One of the ways in which the party of the country may respond is by engaging in civil resistance—Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience with teeth in it. Thoreau’s aim was to resist the depredations of a government he could not in good conscience support by ceasing to pay taxes. But, he contended, “even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death.” He added, as we might today, “I see this blood flowing now.” It is, in effect, conscience blood.
Thoreau believed that “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government when its tyranny or inefficiency are great and unendurable…[W]hen oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer.” He concludes: “What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that…ours is the invading country.” It is astonishing that, to my knowledge, very few American patriots and loyal citizens seem to be aware of this great American writer and lover of personal liberty. Is he even taught in our universities? Are people today so cowed and fearful that they would recoil from even reflecting upon Thoreau’s convictions? Will Thoreau, like other American authors, find himself blacklisted?
“Civil” resistance, as Thoreau believed, can take many forms, from withholding taxes to refusing to obey unjust laws to relying on the Second Amendment, which states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It represents a constitutional check on congressional power (Article I Section 8), in this way allowing citizens to defend against the incursions of the state and to protect property and life rather than allowing citizens to become, as Berman wrote, “expatriates in their own country.”
The issue is contentious, turning on the phrase “well regulated militia.” Some legislators believe the individual possesses the right to bear arms; others insist that only duly elected legislative bodies have the authority to regulate firearms. So far, the principle of the individual’s right to bear arms has taken precedence over the collective rights theory, and it is not likely that middle America will renounce it. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Joe Biden has promised to “defeat the NRA,” including legislation to “close the ‘hate crime’ loophole.” Of course, what constitutes a “hate crime” will remain an open category, its content to be determined by whatever suits the presiding authority, Big Tech, or the Southern Poverty Law Center. The threat is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s weaponizing of the concept of “insanity” or of inakomysliashchie—differently-thinking people—to dispose of “dissidents” and dissenters.
pjmedia.com
Thoreau believed that “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government when its tyranny or inefficiency are great and unendurable…[W]hen oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer.” He concludes: “What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that…ours is the invading country.” It is astonishing that, to my knowledge, very few American patriots and loyal citizens seem to be aware of this great American writer and lover of personal liberty. Is he even taught in our universities? Are people today so cowed and fearful that they would recoil from even reflecting upon Thoreau’s convictions? Will Thoreau, like other American authors, find himself blacklisted?
“Civil” resistance, as Thoreau believed, can take many forms, from withholding taxes to refusing to obey unjust laws to relying on the Second Amendment, which states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It represents a constitutional check on congressional power (Article I Section 8), in this way allowing citizens to defend against the incursions of the state and to protect property and life rather than allowing citizens to become, as Berman wrote, “expatriates in their own country.”
The issue is contentious, turning on the phrase “well regulated militia.” Some legislators believe the individual possesses the right to bear arms; others insist that only duly elected legislative bodies have the authority to regulate firearms. So far, the principle of the individual’s right to bear arms has taken precedence over the collective rights theory, and it is not likely that middle America will renounce it. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Joe Biden has promised to “defeat the NRA,” including legislation to “close the ‘hate crime’ loophole.” Of course, what constitutes a “hate crime” will remain an open category, its content to be determined by whatever suits the presiding authority, Big Tech, or the Southern Poverty Law Center. The threat is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s weaponizing of the concept of “insanity” or of inakomysliashchie—differently-thinking people—to dispose of “dissidents” and dissenters.
Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie
Last edited:
