Revolution Aggregation

There are two main purposes for this aggregation of information about revolution: 1) for my own quick-reference use (as is the case with my other aggregations, and 2) to radically reduce online research time for any interested people who happen to stumble across this website. By making these kinds of aggregations, I don't have spend nearly as much time searching for information which I might have forgotten to archive in my system of folders, files and bookmarks.

One of the very first things a freedom fighter must understand is what the government1 says you can speak/write, and what the government says you are not allowed to speak/write. In other words, where is the constitutional boundary line between so-called "protected" speech and "unprotected" speech? In America, the U.S. Supreme Court has frequently acknowledged that it was the Founders' clear intent to protect political2 speech above all other types of speech. For example, two important free speech cases which bear on the essay are Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). The case of Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957) holds that "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of government AS ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE is immune from prosecution." Regarding “sedition3”, compare Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) dissent to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court).

Basically, the intent of the 1st Amendment's high level of protection for political speech is intended the allow a citizen to stand in the public square and say, AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA, things such as "the king is a tyrannical scumbag who deserves to be shot."

The dominant members of the stupid-human pecking order who like to call themselves "government" invented what they call the Clear and Present Danger" doctrine in the case of Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919). In other words, while an American can say of a politician -- AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA -- something like "s/he ought to be shot", the citizen is not free to actually devise a plan for carrying out the violence. In other words, the citizen may not say something like, "Let's all meet over at Joe's house at midnight and go over to Politician X's house and kill him." That would be considered by the tyrant-minded scum to be "conspiracy" and a "clear and present danger" for which you would be prosecuted. Of course, the countless people murdered by the wars perpetrated by the debt-as-money oligarchs is no problem, so they just get away with it, because such a huge percentage of the general citizenry is so pathetically ignorant, gullible and naive.

NEVER be stupid. NEVER keep incriminating stuff on your computer. NEVER keep incriminating stuff in or around your house and property. NEVER put incriminating comments on the Internet or social media. NEVER say incriminating things over your cell phone. The Internet and social media are forever -- any evidence you provide can and will be used against you (see my essay "How To Talk To Police 101) -- and smart freedom fighters will act and speak as if they knew full well that Big Brother was monitoring their every word to use against them. Only the ignorant, gullible and/or naiver believe the law means anything and that there exists such a thing as a constitutional right to privacy. Under the de facto rule of the debt-as-money oligarchs, so-called "Rule of Law" and the U.S. Constitution are de facto dead.

In the event of government persecution, I would hope a jury of my peers would agree with me that this essay is protected by the 1st Amendment as an intellectual discussion of abstract ideas directly connected to political government.

WEBSITES:

The Top 50 Survival Blogs!

TSHTFplan.com - "When it hits the fan, don't say we didn't warn you."

Survial Life™

The Survivalist Blog

BOOKS:

Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse, by John Wesley Rawles

The Survival Medicine Handbook: A Guide for When Help is Not on the Way, by Joseph Alton and Amy Alton

The Prepper's Emergency First Aid & Survival Medicine Handbook (Survival Family Basics - Prepper's Survival Handbook Series), by Macenzie Guiver

RECENT VIDEOS, BLOGS, ARTICLES, COLUMNS, AND STATEMENTS:

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

You WILL need a plan when SHTF time arrives! - video snippets about the U.S. military's use of Apache helicopters

How to Care For Wounds When the Medical System Has Collapsed

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase's Worst Nightmare, by Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone Magazine

Russell Means: Americans Are The New Indian - YouTube video

The Patriot (8/8) Movie CLIP - My Sons Were Better Men (2000) HD - YouTube video

The Patriot: Tomahawk Scene ULTRA HD - YouTube video

Braveheart [Revenge scene] (720p HD) - YouTube video

Bank Whistleblower Alayne Fleischmann & Matt Taibbi on How JPMorgan Chase Helped Wreck the Economy - YouTube video

JPMorgan Chase Whistleblower Breaks Silence on "Massive Criminal Securities Fraud"/DOJ Whitewashing - YouTube video

Warning Graphic 2 Apache Helicopters Engage a Platoon of Taliban - YouTube video

AH-64 and C-130 Engage Insurgents - YouTube video

FOOTNOTES:

1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics2". These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

3. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, "sedition" is defined as: "An insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an over act; attempts made by meetings or speeches or by publications, to disturb the tranquility of the state... In English law. The offense of publishing, verbally or otherwise, any words or document with the intention of exciting disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the sovereign, or the government and constitution of the kingdom, or either house of parliament, or the administration of justice, or of exciting his majesty's subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state, or of exciting feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of his majesty's subjects" (cites omitted).

The 1776 War for Independence was fought over that very issue: the scumbaggery of the king (aka "sovereign"). Having gone through that experience, the Founders gave us the 1st Amendment for the express purpose of allowing any citizen to say, "the king is a tyrannical murdering scum who needs to be killed!" without suffering retribution at the hands of the state's police power operatives.

In the United States, the law is the sovereign, not men. In the case of U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), the Supreme Court said: "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."

An excellent contrast between the sovereignty of government office holders versus the sovereignty of law can be found in the case of Chisolm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 419 (1793) by contrasting the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Jay with the dissenting opinion of elitist scumbag James Iredell.

The logical inference of the sovereignty-of-law doctrine is that it cannot be "sedition" to stir up public disaffection with tyrannical power-usurping, law-breaking scumbags who, legitimately or fraudulently, just happen to hold government office. They are not the sovereign, the law itself is. And since the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, anybody who violates it is a lawbreaker.

Under construction . . .

ShareThis