EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Let Your Life Be a Counter-Friction to Stop the Machine
I believe that we are coming to a crossroads as a nation.
Since 9/11, we’ve been traveling down a road bristling with guns, military technology, paranoia and fear. Though most of our aggressive energy has been aimed outside our borders, there has also been a steady preparation for mass violence within the U.S. as well. In the decade since 9/11, our national police forces have been armed with military hardware, and have trained extensively in riot control, with the results that we saw for the first time during the recent Occupy protests.
photo: Saint Huck
In the peaceful town of Fargo, North Dakota, report Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz of the Center for Investigative Reporting, “Every city squad car is equipped today with a military-style assault rifle, and officers can don Kevlar helmets able to withstand incoming fire from battlefield-grade ammunition. And for that epic confrontation—if it ever occurs—officers can now summon a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret.”
Billions of federal tax dollars have been spent nationwide on this kind of military hardware for police, in the name of Homeland Security.
Security from what? Security for whom?
Short of an all-out military invasion by a foreign force, which seems hugely unlikely, these weapons can only be meant to confront an insurgency within our own borders.
Are we thinking about a civil war, then?
Are these police being armed and trained to protect the interests of the 1% against the raging anger of the 99%?
A year ago it would not have occurred to me to ask these questions. But obviously the Homeland Security crowd was already thinking ahead and planning for a time when such armor and weapons would be necessary to “maintain security” and “uphold law and order” on the home front.
Yes, they must have been aware, even as they were cashing in on our ignorance, that there would come a time when no more could be squeezed from the bottom two-thirds of American society. When there would be so many homeless, so many poor, so many disenfranchised, that these people would feel they had no other recourse than violence, and nothing left to lose.
A new report by the National Center on Family Homelessness found that “more than 1.6 million children – or one in 45 children – are homeless annually in America. This represents an increase of 38% during the years impacted by the economic recession.”
I’m sorry, but that is just unacceptable in this country, which likes to think of itself as the wealthiest and most enlightened society on earth.
When you add up all the trials and tribulations being visited on the poor in this country–and “the poor” is a vast category that gets bigger day by day–and you weigh billions in Homeland Security anti-terrorism outfits for police against dwindling food and shelter for children–well, something just isn’t right here. There’s something rotten in the state of America.
And yes, we are at a crossroads.
It may seem to some that I am over-reacting, but this is the way it feels to me: if we continue following along docilely on this daisy path that we’ve been led down by the architects of corporate capitalism, we are like the Jews of Germany in 1940, peacefully gathering our belongings and getting on that train to Auschwitz, or marching cooperatively out to the forest to be mowed down by machine guns into the mass grave.
We know enough now to know that the powers that be do not have our best interests at heart.
We’ve been sickened by their chemicals, and our health care system seems geared to treat sickness (at a profit) rather than to promote wellness. Our oceans, air, soils and drinking water have been contaminated and rendered toxic. Our taxes have been used for guns and landmines instead of schools and social welfare. Those who have gotten rich in this system have done so on the backs of the poor and those who cannot defend themselves: the natural world above all.
Are we going to continue down this path?
Or are we going to gather our courage at this crossroads, and strike off in a new direction?
A lot of people are asking this question now. Over on the New Clear Vision blog, Charles Imboden suggests that the Occupy movement has ignited a renewed “commitment to direct democracy and shunning of ‘representative,’ republican forms of decision-making (so often susceptible to corruption and corporate influence) [which] can be further strengthened as the foundation of the egalitarian, ecological society.”
As one of my readers commented today, what would happen if they held an election and we just didn’t show up?
I don’t know if there is a way to cut ourselves loose from the federal government and its taxpayer-supported state terror apparatus. Thoreau tried, back in the 19th century, and was promptly thrown in jail.
His letter from prison is worth re-reading today.
“Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority?
“If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice …is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”
Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.
As we gear up for next year’s Presidential elections, we must take these wise words of Thoreau’s to heart.
But we must also be aware, as Thoreau certainly was, that there are other paths to take, outside of the machine.
We stand at a crossroads. Each of us must make up our own minds, in our own time.
How much longer will we continue to docilely feed the machine our tax dollars, and march peacefully where they lead us?
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
72 Comments so far
Show All"Short of an all-out military invasion by a foreign force, which seems hugely unlikely, these weapons can only be meant to confront an insurgency within our own borders. Are we thinking about a civil war, then? Are these police being armed and trained to protect the interests of the 1% against the raging anger of the 99%?"
This is more preparation for the already in-motion depopulation of the planet Earth.
When the 99% are approaching the annihilation point, and starving, desperate actions will begin.
The "insurgency", "civil war", and "raging anger" will be met with deadly force and the "useless eaters" will be eliminated.
This won't stop till the population of the planet is back at about two billion peasants serving the 1% who hold all the means of sustenance.
Mark my words.
MEL
Melenns, a few minutes ago I commented with words similar to yours on yesterday's post "Someday I Want to Own a Yacht."
When George H. "Daddy" Bush was defeated in his bid for a second term he announced he was going to dedicate the rest of his life to solving the most serious threat to mankind -- population growth. This, he said, had been the great motivating force of his entire life.
Those of us who wrote him off as a bungling fool, as a man without convictions who in his obsession to stop population growth went ahead and had 5 or 6 kids -- we were the fools. He was not talking about reducing births.
Bush and those like him, his fellow corporate-crimminal despots, are aware of the destruction being done to mother earth. They too want to leave a more beautiful planet to their privileged descendants. For them, just under 2 billion slaves is probably manageable. That means about 5 billion human beings have to go.
That is what we are up against.
We have now seen the NEW WORLD ORDER that Bush 41 always talked about, and 99% of us are on our way to the bottom if we are not already there.
And forget the civil war. In order to have a civil war you need two sides that are somewhat closely matched. The US military has more firepower and other military infrastructure than the militaries of all other nations combined. A civil war, if it ever started, would end in minutes.
When he returns from Hawaii, Obama will sign his NDAA that subjects Americans to be apprehended by military, denied due process, and shipped to gulags at home and abroad.
raydelcamino, as for civil war, you're right, and we should all hope it never comes to that.
Civil wars haven't had a good track record, no matter what the circumstances, because even when the names change and the death and destruction are over, the same sort of people seem to wind up on top again.
At this moment humanity seems to be entering an era unlike anything experienced before. Up to now, great, violent change has been confined to specific areas, but the current crisis is befalling the entire planet, and it's doubtful any small clique will be able to keep the lid on and stave off disaster for themselves, as well as for the rest of us, without a more equitable political arrangement and some redistribution of wealth.
After completing their monumental, multi-volume history of the world, the Durants were asked the simplistic "What are the lessons of history?" I can only remember two: 1) inflation is continual and 2) wealth concentrates and must be redistributed at intervals if the game is to go on. Hopefully this happens before the losers kick over the poker table and the fight starts.
Violent change cannot continue to be "confined to specific areas" because the 1% have more resources to use against the 99% than they ever had before. Just as the Mexican police and military will never match the fire power of the drug lords, there is no government anywhere in the world that can match the firepower of the 1%.
"Just as the Mexican police and military will never match the fire power of the drug lords"
Maybe the various local drug cartels outgun the local poltizi in any one area, but they are vastly inferior in manpower AND weaponry compared to the Mexican military, which can bring to focus thousands of troops and weapons to a threat. Its all about money, control and a weak central govt. The reality is that the Mexican state has been in low level civil war and rebellion since its inception, they never consolidated their central power.
Ha!!! that was good ...great explanation.
If the goal is depopulation then why are the republicans so against any sort of population control -- birth control, abortion, etc.?
If you look back into the history of various countries, you find the citizens reaching the edge of the cliff, and having to decide whether to meekly topple over, or turn around and fight for their lives. It's pretty obvious we're being shoved to the edge of that cliff, and "they"'re preparing in advance for when that life or death decision is reached. We've only begun the journey to the edge. There's still a long way to go, and a whole lot more suffering to endure along the way. But rest assured, we will get there, eventually.
The greatest secret they have to keep under lock is Global Warming.
If the public figures that one out -- and its imminent threat -- it will be over.
Climate change is hardly a secret. The only flaw in this magificent piece was that the author didn't acknowledge what you also don't want to admit--that while there is a global elite calling the shots, they are aided by that 1/3 of the public that always supports the Right, and my that 90% that won't do anything until everyone else does. It IS true that the public has no idea how serious the climate crisis is.
Perhaps it's FINALLY time to "occupy" the sidewalks in front of corporate officers houses and the sidewalks in front of their churches among other places. Confront them with specific things such as "XXXXX Kills Children in Somecountry by discharging chemicals into local water supplies" or "XXXX is a mass murderer - His company _______________"
Let these scumbags feel public shame... let them explain to their children why people are calling them murderers and criminals... Shame them to the point that they won't appear in public. Call them out. Send them massive mailings from as many real people as possible indicting them of their crimes against humanity. Take out full page newspaper ads detailing their crimes.
Holding a sit-in in front of a police line does little to nothing other than play the game by the rules THEY define.
Agree re occupying their personal space -- but you won't create "shame" ...
Rather it will be more like outrage and retaliation.
Corporate executives have private police forces AND the "public" police AND the military working for them. My son-in-law works for an outfit that provides 24/7 security for corporate executives and he tells me its a rapidly growing industry. Show up at the entrance to their gated communities and the police line will be there in a New York minute.
Right. No one sits in "in front of a police line"--rather they choose appropriate targets and shortly the police arrive to protect the elite.
Yeah, they just tried this approach in Eugene, with predictable results:
http://www.kgw.com/news/Eugene-councilman-seeks-protection-after-Occupy-protests-136480723.html
HB ---- the only problem with your suggestion is that these people are psychopaths.
They cannot feel shame. They have no conscience. They will simply continue in their drive to dominate. Shame is not a concept that they comprehend. dh
There is an alternate interpretation of the facts reported here about arming local police departments. They used to carry 0.38 cal revolvers, which were not as effective in dropping an assailant as the 9mm Glock automatics which most of them carry now.
Thanks to the gun culture in this country, assault rifles seem to be proliferating. So even with a Glock, what cop would want to go up agains a guy with an assault rifle?
Just a few weeks ago, where I live (in south central IN) the police went to a house to serve an arrest warrent. When they went to the basement where the guy was, he started shooting at them with an assault rifle. They were pinned down in the basement for several hours. By the time the incident was over, several police departments and the state police had men there, along with at least one swat team.
That is the kind of thing police in lots of places face these days. Who would begrudge them weapons at least as lethal as those carried by the "perps?"
Congress purposely didn't renew the assault weapons ban in 2004 in order to enhance the military industrial complex's weapon sales. Assault weapons don't "seem to be proliferating", they ARE everywhere in the US, play a part in most high-profile shootings (think Virginia Tech and Congresswoman Giffords, for example) and have continued to be one of the strongest US exports. Why do you think things are so bad in Mexico? Mexico is overrun with US-supplied assault weapons.
Everything you wrote is correct. But what I wrote is also correct. We are writing about different things. The local cops where I live (south of Indianapolis) are often out-gunned by the guys running meth labs. The fact that the weapons the cops are now getting can be used to pacify crowds does not change that.
SHEEP: Your apologia for uniformed authority figures in no way explains:
1. The tank (and other military gear, like drones)
2. The camps
Nice try at setting up a new martial equivalence, and/or lowering the bar on those indignities which a so-called free society will be obliged to tolerate.
That is what I would call an extreme but exceptional case. The reason I say this is that I have seen one too many individuals bringing up stories like this and such stories are usually a slippery slope towards justifying ruthless cops using bigger guns against defenseless citizens. One question to ask oneself is this. How many citizens who are arrested out of a 100 would carry anything close to an assault rifle? And what do cops really stand to gain by carrying assault rifles and dangerous chemicals to be used against protesters trying to fight for a better today and tomorrow especially when those same cops might have had a better career to go for had our system been more geared towards peace rather than war and aggression?
This is what they face these days? But in the real world, crime rates have been going down. Do you really believe the cops in Fargo need tanks to do drug busts? What an interesting name you've chosen, sheepherder
"But obviously the Homeland Security crowd was already thinking ahead and planning for a time when such armor and weapons would be necessary to “maintain security” and “uphold law and order” on the home front."
Is it really too much of a leap to imagine that the government is reacting to events that it is projecting may happen? Could it be that the government has done studies of the future economies, populations, environmental crises, food and water scarcities, migration pressures, and internal strife caused by all these factors? Do we really believe that the various global pressures that are steadily mounting will just be taken care of and we will simply adjust to what comes? (I know, many still do).
We will adjust in some regards but the severity of problems caused by 7 billion people (and rapidly rising) may very well overtake all efforts that our cleverness can muster. And isn't it prudent and wise to consider that our system is not very resilient and start preparing ourselves and our communities?
"It may seem to some that I am over-reacting, but this is the way it feels to me: if we continue following along docilely on this daisy path that we’ve been led down by the architects of corporate capitalism, we are like the Jews of Germany in 1940..."
I like this and appreciate the author's courage in stating her feelings. Not too many have the courage to get out of their heads for even a short while and check in with the deeper part of their nature - their feelings. Anyway, it speaks to me in a different way than, "I think," or "I believe," or "I know." Bravo!
We better hope climate change makes humans extinct before the 1% tortures and kills off the rest of us.
The !% have had too much help from the 99% in moving us toward human extinction that a revolutions late (wouldn't succed anyway); only a global catastrophe of some sort now might prevent extinction a bit later (100yrs max!) I'm just afraid we haven't learned, never do; need DNA upgrade; calling all Aliens!
TED: Your post is reasonable and sensible. However, it turns the issue in question to one primarily hinged upon population numbers as opposed to:
1. Unfair laws, and a progressive cutting of civil liberties
2. Slanted distribution that's insured that the upper 1% receive a highly disproportionate share of collective resources & privileges
3. The overall emphasis on control of citizens (in such items as spying on emails, pre-emptively infiltrating "Leftist" events, and upping the ante on punishing whistle blower)
In other words, your post attempts to turn these controls into benign care & concern for citizens. That is NOT the objective, although it's certainly the pretext.
Siouxrose: My post was incomplete and I can see how it could be misconstrued. That does not mean I attempted to turn the controls into benign care. The government is behaving as power behaves and I am not attaching any more meaning to it than that.
What I meant is that the government is fully aware of all the events that are conspiring to hit us (as many already have) and is reacting to those events, real or perceived. That they over-react is the nature of power, especially when it senses that things may get out of hand and that its existence is threatened.
The issues you enumerated are true, but the fact is that 7 billion people (and growing - let's not forget this) have a huge impact on everything. I'm not trying to implicate the 7 billion, just pointing out the levered effect of that many people.
In short, my intent was, and is, to shed some light on the government's reasoning and why they may be turning up the heat. Part of it is that they feel threatened. The other part is out of a sense of paternalistic "care" on their part (not that I believe it is good).
On the third paragraph, I disagree that all 7 billion people are at fault. Each nation is different and even within nations, usage of resources varies.
Jennifer: I didn't fault anyone. Can we please leave the word "fault" in our pockets for a little while and see the larger picture?
Seven billion people (and rapidly growing) is a huge number. Most of those people want to be like you and me, and many of those are becoming like you and me. I'm not passing judgment on the 7 billion people, I'm simply pointing out a driving factor in the pressures this poor little planet is feeling and the effect that 7 billion hungry people have. And if it's only 3 billion people who are the main cause, then it's 3 billion people. My point is that we have a huge problem and a large part of the solution lies with dealing with population...and, yes, with our consumption and waste.
The rest of my point is in my response to Siouxrose.
Ted, thank you for clarifying. It makes more sense now although I have no way of knowing for sure as to how many of the 7b people are hungry and the extent to which they are hungry. Learning to be less materialistic and practicing it in my daily life, I have come to prefer prevention and training for all strategies more than the "feed the poor" bandaid "solutions". I would never tell the poor to be less materialistic btw.
Excellent article. The reference to Threau is also reminiscent of the impassioned speech that was given by Mario Savio during the Free Speech movement on the campus of the Univ. of California at Berkeley:
"Bodies upon the gears" speech
""...But we're a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to be - have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean - Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings!...There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964
Agreed, excellent article, one definitely worth passing around! Quite appropriate to invoke Thoreau here, whose ideas inspired Gandhi, who in turn had an influence on Rev.MLK and others. Also, powerful quote in your comment from the "Bodies upon the gears" speech. There's this cartoon I once came across, where Gandhi is saying to Martin Luther King, "The funny thing about assassins, Dr. King, is that they imagine they've killed you!"
The oligarchy's pro-life plan is to breed more workers. Their pro-death plan is to kill workers when they are no longer productive.
Considering how badly the pro-life crowd treats the fetus after it is born, the model parallels that of poultry and hog operations.
The elite want to turn the citizen into a consumer. And replace the citizen with their new-born son named Corporate citizenship. This new citizen will receive all the rights and protections that his daddy Wall Street can buy for him. We citizens just become one more consumer on the road to globalization.
Hoa binh
It is impossible to over react to the necrophilia being inflicted on the earth and all it populations human, animal and plant by the useless 1% and stupid thugs who work for them in armies and police forces. I have heard so many unable to understand the insanity of it all and the only person I know who has addressed the full measure of it is Mary Daly especially in Gyn/Ecology.
Seals are now dying from radiation sickness in Alaska while Obama pushes power plants in South America, Republicans are trying to take down the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency because he actually wants to regulate though they need to all be dismantled. Scientists taking a brid flu that didn't infect humans and engineering it to kill humans. Brilliant! And now complaining they are being prohibited from sharing information on how to do this. The US pushing for War in Iran, the Tar Sands, the deep water destruction and the load of radioactive crap heading for the West Coast. I could go on and on.
Greed isn't enough of an explanation, a poisoned environment will kill without notice of bank accounts. No, only the necrophiliac religion that is patriarchy, fueled and powered by technological capitalism, can explain the sheer sadistic madness of the sadistic madmen who rule the planet and have always hated women and nature, a suicidal hatred. The machine is the monster built by patriarchy, Mary Shelly first oracle of feminism, Mary Daly most important seer.
I hear you Artemix, but the concepts you raise are highly threatening (and alien) to the majority of male (and a few female) posters. It's a shame, really, as they think all the things that ail society can be changed through the political and economic arenas. I've been recommending Riane Eisler lately, but you're right, Mary Daly is another excellent source.
Peace.
Sioux, how can the rest of us, lacking your spiritual and psychic powers, be sure which posters are male and female? For a long time I believed you were a Nordic male in S. Dakota posing as a Native American female shaman in Florida.
I don't know what to think anymore.
I admit you know the regulars here better than I, but apart from trolls, I haven't come across many commenters who seemed threatened by anything but corporate dictatorship and environmental catastrophe. The progressive humanism here doesn't seemed confined to politics and economics either.
I could be wrong. Or you could be losing your mind. Are you okay?
Have some posters been mean to you while I've been gone?
I am sure I speak for other CD posters in saying that we see many friends, acquaintances and strangers losing their minds slowly as they continue to deny what is very apparent. Although posting our most recent observations on CD is often as painful for us as it is for many readers, we hope the fact-based information we attempt to convey will set us all free and prove to be the preferred alternative to succumbing to emotion-based groupthink.
As long as Sioux's and other posters comments continue to inspire, the characteristics of posters should continue to be left to the imaginations of all CD readers.
Very well said. I wholeheartedly agree that we must all do our best to stick to debating the facts and not allow anything to get personal lest a discussion ever get heated to the point of turning into a war zone. I appreciate reading your thoughtful posts. Thank you and happy new year.
I'd like to weigh in on this and I am going to try not to implicate any single individual.
There are many good people here, though, I really wish we could all just come out of our closets and use our real names. Trust goes a long way toward keeping some civility and honesty. Having said that, we are all feeling the heat of a frigged-up situation. These are truly Orwellian times and it's hard to know who to trust. And through all this, is it any wonder that we would contradict ourselves at times or seem confused or say things that don't really come out right?
What I'm saying is that if the Left ever truly wants to have a hint of a prayer, we have to stop beating the shit out of each other for being human. We have to learn patience and respect. That doesn't mean we have to like each other or agree with everything others say, but I see many on the Left as being self-righteous absolutists. And these people share my beliefs!
Trust is a tenuous thing, even more so in tenuous times. How can we ever expect to get anywhere if we don't do the things that build trust?
Again, I'm not saying this in response to anyone in particular, just that your post, GollyGee, seemed like a good point to insert my nose.
Rant over.
..." though, I really wish we could all just come out of our closets and use our real names."
"Trust is a tenuous thing, even more so in tenuous times."
Irony check! Or something darker...?
Irony? Don't think so. It's merely a positive feedback loop either way, and we can build trust or continue to tear it down.
Something darker? Not in this case, but the feeling is understandable. The format here is not amenable to communicating privately, which would go a long way toward building some real trust. A few posters here have decided to post with our real names in the open. In my case, it tends to keep me honest and less snarky. And by the way, if you think posting with a pseudonym keeps you hidden from the baddies, you're fooling yourself. If Anonymous can hack into "secure" sites, so can the government.
Oh well, not my problem.
I agree that posting with a pseudonym does not guarantee privacy. It is somewhat questionable that if everyone were to sign on with real names the baddies would go. You make a good case for the need to sign up with real names to minimize rudeness as much as possible.
I have seen some posters on various forums ask for requiring people to post with their real names. I have no problem with that myself as I chose to post with my real name. Furthermore, I believe that it could put the issue of "multiple signups" to rest. However, since I also respect people's rights to privacy, I can only assume that people want to speak out and contribute but are afraid that outsiders such as their employers, certain relatives, or even pols themselves will look them up all too easily and use that knowledge against them.
As for "communicating privately", someone told me that there used to exist a "hidden" option for doing so once signed on. I never saw it myself. It could help build trust or maybe not. I find it best to try to keep conversations polite even on disagreements. I cannot guarantee that it will automatically help build trust but it should keep the tensions down at the very least.
"And for that epic confrontation—if it ever occurs—officers can now summon a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret.”
That's a tank which only needs a suitable weapon in the turret.
I wonder how well it would work as a bookmobile? Would the rotating turret be a good reading nook?
Security from what? Security for whom?
Leo Tolstoy had a theory that the primary reason a country keeps a standing army is to protect the government from the people.
Good critique, but it seems to me that the proper word would be friction, not "counter-friction". Counter-friction would be lubrication. I know the phrase goes back to Thoreau's civil disobedience, but it is awkward as is the original essay in this particular metaphor. If anyone can offer a clear logical account of the segment of Thoreau's argument from friction to counter-friction, I would be impressed. Seems better to use clear contemporary language and un-muddled metaphors.
Also, does this actually mean the writer is refusing to pay taxes or just asking others to do so. This is the most powerful tool available to stop the machine, but easier to propose than exemplify. Only a massive tax revolt stands a chance of bringing down the corporate military empire of the 1%. But where is the unity, where are the leaders, where is the support system?
"We stand at a crossroads. Each of us must make up our own minds, in our own time. How much longer will we continue to docilely feed the machine our tax dollars, and march peacefully where they lead us?"
I think the point was more like this: As a part owner of your government, through the payment of your taxes, don't you think you should "march" like you own it?
Second, because the Fed is a private-public partnership, with the major banks essentially owning the right to print US Dollars sans constraints, if the IRS didn't receive a dime for 2012, the banks would just continue to tally up those Debt-Notes called US Dollars, and fire up those printing presses in response (and vigorously implement the US provisions of the NDAA soon to be signed by our President into law.)
In other words, the fastest way for the masses to live in 1940 Germany, as the author describes, would be for the masses to stop paying taxes.
I'm afraid you're right about the tax revolt not having any immediate impact but in the long term it will scare away 80% of the nations with whom we trade (China, Japn, Korea, Canada and others we run a trade deficit with and pay with US Treasury notes). Eventually, the 1% will find that it will hurt. A massive tax revolt will leave the IRS with inadequate personnel for enforcement. If the wage earner claims a high no. of deductions and cuts his withholding to a minimum, he doesn't have to file a return because he'll won't get a refund. I think the tax revolt idea along with the consumer refusing to buy anything but necessities, driving less, cutting off cable TV and cell phones is bound to have a marked effect. These are the only tools we have to fight the 1%. Let 'm drink oil!