I recently stumbled upon a copy of On Guerrilla Warfare (Mao Tse-tung), with an introduction from Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith, USMC (Ret.). With all this talk of resistance, revolt and revolution, I fail to see how we’re out of the woods with the current leftist revolution taking place right now. I’ll share some poignant remarks from BG Griffith, along with commentary. I’ll also briefly explain why the socialist, progressive, and statist-supporting factions of American politics could mobilize for a physical, violent revolution.
A potential revolutionary situation exists in any country where the government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure at least a minimally decent standard of life for the great majority of its citizens. If there also exists even the nucleus of a revolutionary party able to supply doctrine and organization, only one ingredient is needed: the instrument for violent revolutionary action.
Equally true is the potential for revolutionary action if a government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure the rights of the great majority of its citizens. With the enduring unconstitutional legislation and regime action, talk of revolution and secession has reached levels likely not seen since the 1860s.
I often wonder why a revolt didn’t ensue in 1994 with the assault weapons ban, and I believe it was because the government did not consistently fail in its obligations to ensure the rights of its citizens. Fast forward almost twenty years later and, for a majority of its citizens, the same cannot be said. (No need to belabor the point but between the Patriot Act, DHS, extrajudicial action, executive orders, etc, liberties protected under the Bill of Rights are being peripherally diminished, if not violated wholesale, at an alarming rate.)
By these prerequisites, however, there’s only one revolutionary party in America and it’s certainly not the republican party. In my opinion, the revolution is already being waged non-violently and at the highest levels of government. Ineffective organizations become obsolete, illegitimate, or simply marginalized. This is the future of the republican party unless it experiences its own political revolution from within, similar to that of successes by small government and libertarian stalwarts like Ron Paul. (I don’t identify as a republican and I don’t advocate that the republican party become a revolutionary party. I’m just pointing out that those who believe the republican party is the vehicle for social, cultural, and political change will be waiting for a long time. Try forever.) And consider this: what party would take up the mantle of political representation for patriot factions in this country? Certainly not the republicans; many of them are part of the problem, including the party establishment. We would likely need to create our own.
People who live at subsistence levels want first things to be put first. They are not particularly interested in freedom of religion, freedom of the press, free enterprise as we understand it, or the secret ballot. Their needs are more basic… Those who have known only poverty have begun to wonder why they should continue to wait passively for improvements. …they ask, “What have we to lose?” When a great many people begin to ask themselves this question, a revolutionary guerrilla situation is incipient.
This explains why the downtrodden portions of society remain a drain on government and, more importantly, a dagger in the backs of their countrymen. The secret key to the liberty movement and cultural revolution is identifying this segment of the population (easy) and educating them on needs beyond the immediate (difficult). This is a war we lose because few are willing to educate that portion of society and because that segment of society is likely indifferent towards or incapable of recognizing their needs beyond the immediate.
This theory is proven in America when the lower ~50% of the socioeconomic spectrum looks at revolutions and communist theory of the past 100 years and asks, what have they to lose; and are prodded in that direction by leaders who are ineffective in achieving those means solely through political action (the results of a divided Congress).
In many ways, I would say that unless the issue of gun control and the Second Amendment brings us to a head, the lower class of America could stand a better chance of mobilizing (not a better ability to mobilize!) for the destruction of the existing society and its institutions because those people are already led by revolutionary party capable of supplying doctrine (statist propaganda) and organization (community level).
Who can quantify the number of years – again, this is without unconstitutional legislation being passed, a tipping point for many of us – before the lower 30-40% of America collectively asks themselves the question of, what they have to lose; and respond with, nothing? I certainly can’t but the potential of a leftist revolutionary event is too large not to prepare for that event horizon. (I’m also reminded of Matt Bracken’s CW2 cube.) Those people may not currently have the means to conduct a physical revolution but they certainly have the proximity to the means. Many Americans have things worth protecting but lack the ability to protect. And more than proximity, the revolutionary party adherents have the support of nearly the entirety of the federal strata.
Guerrilla leaders spend a great deal more time in organization, instruction, agitation, and propaganda work than they do fighting, for their most important job is to win over the people. “We must patiently explain,” says Mao Tse-tung. “Explain,” “persuade,” “discuss,” “convince,” – these words recur with monotonous regularity… Mao has aptly compared guerrillas to fish, and the people to the water in which they swim. If the political temperature is right, the fish, however few in number, will thrive and proliferate. It is therefore the principal concern of all guerrilla leaders to get the water to the right temperature and to keep it there.
In the above paragraph, if we replace “fighting” with “legislating”; does this not more than adequately describe the recent history of the democrat party and their revolutionary party leaders? And if we replace “guerrilla” with “revolutionaries”, does not the same hold true for that lower 30-40% of Americans? Is the Obama Administration’s chief self-directed task not to keep the water at the right temperature? Are they not interested in fostering economic recovery for fear that their revolutionary goals will not be realized? (And we have four more years of this.)
In conclusion, I hope I’ve laid out, however briefly, a potential course of action of the not-too-distant future of the revolutionary party. In some cursory analysis, the only competing issue I see is that of the opposing force (us); otherwise there is no impediment for the federal regime and revolutionary party to consider this path a viable option. These two components aren’t mutually exclusive and could, in fact, aggravate each other. If the extra-legal destruction of the Second Amendment doesn’t cause a civil war, the mobilization of legal plunderers on the streets surely would.