My dreams tend towards the cinematic. Sometimes they even have recognizable movie stars in them. They even have plots and scripts and special effects. Once in a while they seem strangely prophetic.
Last night I dreamt that I was part of a desperate band of resistance fighters, striking back against an oppressive government. I was a member of a terrorist cell, with guns and bombs and nerve jarring theme music. It was like something out of the cable series Splinter Cell. We were on the run, hiding out in a cheap motel (which we eventually had to blow up), planning a suicidal strike against a governing elite which had trampled our rights and driven us from our homes.
The difference was that I was an American, the theme music sounded a bit like Jimi Hendrix playing Dixie, and the setting was the near future. If the dream was part of a TV series I think the title would have been Disenfranchised. It was distressingly reminiscent of The Turner Diaries.
It's often hard to tell where dreams come from, but as I was falling asleep I was thinking back to an editorial I read some years ago from a Richmond newspaper written at the outbreak of the Civil War, which laid out in very plain terms the reasons for secession, chief among them the belief that a president elected solely by the ruling elite of a limited geographical segment of the country could never understand or address the needs of a vast area of the country which shared none of the economic or political interests of his native territory.
Two years ago I wrote about a modern civil war scenario in an article titled A New Civil War, which posited that if the outrages of the 2000 and 2004 elections were as great as they were being made out to be, the 'blue' states had very much the same justifications for seceeding from the union that the confederate states did in 1861. What I forgot to take into consideration is that it is in the character of the left to do an awful lot of bitching, but not to follow through with extremist action.
But with the upcoming elections in 2006 and 2008 the shoe may very well be on the other foot, and we could face the same scenario the south faced in 1861, where the government might well be taken over by regional interests who have a score to settle and no regard for the basic constitutional liberties which those in the 'red' states continue to hold dear. The difference between 2008 and 2004 might be that unlike the whining protestors of the outraged left, the disenfranchised of the southern and western states are better armed, have old scores to settle, and might make a stand on principle against an oppressive left-wing government.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Peter J
Good one Dave. I think I was there once.
My problem is that I'm so conflicted I don't even know which line to stand in any more. If we ever were to engage in a civil war I'd have to ponder who the enemy was until it was over.
I grew up in a kind of hard city in South Boston where you either (back in the 50s and60s) hung with a 'gang' or 'crowd' if you like, or didn't go out much. I was out all the time. Not being a 'follower' and always outside, I had 1 group where most of my friends were then had friends from most of the gangs around. At a large gathering (fight) I'd end up facing off with guys who were my friends, sometime it was enough to settle things because of it (sometimes I'd just plain get my ass kicked).
That's the best analogy I could come up with but that's about how I feel politically, if it were a civil war , where do you go if you're anti-abortion but pro-choice, have a closet full of weapons, some assault but thinks someone needs to be checked out ,at least, to be sure he didn't just escape from a facility for the criminally insane. Not a racist but how do we get around a safe plane ride without some racial profiling, don't want religion forced on anyone but can't picture a Christmas witout a Nativity scene or even a Menorah at Chanukah, man, I'm a contradiction of myself.
The upcoming elections have me quaking. I've hardly found no one perso going where I am. Every body seems to pick one, maybe two issues and lock on, forget everything else.
I'm getting hit by lightning strikes here dimming my lights so lata, for now.
2 - Dave Nalle
Peter, you sound an awful lot like me, except that I've determined that I have to accept the lesser of two evils and stay away from the dark and crazy side of my psyche which comes out in dreams like the one which kicked off this article.
I have to tell you that the dark side is terribly seductive. When MacVeigh blew up the Murrow building there was a little voice somewhere inside me that wanted to cheer despite the horror and brutality and unfairness of the act. The reality was absolutely reprehensible, but as a symbolic strike against the government there was something there which was awfully seductive.
I've turned away from that urge and decided to cynically go for the best I can get and work to make it better. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.
Dave
3 - Peter J
I do know what you mean.
4 - Dave Nalle
I think a lot of people do, but are afraid to admit it. I figure if I cloak it in enough softening words then people won't think I'm crazy and/or dangerous.
Dave
5 - Martin Lav
Hopefully the "left" as your type always loves to label "others that don't believe as you do", will keep the wire tappings that your President has made of your phone, so they can keep an eye on you. Not only is your article downright inciteful, it borders on treasonous.
6 - Dave Nalle
Martin, I've assumed that I've been under surveillance since I was a teenager, and with good reason.
As for my 'labeling' the left, my use of the term is in order to avoid engaging in the all too common misuse of the word 'liberal'. To refer to the political left by that name neither insults them or mischaracterizes them. And btw, what is my 'type'?
Now, on the subject of treason I have no idea at all what you're talking about. Do you read something different into my article than the intended warning against domestic terrorism, political divisiveness and the seduction of the revolutionary mindset.
Dave
7 - Clavos
"Paranoid musings?" Maybe.
All the same, for years I have endeavoured to keep as much of my life as I can under the radar.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the massacre of the Branch Davidians, easily the scariest thing I've seen the government do yet.
8 - Clavos
Dave,
Just had a major brain fart -- didn't see "Mt. Carmel" when I read the article the first time. (bangs head against wall)
9 - Dave Nalle
I think Mt. Carmel was scary because it was on TV, but less scary as far as what was actually going on than Ruby Ridge. The Branch Davidians really were whackos and a genuine cult which included child abuse. And they could easily have gotten out without any deaths. They had plenty of warning.
Dave
10 - Peter J
Why is it treasonous to have the balls to stand up and say that you believe that our government is no longer ours and we would do anything,
(short of murder or injury to another human, no matter how corrupt and deceitful we may find them), to take our government back?
Which side would you have fought on if it were 1861 and you were a soldier? Or, if you weren't a soldier for whatever reason; family, illness or disease, no balls, whatever, which side would you be cheering on? Don't tell me that you would have had no involvement because it was treasonous, that's a cop-out.
Treason was the coup d'etat which put this 'administration' where it is now, treason was lying to the country, putting us in war without justification, putting our soldiers and citizens in harms way in order to justify his actions. That's treason!
I am not an expert on the Civil War so not having all of the information at this time I would have to say I don't know where I would stand, there was a lot of politics there and to say "I'd fight for the north because they wanted to free the slaves" would be bullshit and reckless, there was a lot more to it than that and if you're going to blow someones head off you damn well better know why or figure out how you're going to live with it. What I do know is that if there was something worth fighting for I would fight, no doubt.
That was a horrible situation that pitted brother against brother, cousin, neighbor, and they were'nt playing paint balls.
Now, if my 'dark' side took me to a place in which we had complete loss of control of our government (which seems to be becomming fact, whether you believe it or not) I would try any way to legally move the government with the use of petitions, votes, or anything else at my disposal. Now, after all of that we see that our so-called 'government' is not responding and is putting our country into more wars, higher deficits, weakening our borders, just plain fucking everything up, then, I would pick up where the 60s left off and do what needed to be done and go where I needed to go. (by the way, I had friends come home from Viet Nam ( some in a box, one with his bottom half gone)not once did I ever hear anyone put down a soldier. I can't speak for everyone but over the years I've also met more vets who say the same thing. Is it possible that this was an occasional shout from some fucked up hippie (I was NOT a hippie, seems everyone is an expert on the era, must have been readin lots of Carlos Castaneda and living that separate reality)
So, now, is that your idea of treason, to take a stand for our freedom and our constitution when the government has not only failed but corrupted the system?
11 - SHARK
Nalle: "...So here's the scenario. The newly invigorated, increasingly 'progressive' Democrats take control..."
WHOA! Wait a sec, Davey, here's another scenario:
Bush is in the midst of his second term. America HAS LOST its former glory, integrity, economy, morality, and international status. THE U.S.A. spies on its citizens, has legalized torture, conducts imprisonment without a trial, invades a sovereign nation based on lies, uses American TAX LAW for the benefit of a handful of ultra-rich industrialists -- who are getting richer while the middle class is sliding into a bare subsistent poverty. Add to that the fact that most Americans are ignorant morons, unable to reason, are barely literate, would rather be Entertained than Informed, and the Media is one monolithic voice whose only goal is to motivate these domesticated primates to go shop for crap they don't need that was made in China.
ie.
The time has ALREADY ARRIVED: the only honorable action left available for a true patriotic American concerned about the future is to become a terrorist.
But sadly,
there aren't enough bombs or bullets.
==========
BTW: Davey, yer little DREAM scenario wherein you -- wimpy little suburban, pink palmed computer typist yacks about your "MILITARY TRAINING" and your little gang of insurgents out to blow up the dangerous "leftists and liberals" is SUCH A FUCKING JOKE, a transparent fantasy of an impotent, flaccid man who would like to fuck a 2-dimensional porno picture.
If your self-restraint, pride, or shame was HALF AS BIG AS YOUR EGO, you wouldn't have written such fucking nonsense.
But rest assured, Davey, all 8 or 9 people who read BLOGCRITICS will think you're SOME KINDA BIG tough MAN.
But I know different.
12 - SHARK
BTW: I thought it important to point out:
If one looks to history, all the really good American assassins and terrorists have ALWAYS been from the Right.
The Left can rarely manage to come up with a good President killer.
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Shark, just a thought for you. The fat cat Republicans wanted to get military hero Teddy Roosevelt out of the way in 1900. They knew a guy like him was trouble. So, they stuck him in the VP's spot on the ticket and McKinley got elected.
The Republicans would have succeeded - had not an anarchist (read leftist - sort of) named Czogolsz shot McKinley and killed him.
TR's accession to the American presidency was one of the most important events in the new century, in that it set the stage for enforcement of the anti-trust laws on the books in the States - which set the stage for the development of multi-nationals as American plutocrats started to rape the world seriously - with no Sherman Anti-trust Act to stop them.
14 - Nancy
I do think Shark is correct, in that we already have a governing administration of elites, elected under suspicious if not fraudulent circumstances, unresponsive to the citizenry, and actively engaged in massive, across-the-board violations of law & the constitutional freedoms which it justifies in the name of war - a war it started, using deliberately falsified & fabricated information. Frankly, based on the past two elections, I think that future elections will be moot; I suspect the GOP will continue to "win", simply because they will continue (under the Rove aegis) to steal the elections & defraud voters - anything to stay in power - and the Dems will be unable to hamper this, partially through sheer waffling & partially because they don't have enough seats to give them any leverage. And the MSM won't be of any help, because the moment the next deluded child molester claims to have killed JB Ramsey, they will be off, baying after the latest sensationalism instead of sticking to important issues.
I think it will take a major uprising of protests by Americans, on the mall & around the country, a la the Million Man March, or the massive antiwar protests of the 60s/Nixon era, to force issues with an utterly corrupt administration. In this respect, I think the Mexicans have the correct idea; their objections by substantial numbers of voters to a suspiciously too-close election & questionable polling practices is entirely justified, as are their huge protest crowds. They shouldn't be satisfied with the judiciary or some tribunal fobbing them off by assuring them that there is "only" minor evidence of fraud. Even a minor evidence of fraud, IMO, means there is a real possibility of widespread fraud still undetected, which bears not only investigation, but a repeat of the whole electoral process. This is what Americans should have insisted on in both 2000 & 2004.
On serious reflection, however, for all my usually inflammatory rhetoric on this site, I can't condone or recommend anybody pulling a McVeigh. The only people hurt there were innocent persons. The problem with such actions is that they never 'get' the persons who ARE culpable & should be the true targets - i.e. those top persons of the administration.
I suspect the scenario Dave postulates should the Dems win in November will not come to pass, simply because as usual, he misreads what the "Left" really wants, which is to allow people to (for the most part) have the freedoms to make their own choices: for women not to be mandated to breed if THEY choose not to; for persons terminally ill not to be forced to live under intolerable pain & indignities if THEY choose not to; etc. Those on the right conveniently overlook the fact that allowing others to have a choice does not mandate that they (the right) are required to take objectionable actions, it simply means that no one is able to make anyone else live according to their narrow views of religion, etc. as is currently the case. I didn't notice any Righties being oppressed during the Clinton years. What they were objecting to was that they were not being allowed to oppress others.
15 - Georgio
wow Nancy and Shark I wish the Democrats would use your comments in their campaigns..terrific material and well said..Bravo
16 - Bliffle
The current Ruling Elite, whose claims to republicanism and conservatism are laughable, is sufficiently vile to impel me towards their enemy clique were that very enemy not equally vile in a manner which is only different in minor ways. Both sides have abandoned principle to obey the imperatives of their masters: the lobbyists.
Alas, I am old and have chosen to avoid the fight. I have my plans to abandon and retreat to a place where there is a long tradition of refuge for rebels and outcasts. I do not wish to be killed in the vicious bloody holy battle that looms before us between the Little-endians and the Big-endians.
17 - SHARK
Nalle, on a potential violent rebellion by the "left" after Bush stole two elections:
"...What I forgot to take into consideration is that it is in the character of the left to do an awful lot of bitching, but not to follow through with action."
Action? You mean violent, terroristic action, Davey?
Maybe it's because the wimpy "left" puts more value in personal ethics and morals?
============
re: Ruvy's history lesson pointing out ONE "leftist" assassin in American history.
Shark counters by thinking of...
Abraham Lincoln
John F. Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Medgar Wylie Evers
James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, & Michael Schwerner
============
Dave Nalle: "...When MacVeigh blew up the Murrow building there was a little voice somewhere inside me that wanted to cheer despite the horror and brutality and unfairness of the act. ...as a symbolic strike against the government there was something there which was awfully seductive."
Nalle, YOU'VE FINALLY FUCKING LOST IT! ...Or is it that the pressure of the IRAQ DISASTER and a possible Dem landslide in November has loosened your [Edited] tongue?
Either way, you have gone over the edge, dude [Edited]
=========
BTW: An NSA word-scan of the internet will surely result in FBI agents arriving at Dave's Gated Community within a few days.
[Shark ponders the inherent incompetence of the U.S. Government's intelligence capablilities five years after 9/11...]
--Or maybe not.
Never mind.
18 - SHARK
A suggestion:
Hey kids, what say we petition Blogcritics to change the title of this post to
Dave McVeigh's Wet Dream?
Any takers?
19 - Martin Lav
TREASON:
often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
SEDITION:
notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constitued authority" "Sedition complements treason and martial law: while treason controls primarily the privileged"
Dave,
I'm not sure which is the more appropriate charges the government should levy against you, but I'm sure they'll figure it out.
I would imagine that the case you make for the "leftists" causing the blow up of the Edward R. Murrow building can also be applied to the assination of JFK as well. I would suggest that you organize a McCarthy-like conquest of this citizens of this country in order to purge the "leftist" elements and prevent more bombings. You could be a hero.
Oh, I forget, GWBCO is already heading that, as I have heard they have my picture marching on Washington DC prior to the incursion into Iraq.
And Peter J. what are you waiting for more pine boxes, that you can't see on TV, before you get off your couch?
20 - Victor Plenty
Overactive imagination or outright dishonesty is needed to see any treason or sedition in what Dave has written here. He's clearly not advocating any violence against the government, whether Republicans or Democrats get elected.
At worst he's using this piece to sow vague fears as a subtle campaign tool, trying to send a subliminal message that any vote for a Democrat in 2006 or 2008 is a vote to shove the nation toward a frightening abyss.
An unprincipled tactic, maybe, but hardly on the same moral level as presidential assassins or suicide bombers.
21 - Nancy
No, just more typical GOP attempted fearmongering. But you can never tell with the "intelligence" services; they can have remarkably fertile imaginations.
22 - Martin Lav
There's Plenty of dis-honesty in what's been written in the article I would agree. The fear tactics used by the Dave, just like the administration (you're either wit us or for the terrorists) IS on the same moral level in that it creates an environment to cause harm. You have your own morals and your free to make them, but don't speak for me or think you can. I wonder why the 10 commandments were written on the same stone tablet? To conserve space or did God think they were on the same moral level?
Vague and subliminal huh?
Seems like it's written in black and white to me.
23 - Clavos
Martin says:
I would imagine that the case you make for the "leftists" causing the blow up of the Edward R. Murrow building can also be applied to the assination of JFK as well.
Didn't Lee Harvey Oswald have close ties to both Russia and Cuba?
Wouldn't those make him a "leftist" by definition?
Or did someone else assassinate Kennedy?
24 - Martin Lav
I guess you're right Clavos, but I meant "lefties" as in liberals and since JFK and his family are of that vein, I used this to illustrate a point that the belief that Dave promotes is wrong. Just like my dumb example is wrong as you so apatly point out.
25 - Mohjho
Hell with them Dave, I'm with you!
Its high time for a unilateral preemptive secret strike on those lefy bastards.
We have the cluster bombs, concentration camps, and God is on our side.
Just try not to damage the real estate market, I'm thinking of moving to the coast and might be selling my house.