Lately, I have been reading about revolutions that have happened in recent centuries; and I have referenced a paper published in the January issue of First Things. The title of the paper is “The Road to Revolution,” by Stanley G. Payne, an Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Dr.
Payne points out that “Revolution is not generally provoked by deteriorating
conditions; rathe, complaints tend to increase after conditions have already
begun to improve. The regime destroyed by a revolution is almost always better
than the one that came immediately before it, and experience teaches us that
the most hazardous moment for a bad government is normally when it is beginning
to reform.” Once people begin to think of reforming their government, some new
crisis or setback, which may or may not be important in itself, can trigger
revolution.
A
good example of this phenomenon is the French Revolution of 1798. The absolutist
government of Louis XIV provoked less resentment than did the milder rule of
Louis XVI. Other examples of this revolutional reaction can be seen in Russia,
Venezuela, Italy, Germany, Argentina, and Cuba. Those nations began to
experience better governments at first; and later they deteriorated into
autocratic regimes. Most of them evolved through socialist governments prior to
developing a fascist government.
Revolutions
from a relatively weak regime are often bloodless, nonviolent revolutions at
first. However, as time goes by, the revolutionary process leads to greater
radicalization and greater carnage, sometimes involving a foreign war.
The
Spanish revolution of 1931-1939 is a good model to study this classic example
of a national civil uprising/revolution. Spain had created the first liberal
democratic system in the country’s history, with, at first, impartial elections
based on universal suffrage and broad constitutional guarantees of civil
rights. This achievement did not prevent revolution and civil war. Conflict
arose because leftist groups demanded total control of the government; and conservative
groups (largely Catholic) resisted. As more force from the left developed, a
group of “anti-fascist” radicals caused violence and mayhem in the nation. At
first, they used democratic means to grab power and insert their adherents into
government positions, but when that became less effective against the
conservatives, they resorted to extreme violence.
We,
in America, are seeing what this process may be developing into. Violence by left wing groups that even use the
same name as the revolutionaries in Spain, e.g., “anti-fascists” (or ANTIFA, as
we know it here in the U.S.) seek to grab power by violent means. Many of these
groups which claim to be socialists, look more like anarchists to me.
It
is interesting to see that these left-sided groups which have attained control
of their several nations mentioned above eventually consolidate power in a central
government that is subsequently identified as fascist—the very group against
which the revolution was aimed in the first place!
Here
in America, we are experienced civil unrest. It is happening in a nation that has
very recently been enjoying economic prosperity. In 2019, the unemployment rate
fell to a low of 3.4%, the lowest since 1968. The unemployment rate has
presently risen to 6.7%, but that is still better than the rate posted by the
Obama years. During the Trump years, median household income increased by
$6000/year. However, it must be observed that some of that improvement has been
partly offset by increases in the cost of education and shelter. By many
measures, however, America is in better shape economically that it was under
the Obama administration. All this, despite the cries from government leaders
and the media that the U.S. is going to the dogs economically.
As noted
above, good economic times and fair civil regulations do not, in themselves, portend
peaceful conditions. I sincerely hope that America will settle down and enjoy
good times without forces such as ANTIF and Black Lives Matter causing
disruption. 😐
Civil Unrest—The Portland
Protests
22 January 2021
In
the city of Portland, Oregon nightly violence, vandalism, and looting have been
going on for 79 nights. The violence has spread to other cities around the
United States; and protests have even been staged in cities of Europe. All this
mayhem was supposedly started as a protest against racism and was sparked by
the police killing of George Floyd on May 25th. However, rioters
have included people who are protesting a variety of issues, e.g., immigration
rights, homelessness, racism, police accountability, and free speech. The
protests have not had any visible leadership—disorganization has prevailed.
The
violence is being supported by the Black Lives Matter organization and antifa
movement. The NAACP and various news sources have been vocal in supporting the
movement. Wikipedia reports that as of 5 July 2020, 29 people have been
killed—25 were from gunshot wounds. Many lesser injuries have been incurred.
City
administrators have had varying attitudes toward the violence; and Republicans
have been vocal in accusing Democrat mayors and city governments of refusing to
quell the violence. President Trump has repeatedly protested the violence, and
he recently sent federal law keepers into Portland to protect federal buildings
from destruction and fire. His efforts were strongly opposed by Portland’s
Democrat mayor, and Democrats around the country have protested federal
interference. Presidential candidate Joe Biden has commented on the violence by
saying, “There is no reason for the President to send federal troops into a
city where people are demanding change peacefully and respectfully.” Well…I
would say that I doubt these protests are “peaceful and respectful.”
It
seems to me that the time is long past when legitimate protesting has been the
character of the activity. Anarchy seems to be the guiding principle of these
protests; and only destruction of property and destruction of peaceful local
government seems to be the general goal.
One
movement in the protests has been a widespread demand to defund the police
departments in order to prevent further police violence against people of
color. This movement has caused city governments to pull police patrols off the
streets in some very violent neighborhoods; and that regulation has predictably
caused an uptick in crime. A Wall Street Journal analysis of crime statistics
among the nation’s 50 largest cities found that reported homicides were up 24%
so far this year, to 3,612. Shootings and gun violence also rose, even though
many other violent crimes such as robbery fell. The homicide rate is up because
violent criminals have been emboldened by the sidelining of police and the
emptying out of jails and prisons due to the protests and because jurisdictions
have been trying to limit the spread of covid-19 infection in crowded prisons according
to analysts and law-enforcement officials in several cities. Though many of America’s biggest cities noting this
increase in homicide are run by Democrats, the rise in killings is a bipartisan
problem. Homicides are rising at a double-digit rate in most of the big cities
run by Republicans, also, including Miami, San Diego, Omaha, Tulsa, Okla., and
Jacksonville, Fla. Two major cities run by Independents, San Antonio and Las
Vegas are also seeing increasing rates of homicide. Much of the increase in
homicide is being seen in parts of these cities that are not involved in
rioting. In Portland, for instance, the police department did not see any
homicides around protests in July, a department spokeswoman said. Through June,
its latest crime maps show, all of its homicides happened east and south of the
city center.
I think the time has passed when simple and nonintrusive means
should be used to control the violence. Removal of federal soldiers from
Portland does not seem to have helped the situation. Despite pleas from local
city officials for the removal of those troops, city resources do not seem able
to control the damage. It seems to me
that police protection should be increased—not decreased. There is a time when
force is needed to make America’s cities safe and livable. Police departments
around the country are noting a decrease in applicants for police service. That
is understandable. After all, who wants to work in a police department that is
not supported by city governments which do not support police activity in
controlling crime and violence?
How to Petition the
Federal Government
1)
Go to USA.gov
2)
Click on government agencies and elected
officials.
3)
Contact elected officials.
4)
Under Federal Elected Officials, choose the President.
5)
Fill out his online form and write your comment.
Keep your comment very brief so that, if necessary, you can send the comment
via Twitter. (If you do not have a Twitter account, just go to Twitter.com and
sign up—it is free and very easy!) Keep your comments very short, and do not
include more than one issue for each message. Always remain polite and
nonconfrontational. If you are writing about a bill under consideration, try
always to refer to the bill by name and number. If you do not know the number
of the bill under question, go to Agencies on USA.gov and choose Library of
Congress (LOC). Enter the bill name in the search field, and you will receive
the bill number and information about the bill.
6)
Highlight your message to the President and copy
it with the control/C command to copy.
7)
Go to U.S. senators on the USA.gov site and go to
“choose a senator.” Scroll to your 2 senators and click on “contact.” Then,
fill out each senators’ online form. When you get to the comment field, use
Control/V to paste your comment. You may have to modify your comment to fit the
Senate message.
8)
After you have written to your 2 senators, choose “leadership”
and send the same message to each leader in both parties. Do not avoid sending
messages to senators with whom you disagree on the issue you are discussing.
After all, those are the votes you want to change, anyway. (By using this
technique, you can contact any other senator you wish to contact.)
9)
After you have contacted the Senate, go beck to USA.gov
and select “U.S. representatives.” You will arrive at “Directory of Representatives:”
Click on “By last name,” and enter the last name on the table below. When you
find your representative, fill out his/her online contact form and do exactly
the same thing you did for the senators. The House of Representatives web site
will not allow you to contact leadership or any other representative. They seem
to have made that difficult and not available for people other than the
representative’s own constituency.
Nancy and
I are presently petitioning government to support a bill that will be introduced
in the House on 6 January by Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama to override the Supreme
Court on the election issue. He will ask the legislative branch of the federal
government to force objective evaluation of the presidential votes in Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania for three reasons:
1.
Voters cannot be accurately identified in those
states.
2. Voters
must be legal residents or green card holders in order to vote.
3. Legal
votes must be submitted within the legal time periods to be counted.
This procedure of legislative override of Supreme
Court decisions is legal and has been used several times in recent years.
I
would like to draw your attention to the latest report of Covid death rates
reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If you could
look carefully at the graphs included in the link below, you will see that the
death rate for Covid-like illness (CLI) is very near the incidence reported for
Influenza-like illness (ILI).
This
indicates to me that the risk of dying from Covid-19 is about the same as contracting
influenza. This makes me wonder if all the hype over Covid-19 is worth it all!
After all, most of us Americans don’t worry so much about dying from the flu!
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
(This
data was brought to my attention by my son, Ben.)
A Letter to an Atheist
I
have a very good friend who claims to be an atheist. He lives a life entirely in
compliance with Christian morals and ethics, which makes me doubt the sincerity
of his atheistic beliefs—but…that is beside the point. What I am hoping to do
with this blog post is to show him that his belief in atheism is an
impossibility—it can’t be true.
1) The first law of
thermodynamics is that energy cannot either be created nor destroyed.
2) The Second law of
thermodynamics is that entropy is always increasing. (Entropy is the
manifestation of constant deterioration and randomness in the system.)
3) A system's entropy
approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero (-459.67º
Fahrenheit).
For this blog post, I am indebted to Professor Gary Saul Morson of the Department of Arts and Humanities at Northwestern University for his essay of the same name, which appeared in First Things of October 2020. Many of the ideas expressed in the blog come from that essay.
Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Russia was wracked by unprecedented social chaos, terror, and violent street protests. The protests were instigated by opposition to the authoritarian regime of Czar Nicholas II. Between 1905 and 1907, 4500 government officials and private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts which included terrorist robberies, acts of extortion, and murder. Chaos abounded and finally resulted in the 1917 Revolution, which was the culmination of public opposition to Russia’s involvement in World War I.
The rioters were self-identified
“intellectuals” from the upper working class. These so-called “intellectuals”
were not the kind of people we, in America, usually call intellectuals. Our
ideas of intellectual persons are those who understand history and who are
educated in fields of literature, culture, and science. This classical definition
of intellectuality requires that an intellectual person must practice weighing
the pros and cons of various viewpoints and be able to assess each viewpoint by
considering its advantages and drawbacks objectively. Truly intellectual
thinking examines experimental data whenever possible to know what is right and
true.
The Russian revolutionary and rioter was certainly not the kind of intellectual described in the above paragraph. He was, rather one of very limited education who was fully convinced that his own ideas and the ideas of all really worthwhile associates were the same. Those rioters agreed upon the premise that violence was the only way of proper behavior for the true citizen. His mind was absolutely closed like the proverbial “steel bear trap.” No alternative ideas were to be considered! Anyone who disagreed with these “intellectuals” was considered anathema.
Far from regretting the maiming and death of innocent bystanders, terrorists in Russia boasted of killing as many people as possible, either because the victims were likely members of the hated bourgeoisie or because any murder helped bring down the old order. The need to inflict pain was transformed from an abnormal irrational compulsion experienced by unbalanced personalities into a formally verbalized obligation for all committed revolutionaries.
Revolutions like that in Russia do not succeed without the support of wealthy, liberal, educated society, which provides the money and the sympathetic control of public opinion changers, e.g., the communication media. Political officials in Russia, provided that necessary support. The Constitutional Democrat Party in the Russian Duma did not engage in terrorism, themselves, but they aided the terrorists in any way they could. They contributed their money and their social influence. Not just lawyers, teachers, doctors, and engineers, but even industrialists and bank directors raised money for the terrorists. Doing so signaled advanced opinion and good manners.
In Russia prior to 1917, social pressure was applied to anyone who was courageous enough to even hint that the terrorist/”intellectual” mantra might be wrong. Compliance with the politically correct viewpoint was the only acceptable way to think. Dissidents were shunned, ignored, and pushed out of expressing their thoughts in print. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in his book November 1916 that people were made to fear if they expressed anything even slightly out of the popular thought pattern; and they almost always retreated into the practice of repeating current pieties to keep from being socially punished. He noted that soldiers who had been courageous under fire cowered under progressive opinion. Solzhenitsyn wrote that compliance pressure was like a contagious disease—there was no resisting it if you came too close.
Radicalism was king during that period in Russia. When Pyotr Stolypin, a member of the Duma, offered to enact the entire radical, “intellectual,” program into law, the dissidents refused to cooperate. Evidently their professed beliefs were less important than their emotional identification with radicalism, and violence of whatever sort.
When the Bolsheviks gained control of the country in 1923, they turned on their erstwhile supporters in the Duma as well as their wealthy supporters in business and industry. Those people were considered to be timid bourgeoisie and deserved to be eliminated. The suicide of the liberals was beginning. All questions were considered to be political. Anyone who dared to challenge public opinion was accused of being “reactionary.”
It is my opinion that today, in the United States, we are facing an analogous situation marked by street violence, arson, business destruction, even killing. Protesters claim they want to eliminate the police. Our thoughts are even monitored for politically correct tendencies. If we try to swim upstream in this awful thought management system, we are not called “reactionary,” as dissidents were called in Russia. In America we are called “racists.” It is a terrible thing, but in this country Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with progressive politicians, teachers, the media, and the courts seem to be molding the “acceptable” thought patterns. Chaos, here we come!
I think the time is long overdue when the BLM protests over such killings as that perpetrated on George Floyd in Minneapolis should be stopped. Although that killing was something that deserved public attention, the protests in Portland, Oregon have now been going on for over 100 nights, and more protests seem to pop up daily! It seems to me that the cause of the protests has long ago devolved into something other than simple racism. I believe these street protests are naked statements calling for downfall of our government and our democratic system. In that vein, it seems to me that the protests in pre-1917 Russia are analogous to the protests in America, today.
We have had too much poor thinking in our country in places that need clear thinking. Our government must be concerned for all people’s welfare, not just opposing the other side and accruing power. Newspapers should report news accurately and veritably, not simply opinions printed on the front page. Our universities must aim toward actually educating our younger citizens, instead of passing on bad information or no information from a variety of thoughts and over charging for it. If we don’t oppose this kind of action now, we will have lost the greatest governmental design and best way of living history has ever known. Our courts must follow the Constitution and not popular opinion. Most important we must trust and believe in the true Christian God to guide us.
Posts
All Comments
