civil unrest also is corroborated
>by reading this newsgroup. This newsgroup offers a revealing
>glimpse into the gut level motivation of the militia movement and
>"apocalypse now" thinking (which are really just exaggerated versions
>of a greater portion of our culture). I see here the same heated
>rhetoric which characterized debate surrounding divisive issues in
>earlier times: independence from the king, slavery and temperance,
>etc. I also see blantant displays of the fanaticism and lust for war
>and killing that most people keep hidden except in times of war
>fever. Many in our country now have this war fever, and they will
>bring about their own apocalypse much the same way Koresh and his
>followers did.
I think you're confusing a lust for freedom and democracy for a desire to
wage war. It is the government which has a lust for war - a lust for
controlled order and peace through oppression.
You're correct - we have two opposing viewpoints that perhaps can lead only to
some form of violence. Beyond this we have other ingredients for civil war,
the matters drug use and race, for example, which transcend the issue
of the right to form militias.
What I hope people will see is the unifying movement of libertarianism. I
believe it to be a system which can support a nearly perfect government. It
reasonably addresses the issues of almost all of the unhappy and oppressed
in this country.
>Again, I hope I am wrong. I've been told I have an overweening
>sense of doom. But I fear that I am not wrong on this count.
I hope you are right with all my heart.
--
E * * * * D Citizen Chapman, Esq.
X * * * * I ##******[##########==========() Sic Semper Tyrannis
O * * * * * * E ## __ //_#### Have a hempy day!
N ***** ***** ! # b\/i // |__| Founder, misc.activism.militia
Larry Vandewalle
mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) wrote:
>What I hope people will see is the unifying movement of libertarianism. I
>believe it to be a system which can support a nearly perfect government. It
>reasonably addresses the issues of almost all of the unhappy and oppressed
>in this country.
Some people say that libertarianism is the solution. Others that
socialism is the solution. Others Populism, and still others Centrism.
The problem is: there are simply too mant "isms" to go around.
Different people want to live under different systems. (I, persomally,
tend towards Libertarianism, for those of you who care). The problem is:
if this solution is "imposed" on the country as a whole, you are going
to make an awful lot of very angry people who still want it THEIR way.
Look at what happened with abortion.
Abortion WAS (pre Roe v. Wade) a State regulated issue. The pro-lifers
(that includes me, folks) were not happy with New York's stand, but were
not out protesting in front of clinics, badgering poloticians, or (God
forbid) shooting abortionists. Then came the magnificient power from on
high throwing a moral spit-wad into every pro-life person in the entire
COUNTRY. We've seen (and continue to see) the results.
I believe we should let the people of a particular state decide what
they want as far as government, tax rates, services provided, and
morality is concerned. If somebody doesn't like it there, they can MOVE,
and if the policy is a detrimental one, it will only hurt that
particular state, and NOT the nation as a whole.
States Rights. The Nineth and Tenth Amendments. The Glue that Binds, and
the Safety Valve for any nation as large as our own.
Remember: The United States is too big for One-Size-Fits-All Government!
Larry Vandewalle
Public Information Officer
Northern Illinois Minutemen