Thursday, April 10, 2008

What Makes a Blueprint for Peace?

When I started this Blog and decided to inform myself about what others were saying about some of the happenings in Eureka and Humboldt County I came across this web blog:

I subsequently realized this blog originates in Tennessee and that he had only posted an article written by Dave Berman, a local resident blogger: ( on OEN or

There I learned that "Dave Berman is the author of We Do Not Consent, both the book and blog." I quote: "The blog, the book, the birth of peaceful revolution for conscientious objectors everywhere..." Interestingly, Joe noted Mr. Berman seems to have an ongoing "spawning" relationship with Reporter Managing Editor Glenn Franco Simmons.

Joe doesn't know Dave Berman personally. His picture on his bio seems to indicate a rather good looking young man. So, I wonder what he knows about "conscientious objectors"? I don't think he's old enough to be looking at a minimum of two years in the United States Federal Penitentiary in Lompoc, CA for exercising his legal conscientious rights. I don't think he's lived that stigma for 40 years; carried the load or packed the sign of "gutless coward," "traitor," "Commy," and had to deal with "love it or leave it."

I wonder if Mr. Berman realizes what he's taking on when he says, "...the birth of peaceful revolution for conscientious objectors everywhere..." One dictionary defines "revolution" this way: 1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. 2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.

Peaceful revolution is a contradiction in terms. There is NO such thing as a "peaceful" revolution. This very contradiction is the inherent weakness that betrays these people. They believe in the very system they advocate overthrowing. Somehow they think that by using the word "peace" or "peaceful" they are absolved of any accountability.

Joe's certainly not advocating throwing rocks or using those signs for "peaceful" demonstrations to whack to police or anyone else, for that matter. Clearly it should be understood that any interaction with the police is inherently violent. They are, in and of themselves, society's Billy club. Unfortunately, a club that has taken on a life of it's own and turned against its master.

Mr. Berman starts his book, "A Blueprint For A Peaceful Revolution" by quoting "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. - United States Declaration of Independence." What Mr. Berman omitted was the important part of this "Declaration": "and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." These writers were laying down the foundation for their right to be heard, or recognized as legitimate entities according to or established by "the Laws of Nature" or "Nature's God." Accordingly, their rights (and our rights as natural born Americans) to exist as legitimate entities, human beings was defined and granted, not by the power nor consent of the people or some other human "power," but by the Laws of Nature's God.

Consequently, every MAN that signed that Declaration understood the Truth or Reality manifest for what it was. They were at war. "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." The truth was self-evident. That was a failed system of government and they accepted and recognized that fact and acted accordingly.

Not so today. Mr. Berman says in his book, "The Cold Civil War has been created and fueled by those currently claiming to be the legitimate U.S. government. This regime ascended to office through “elections” whose results could not be verified and are thus illegitimate." Mr. Berman speaks of "those currently claiming to be the legitimate U.S. government." Then he associates the "government" as a "regime" without standing; in Joe's words, an illegitimate bastard. If this is what he actually believes, then is he not obligated to deal with the existing "regime" as illegitimate? Accuracy in voting is irrelevant and a non-issue in an illegitimate, failed system.

The question remains, can we move in two different or opposite directions at the same time?

1 comment:

  1. Hey Joe, thanks for the critique. I haven't been writing much lately, but I think like most people, when I find out someone's talking about me I like to know what's being said. And I appreciate your thoughtful comments so I'd like to respond in kind here.

    You cite textbook definitions of revolution, but do not quote the definition of revolution that I have used, borrowing from Rebecca Solnit's "Hope In the Dark": revolution is a change in the relationship of power between the people and the government.

    I have given many examples of how this can occur peacefully, though the one I focus on most often is establishing the legitimacy of elections. It would be a revolutionary shift in the relationship between citizens and government if we go from having no say in choosing leaders, as is the case now with phony unverifiable "elections," to transparent and verifiable actual elections where citizens count the votes in public with the media documenting the counting process to establish the credibility of the results reported. Currently, media report election results as fact, even though the unverifiable results are inherently uncertain.

    I have also advocated rejecting the results of the current faux "elections," hoping to see citizens refusing to consent to the transfer of power to candidates claiming victory when no such proof of entitlement to power exists. In saying this I want to make clear that, as you suggest, we should treat an illegitimate government as such. It is not We The People who have decimated the rule of law, though we have mostly passively accepted the consequences of this manifest injustice perpetrated upon the world by "those currently claiming to be the legitimate U.S. government."

    Given that my "Blueprint" was written more than two and a half years ago, I have grown more pessimistic that we will see the reclamation of the voting process as the path to peaceful revolution. Alternatives toward this same end will be elusive until we see what we accept as our local government stand with the citizens against the higher levels of so-called government. Without support for our cause at the local level, we are left with no representation whatsoever. Before we can deal with revolution, peaceful or otherwise, our society is going to have to come to terms with being subjugated subjects of a fascist empire rather than free people.

    Finally, you say it should be "clearly understood that any interaction with the police is inherently violent." What a sad statement of our current condition as a society. Your assertion may be true more often than not, but it is not universally true. I'm not one to be defending the job done by our local police of late, but I would encourage you to be more precise by avoiding such generalizations.

    Welcome to the blogosphere. Peace.