On Revolution 7: Lone Nuttism, Violence and Revolution

By John "Birdman" Bryant

This essay is the seventh in an ongoing examination of the subject of revolution. Earlier essays on this series will all be found in the forthcoming new edition of the author's Handbook of the Coming American Revolution: Vital Secrets of Nonviolent National and Personal Liberation the Establishment Doesn't Want You to Know.


Part 1: Will Freedom Be Saved by the Lone Nut Phenomenon?

In his book The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod observed that violence in humans possesses a self-limiting character -- a character that the German ethologist and Nobel prizewinner Konrad Lorenz (On Aggression) first described in the animal world. In particular, Lorenz discovered that many animals have developed 'inhibitions' which prevent fights from going to the death -- a defeated wolf, for example, will turn his jugular toward his opponent, an act which would make it easy for the opposing wolf to kill him, but which Nature has programmed to inhibit further attack. In like manner, Axelrod described many behaviors in humans which act like the wolf's to inhibit aggression, "saying 'uncle'" being only the most familiar.

If, as federal police originally speculated, the killer of the family of the judge who oversaw pro-white activist Matt Hale's recent trademark- infringement case had been a pro-white advocate bent on revenge, then this could have been construed as a case of self-limiting violence which Axelrod described. That is, if this killing had been an assassination by pro-white elements, this could cause other judges to become more careful in their treatment of white activists who are charged with crimes in furtherance of their political aims, because treating such persons harshly raises the specter of the judges' own assassination, however remote that possibility may be. In fact, the effect may be much more general, depending on who or how many are assassinated; for such acts can (and probably will) be interpreted as a warning to tyrants that they must take a personal risk if they wish to tyrannize.

It is useful to point out that the dynamic of such situations is not quite the same as the inhibitions of one-on-one aggression, or even the limitations of war which involve competing groups, and which are reflected in such 'rules of war' as the Geneva Conventions. Instead, the dynamic here is a population (white men) which is not in physical combat, but which has a tendency toward violence depending on the provocations of its enemies, sometimes said to be ZOG, JOG or BOG, depending on the speaker's tendency to blame Zionists, Jews or Bankers for the 'Occupation Government'; at other times is said to be the NWO (New World Order), where the enemy is characterized more generally as 'the elite' -- albeit an elite which seems largely under the thrall of the Hebraic element; but at all times is agreed to be the 'feral government', which is wildly out of control and desperately needs -- in Jefferson's words -- to be 'bound down by the chains of the Constitution', an entity which has unfortunately been turned by the Supremes into a 'living document' which of course means that it is very much dead letter. What these enemies are required to do is to 'keep under the radar' of white anger, lest they (the enemies) cause a breach of the 'white peace' and find themselves in the firing line. More specifically, what the feral government must do is to act in a manner in which the probability of violence breaking out is low, so that the few times when it does break out can be handled as if the events are merely random acts of 'lone nuts', and which serve as harmless but useful test results for the limits of white tolerance for government abuse.

But what, we may ask, is the nature of a 'lone nut'? The answer is that these are people who, by themselves or in small groups, are willing to strike out at the feral government for one or more of various reasons, perhaps because they feel they can change something important (as by assassinating a major government figure), perhaps because they hope to catalyze change (as by inspiring others to follow in their footsteps), or perhaps just because they are angry and want to vent. We are, of course, speaking of 'true' lone nuts, and not CIA mind-controlled zombies who seem to comprise most 'lone nuts' of recent vintage, including Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Timothy McVeigh, John Hinkley, Jim Jones and probably also Squeaky Fromm and Arthur Bremer. We should add that, by using the terminology of 'lone nut' we do not necessarily intend to disparage such people, but only to make the point that they must be sufficiently mad to become maddened.

In the present context it is important to realize that there are two significantly different kinds of lone nuts: The one who acts from philosophical motives, and the one who acts out of personal desperation. The lone nuts that have been presented in the press are generally of the first variety -- they seem to be out to change the world, and perhaps take some credit for doing so -- but those of the second kind may actually be far more important in initiating political change. For example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, remarked that the Soviet police state could not have succeeded if the citizens had been armed, and every time the police came to take someone to the gulag, the person or his friends resisted them with force of arms.

But besides the two cases of lone nuttism we have just mentioned, there is a third and very important case which may be roughly described as that in which everyone becomes a lone nut. What I am referring to is populations with low boiling points like negroes, who will riot at the drop of an epithet, a fact which allows negro race-hustlers such as the Jesse Jackson- Al Sharpton 'axis/taxes of evil' to shake down white politicians for an unsavory mixture of black gravy and palm oil. In comparison with such uninhibited primitivism, whites are of course at a disadvantage, since the control of emotions which whites have developed as a part of becoming civilized, both genetically and socially, inhibits their reactivity to abuse, as of course does the ZOG/JOG/BOG-controlled mass media which cultivates and implants 'white guilt'. There is, of course, an irony here, that primitive people are in some sense able to secure and retain liberty more easily than those who once enslaved them, and this for the very reason -- being primitive -- that they are looked down on by their former masters. We have to wonder just a bit, then, as to whether liberty is consonant with civilization.

The essence of the lone nut is that he is, in the words of Howard Beale of Network fame, 'as mad as hell and not going to take it any more.' This could mean that, like negroes, he has a low boiling point, but it could just as well mean that he is sitting on a lot of heat. And it is heat with which the Internet is beginning to arouse somnolent whites, by demonstrating the pattern of abuse that whites and their magnificent Western civilization are undergoing from ZOG/JOG/BOG and its allies. Because many whites feel frightened or intimidated, it may not be apparent how much change is going on in whites' minds due to the Net. But this medium has unearthed a train of abuses so pervasive and so intolerable that whites who are exposed to it for any length of time have a significant probability of becoming radicalized. This then means that, from a probabilistic 'bell curve' standpoint, the threshold of reactivity of whites is decreasing, with the result that any given act of abuse is increasingly likely to set off white anger, and thus increasingly likely to flush from the woodwork someone who is as mad as hell and not going to take it any more without taking one or more of the bastards with him. Thus I predict that it will not be long before lone nuts will begin to appear in far greater numbers than the minuscule following of Matt Hale, Robert Mathews, Tom Metzger and their ilk would suggest. Furthermore, I think that, at some point in the future, the anger of whites is going to reach a critical mass, and then, as so often happens in history, there will be a sudden change or upheaval which will bring to the fore a whole mass of lone nuts that have cast aside their feelings of fear and intimidation, and are ready and eager to right the wrongs that we now see in such profusion. Whether this upheaval will be violent or not, I would not care to wager, but it will perhaps constitute Der Tag ('the day') that racial revolutionaries have been talking about ever since the time of George Lincoln Rockwell.

The point I am driving at here is that revolution in general, and a revolution to throw off the tyranny that we are presently experiencing in America and the Western world in particular, may be unnecessary if Lone Nut Theory is true, because lone nuts will make the feral government be careful how they treat the peons. It is somewhat the same theory as that behind so-called 'concealed carry' laws: In states where such laws are in effect, criminals know that a lot of people are packing heat, thus making criminal enterprises more risky, and thus less frequent.

Lone Nut Theory, then, is an optimistic one -- while it may not be completely true, it nevertheless gives us hope that tyranny can be defeated without resorting to barbarism -- and without our risking becoming barbarous ourselves in the process. It does not mean, of course, that we should neglect to organize and ready ourselves for warfare with the NWO tyrants, but it does offer hope that things may never get so bad as to require it.

In conclusion, it is my suggestion that a recognition of this situation -- however dim that recognition may have been -- was what gave the feral government the trots over the Matt Hale judge family murders, and which may ultimately prove to be its downfall. That is, the Feds seemed to have realized that the situation which they (stupidly or maliciously) thought they were presented with -- a response of limited violence to the abuse of Matt Hale by a lone nut who has been probability-flushed from the woodwork -- is a situation which suggests that, with every abusive act, they are in danger of overreaching themselves, and that every such overreach may flush out yet another violence-prone lone nut. It is, after a fashion, the situation which I believe was envisioned both by both Louis Beam ('leaderless resistance') and Thomas Jefferson ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"), where armed individuals or small groups -- while not creating a revolution -- nevertheless employ limited violence to make the feral government behave itself. It is, in Axelrod's phrase, another step in the evolution of cooperation. And it may just mean that the long- awaited Revolution is not going to arrive after all because it may just be that we don't need one -- all that we require is the Internet, the bell curve, and a well-armed populace.


Part 2: Violence and Revolution

I have often said that the difference between civilization and barbarism is that civilized men settle their differences by words rather than deeds, that is, that civilized men used such methods as negotiation, arbitration or adjudication to settle their differences, as opposed to violence, threats of violence, or other forms of physical force. This is not to say, of course, that civilization can be entirely devoid of force; for uncivilized elements in civilization can usually only be dealt with by similar means.

But if force is inevitable even among civilized men, this raises the question of when force is 'legitimate' (ie, 'civilized') and when it is not. In the modern world, the general answer to this question has been the adoption of 'democracy', ie, the philosophy that government -- and hence the legitimate use of force -- must derive from 'the consent of the governed'. While this concept is somewhat nebulous, it is now generally construed as some form of representative government which is legitimated by a process of 'one-man/one-vote'.

While the above sounds fine in theory, in practice certain problems have arisen to make the legitimacy of such governments questionable. These involve a long list of issues including voting age restrictions and other limitations on the franchise, the recording and counting of votes, and the role of media and money in influencing both voters and elected representatives. In my book Handbook of the Coming American Revolution I have dealt with a number of these issues, with the intent of showing ways whereby the process of government may be made more fair and hence more legitimate in a moral sense.

If, however, the question of the moral legitimacy of government is raised, this then raises the even more difficult question of when it is morally legitimate to use force against the government, or in the pursuit of ends which are contrary to those of the government. The difficulty of this question is reflected in a related issue which philosophers refer to as the dispute between 'rule utilitarianism' and 'act utilitarianism'. The former holds that the best outcome in the sense of maximized social happiness ('maximized utility', in philosophical jargon) is to 'follow the rules', even if they seem unjust, because greater injustice will likely occur if one 'takes the law into his own hands'. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, holds that one should act at all times so as to promote what is believed to lead to the 'best outcome', even if 'the rules' are violated. Both positions have a certain validity, and it is not my intention to debate a question which I regard as unresolvable, tho -- for reasons I have explained elsewhere

("Thinking About Violence? Think Again!" http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Fight/Fight-ThinkingAboutViolence.html )

I am inclined to the 'conservative' position of rule utilitarianism.

The question of when it is morally legitimate to use force against the government is actually a special case of rule vs act utilitarianism: The act utilitarian wants to abandon law and use force against the government as soon as he believes it will lead to greater social good, while a rule utilitarian prefers to keep the law and work within the system until he is convinced that justice can never be gained in that way. Needless to say, there is no love lost between act and rule utilitarians -- in JBR Yant's words, act utilitarians believe that begging is the only way one can hope to work for change within the system (That's a joke, Jack) -- but the fact remains that there are no reasonable moral criteria for choosing between act and rule utilitarianism, if for no other reason than that judgments about projected social good are highly personal, and thus may vary widely. Accordingly, the question of whether force should be used against the government cannot be decided morally, but only pragmatically: Opposition is most likely to come when the opposers think they have a good chance of getting away with it, or at least are angry enuf to make the risk seem worth the candle.

For those who contemplate revolution, whether violent or otherwise, an interesting feature of government is that one of the prime sources of its power is the fact that it is in power. This sounds like some kind of contradiction, but it is not; rather it is what is known in systems theory as a positive feedback loop. In the case of a government in power, people see that it is powerful, so they support it in the sense of paying the taxes it levies and obeying the laws it enacts, rather than opposing it. But such support enhances the government's power, and thus makes it even more likely to attract people's support, in the sense of getting people to obey laws and pay taxes. Thus we say that the more powerful a government is, the more powerful it gets, or stays. In terms of systems theory, we say that government power 'feeds back' into the system to make it more powerful or to keep it maximally powerful. And this is why people say, "You can't fight City Hall."

But despite perceptions to the contrary, government is not monolithic; rather it is a whole collection of little governments at the local level. In fact, just as people sometimes say that all politics is local, so one could say -- perhaps with a lot better justification -- that all government is local. Someone may, for example, disobey a federal law, but it is always the local cops that arrest him, and local government that prosecutes him. Which means that 'the government' is only as strong as its local links, and local links are sometimes not too strong. This may be due in some cases to corruption, but it is also increasingly the case that local governments have been (or are gradually being) replaced by 'criminal elements' -- traditionally the Mob, but more latterly by 'gangs', often of racial or ethnic origin. This is important, because it tells us that revolution can be accomplished at the local level, without any need to muster tanks, storm Washington, or launch nuclear missiles.

It is notable that, in recent years, there have been some important efforts by 'legitimate' groups at what might be called 'local revolution'. One of these is the attempt to get libertarians to move to a single state and take over its government, and another is the attempt of white separatists to establish a 'white homeland' in the Northwest. As it happens, neither of these efforts seems to have met with much success so far; but another and rather less legitimate effort is having considerable success, as the feral government allows the largely-uninhibited movement of Mexicans across our southwest border, which, in conjunction with 'amnesties', Mexican fertility, the welfare state, Foundation funding of immigrant-advocacy groups, and various other encouragements, is dooming the Southwest to becoming the new Mexican state of 'Aztlan'.

Besides the items already mentioned, there have been a couple of other notable attempts -- if not at local revolution -- then at least at some form of significantly-greater local independence. One of these is the fact that numerous local communities have passed 'opt-out' resolutions to the so-called PATRIOT Act because this act is regarded as unconstitutional and totalitarian. While the effect of such resolutions is unclear, at least some of them direct local police forces not to cooperate with federal police in enforcement of this law. Less-well-known but perhaps more important is the attempt by local sheriffs in some districts to assert themselves as the highest local authority, with the view to forbidding federal law enforcement activity in their counties without their permission. Beyond law enforcement, there has been an attempt in a number of communities to free themselves from the ever-inflating and unpleasantly-taxable 'federal reserve note' by establishing local currencies, as has been done successfully for several years in Ithaca NY with the well-known 'Ithaca hours'. Ithaca is not the only place where this has been tried, however; for an Internet search for 'local currencies' turned up a surprising number of other instances, tho the success of these currencies could not be gauged from the information available.

It is often reported that the Oklahoma City bombing, for which Timothy McVeigh was convicted, was inspired by The Turner Diaries, a book written by the late William Pierce under the pen name Andrew Macdonald. What is not so often reported, however, is that Pierce's book was a major inspiration for an attempted pro-white anti-ZOG revolution in the early 80s led by the charismatic Robert J Mathews and a substantial band of dedicated followers. Mathews, of course, was a failure in the sense that he ended up dead and his movement shattered, altho for those intent on violent revolution there are undoubtedly some important lessons to be learned from his dramatic tale, which is told in great detail in the book Silent Brotherhood: Inside America's Racist Underground by Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt (The Free Press, 1989). In my view, however, the lessons which Mathews' tale gives for violent revolution are far overshadowed by the lessons about why it should never have been attempted. These include the following:

* It was the wrong time. If one is going to foment a revolution, one is not likely to succeed without convincing a lot of other people that revolution is a good thing. Most people don't have a clue about the ill influence of Jewish power, or indeed even recognize that Jewish power is so pervasive. Yes, people know that one can't criticize Jews, but they usually see this as a well-intentioned social taboo rather than an exercise of Jewish power. So without support of 'the people' -- or at least of a rich elite that makes support of 'the people' unnecessary -- not only will 'the people' prove unhelpful and ungrateful, but they are as likely as not to call the cops.

* Mathews' views were tied up with fringe religion. His Christian Identity faith which held strange Bible-based views on Jews would not have played well in the modern secular world. Yes, there were undoubtedly other things which influenced Mathews -- he was a member of the National Alliance, which has often been a good source of information on the darker side of Hebraic influence -- but his religion seemed to be the primary engine of his efforts. Religion, of course, is often an after-the-fact effort to sanctify what one already believes; but in any event, Mathews' beliefs would have made him appear a kook to most whites, the very people for whom he was playing Savior.

* Mathews wanted to 'do something' instead of doing the smart thing. And with gun nuts, as Mathews certainly was, 'doing something' meant shooting. Mathews' problem is not unknown, of course -- lots of folks want to 'do something' instead of settling down to the hard task of spreading the word, convincing others, and waiting for the 'right time', which is the time when there are enuf people sharing one's views to make a revolution work -- a 'critical mass', so to speak, when a meeting of men's minds creates one of those explosive discontinuities in world events which are the stuff of history. Needless to say, the ability to wait till the right time is characteristic of the higher intelligence which white men are supposed to possess, but which Mathews, in what amounted to a self-indulgent temper tantrum, evidently did not. In this context, famous novelist of the Wild West Louis L'Amour had it right when he said, "Whatever is worth dying for is worth living for."

We noted earlier that, while there are clear (if imperfect) criteria for deciding whether a government is ethical, there are no clear criteria for deciding when it is ethical to use force against the government. For this reason we surmised that decisions about the use of violence would be personal -- they would rely on whether an individual thought things were 'so bad' that violence was warranted, or perhaps a necessity. But when do things get 'so bad'? That is, can we suggest any criteria for deciding when it is time to take up arms against the government, either in an organized manner or as a 'lone nut' who acts from social conscience? I have already suggested two such criteria in Part 1, namely, gun confiscation and closure of the Internet; but there are certainly others. One is the outlawing of health food supplements by turning them into prescription medicines, something which will supposedly happen as a result of treaty obligations come this June (2005), and which may put numerous people at risk of ill health or death, to say nothing of jail. Besides these, there are numerous others which appeal to me as possible justifications for violence. Here is a list of the ones I have thought of in no particular order, tho for completeness I have included the three already mentioned above.

* Confiscation of firearms or severe limitations on their carry and use (Has already happened virtually everywhere except in the US)

* Restrictions on the purchase of ammunition, and particularly outlawing or severely taxing lead bullets * Closure of the Internet, or significant restrictions on its use (in the works)

* Burdensome restriction on the sale of health food supplements (coming in June)

* Suspension of the Constitution or imposition of martial law (Will probably happen on the excuse that some 'Reichstag fire' event requires it) * Suspension of any basic freedom, particularly the First Amendment (Has already happened in most Western countries, where 'racist speech' and questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust are outlawed)

* Institution of 'thought crime' laws (Presently-existing hate crime laws are basically thought crime laws)

* Forced vaccination or medication (Already required for schoolchildren)

* The opening of concentration camps (600 have already been built)

* Roundup and incarceration of 'dissidents'

* Sudden disappearance of pro-freedom and pro-white advocates on the Net

* Re-instituting the draft (Registration is already required by law, and legislation is in the works for this year (2005))

* Illegalizing the saving of seeds by farmers (Has already happened in Canada and probably other places - Food control is an essential tool in maintaining tyranny)

* Closing off highways or restricting travel (Great burdens have been put on air travelers ever since 911, and much the same is being done with train travelers - Automobile 'checkpoints' are now a regular feature of city life)

* Imposing a tax on email (Being worked on)

* The requiring of internal passports (The national ID card -- already passed by Congress in the form of standardized drivers' licenses -- is the first major step in this direction)

* Seizure of precious metals (FDR did this; Nixon happily reversed the policy - government money makes it easier for the government to control the economy and tax the participants)

* The institution of major inflation or monetary restriction (Inflation is a tax on savings, and already runs at several percentage points per year)

* The communizing of property (accomplished by the infinitude of regulations and/or high taxes which make people abandon their property)

* The raising of taxes to impoverishment levels (It's now 40-50%, counting hidden taxes)

* Institutionalization of torture (Already done on Americans by shipping them overseas to such brutal places as Egypt, Israel and other mideast hell-holes)

* Racial discrimination against whites (It's everywhere, and is called 'affirmative action', 'set-asides' and other familiar names)

* Mind control experiments (The CIA has long been involved with them)

* The passing of laws of such volume and complexity as to make it impossible to know whether any given act is legal or not. (Already accomplished - have elaborated more on this in my essay "They Can Get You If They Want To". What has happened, in effect, is that the complexity of the law means that law no longer exists; for if it is impossible for men to know in advance what is permitted and what is not, then there is no longer a rule of law, but only a rule of men.)

While it may be the philosopher's task to ask whether violence is justified in this or that condition, the pragmatist's task to ask whether he can get away with it, and the strategist's task to ask whether it is useful, there is at least one other matter impinging on the question of resorting to violence that needs to be discussed, namely, How can we make sure we are not waiting till it is too late to act effectively? This is an important question in view of what seems to be the NWO strategy of 'the frog in the pot', ie, the strategy of making changes so slowly that our ability to resist is taken away before we are aware of it, just as gradually raising the temperature of the frog sitting in a pot of water will (supposedly) cook the frog's goose before it occurs to him to leap out. But the frog- in-the-pot problem is not the only one; for there is also the fact of dumbing down education so that children are unaware of their history or of the struggle for political freedom; the fact of deracializing whites by promoting the myths of racial equality, multiculturalism and white guilt in the media and constantly denigrating white achievement; and the fact of demasculinizing boys and defeminizing girls by promoting 'sexual equality', feminism and homosexuality. What I am driving at is that people who do not know their history, who know nothing of our ancestors' struggle for freedom, who shrink from taking pride in the achievements of their genetic family, whose heads are filled with lies about racial and sexual equality, who do not know courage or the proper role of a man in fighting and defending his family, home and country, and who think that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle' rather than a dead end -- when people are in such a state, they simply cannot appreciate, much less defend, the civilization that Western man has been building for the last three thousand years. The answer to our question, then -- How can we be sure to act before it is too late? -- is that there is no clear answer, but that time is surely against us, because our children are being taken from us by NWO brainwashing, if not by the Child Protective Services.


Part 3: Analysis or Advocacy?

My understanding is that it is against the law to advocate violent overthrow of the American government. Since I haven't read the law, I don't know exactly what it says; nor do I know the limits and refinements of the law as defined by judges' decisions ('case law'). I do know, however, that I find the law troubling, as far as I understand it. One thing that troubles me is that our government seems to have no problem advocating the overthrow of OTHER governments, and indeed, no compunction in actually DOING it, as recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, and less recent events in Panama, Grenada and Chile, amply testify. So, clearly, the illegality of advocating the overthrow of the US government has nothing to do with principle, but only with naked power which will evidently be used against anyone who objects too strongly.

Another thing that bothers me about the law is its conflict with free speech. Basically the law says that, even if you agree with certain statements, you can't say them out loud. There is something pathological about always having to answer 'no' to the question, 'Does the US government deserve to be violently overthrown?' no matter what you believe. It is a kind of pre-packaged schizophrenia that may actually drove some people mad. And anyway, we are supposed to have the right of 'free speech', and particularly 'political free speech', so the law appears to be prima facie unconstitutional.

Another thing that bothers me about the law is whether qualified advocacy of violence is ok. For example, the Declaration of Independence is actually an attempt to justify the violent overthrow of the (previous) American government, so what the Declaration amounts to is a qualified advocacy: If the conditions cited there are met, revolution is, in the Founders' view, justified. So if Mr Echtz comes along and says that such- and-such are the conditions under which revolution is justified, and a prosecutor points out that these conditions currently hold, does this mean that Mr Echtz is guilty of advocating violent overthrow of the government? Furthermore, if Mr Echtz says, not that such-and-such conditions mean that violent revolution SHOULD be undertaken, but only that it is JUSTIFIED, does this constitute advocacy of violent revolution?

The above questions are important in the context of the present essay, since there is little doubt that at least some people would love to make trouble for me by claiming that my analysis constitutes advocating violent revolution. To such a charge, therefore, I would like to make the following points:

* I have long ago advised against violence in my earlier-mentioned essay "Thinking About Violence? Think Again". In the present essay I also advocate against violence in several places, including the Robert Mathews fiasco and in my inclination to accept rule rather than act utilitarianism.

* In the present essay I note how the mechanism of anger and 'lone nuttism' apparently operates to make violent overthrow of the government unnecessary, altho it obviously involves violence.

* The fact that the mechanism of widespread anger will have a tendency to produce 'lone nuts' who will attempt to right various wrongs is not an advocacy of such a mechanism. Yes, it is better to have an occasional 'lone nut' to put the fear of God into badly-behaving bureaucrats than to have a revolution; but to say that 'lone nuts' are preferable to revolution is not to endorse them. Indeed, the best thing is to have everyone as well-informed as possible, which will make it likely that able people will come forward to fight battles WITHOUT violence.

* My list of possible criteria for violence is not advocacy of violence, any more than agreeing with the justification for the American Revolution in the Declaration of Independence is advocacy of violence. In fact, my list of possible criteria does not even rise to the level of the Declaration, since the latter was an actual justification of violence for the conditions of America in 1776, while my own list was a mere proposal of possibilities which individuals might wish to consider.

I have said time and again that I am against violent revolution in all but the most extreme cases, because violent revolution is an abandonment of the very thing -- civilization -- which we are trying to preserve, and because violent revolution very rarely improves the lot of the population, but only changes the tyrants in charge -- a point so artistically made in The Who's classic rock song 'We Don't Get Fooled Again'. Thus if anyone seeks to claim that I am an advocate of violence, I can only reply that I advocate nothing more than did our revered Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. If that be bad, then make the most of it.



Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *