The Coming Insurrection
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
Well, foss, let's go back to your/my posts...
Your post #2
My post #15...
Believe it or not - that is what this book is about - Marxist type communist revolutionaries overthrowing the government, burning cities and setting up farm communals. Your post #2 is in response to Cal's article regarding the book - so your post wasn't about killing those revolutionaries before they get to your bunker?
So, there you go... already in post 2 you were heading into action against the revolutionaries (Marxism communists) in the article. Or maybe foss, you just plan on killing anything that leans left... which would of course include the same revolutionaries. In either case, you seem to be worried enough about their actions that you are going to start shooting the zombies...
However foss, in post #20
I responded to that post - with my post #21
And you have many times on this forum stated that Obama is a Marxist. Should I really do a search - it might overpower the servers here. I believe you can also do a search to see if I have ever referred to the current administration as Marxist - and you will discover I haven't.
I haven't posted a straw man, nor have you 'knocked it down'.
Perhaps you should see if you can pick up a copy of the book that Marcus found for you.
None of the labels ever work because they are utopian concepts and rarely if ever apply perfectly in the real world. It's not an issue of fostering fear and hatred, it's about trying to succinctly present what is taking place.
And no one term is all encompassing enough, and words that might be more accurate usually don't have definitions that are widely enough understood or identified.
So, Cal, I spent some time discussing the book, and your direction, and went into a bit why I didn't think that it will ever gain any foothold here in the US. We just don't have people that are so disgruntled that they are going to seriously embrace living like pre-technology serfs on communal farms. (I forgot in my 'hate' list that The Invisible Committee seems to also hate technology)
As far as labeling people - we all do it - but Marxist is a pretty specific label. And although lately Foss might need some help with his logic he certainly knows what a Marxist is.
As far as labeling people - we all do it - but Marxist is a pretty specific label. And although lately Foss might need some help with his logic he certainly knows what a Marxist is.
I'm reading the thread backwards right now.
To address this point first,
I think you're making a mistake presuming those that embrace a book like that will necessarily embrace or even understand everything about it. They don't need to embrace a pre-technology lifestyle. They may well not even understand what that entails. They may dismiss that concept, or they might merely idealize it.
And those things can absolutely gain a foothold in the U.S.
There are groups that embrace such things right now. And as economic or social conditions worsen and change in this country, the disenfranchised and the college students present a very receptive audience for such things. As they have in the past.
Again, you dsimiss the Weather Underground, something I find offensive.
But what were they if not this? Or more accurately, a less refined, early form of such a thing? A man like Bill Ayers isn't any different today than he was back then, planning on launching a massacre on the families of servicemen in New Jersey. The only difference is that he has a better understanding of what works and he has political influence now.
Is it really that specific?
It can be used specifically, but was Lenin a Marxist? Stalin? Mao?
Technically, they weren't.
But they were using the writings of Marx as their foundation. They manipulated it to fit the political and economic realities, but I don't think it's be wrong to have called Stalin a Marxist before he took power.
But before going any farther, I don't think anyone is worried that armed marxist insurgents will take up arms and force the country into violent revolution.
The first point is- the claims that the threat of violence is a "right wing threat" is completely wrong.
The second is- that if, arguably when, things "hit the fan" there are political forces ready to exploit it and move on it. A matter of waiting for the right opportunity.
Actually, Marxism has a bit of a dual meaning. There is orthodox Marxism (what was specifically laid out by Marx and Engels) and the more broad category of Marxism which includes Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Western Marxism, Neo-Marxism, etc.
In everyday vernacular, Marxism, socialism and communism often tend to be used interchangeably as well.
edification.
But, the idea of returning to communal farms is pretty central in that book - along with destroying the government, and many of the trappings of modern day society. They do go hand and hand. I would think that since they are so interwoven it would be difficult to separate them.
So, you see a lot of disenfranchised college students who are going to give up their iPods, their xBoxes, their cell phones - really? I can understand the protests of the 60s and 70s - students embraced the idea of not going to war and overthrowing a government that was determined to keep us in a war Why? Because, they, the students didn't want to die in Vietnam. It hit close to home.
Today will students embrace the idea that technology is the evil handmaiden of the government, that they should give up frozen pizza and go back to the farm? Technology makes their life better, it isn't threatening them like the draft. Cities are interesting places - not sanctuaries of evil that should be torn down by the impending revolution, as implied by The Invisible Committee.
Once you read The Coming Insurrection Cal I think you will see a huge difference between the protesters of the 60s and this group. And since you seem to be balking at Debord - how about Revolution for the He!! of it.
It will be a good comparison to this book.
I actually think the left is far more likely to embrace violent revolution. It seems to be that way through most of history. Even the American Revolution was from the left...
??????
Wasn't that interwoven in much of the seventies radical leftism?
Communes, self-sufficient farms, and a rejection of traditional value and societal norms.
College age idealists expressing such a desire, especially if the social, economic, and political situation changes in this country? Yes, initially they could easily moved into such a movement.
As was the case in 60s and 70s.
As is the case in Europe.
And it wouldn't be limited to just affluent, idealistic college students.
What about those in poverty or the prison population? Radicalism resonates within these groups right now and during periods of affluence.
Most importantly, you don't need to sell the person on the complete "movement," they often times only need to identify with specific elements of it.
The WeatherUnderground weren't merely opposed to the war in Vietnam and opposed the military actions on the grounds that they didn't want to serve over there. They used the political turmoil associated with the Vietnam war as an opportunity to advance their political and social agenda. As did many of the less violent "anti-war" groups.
They recruited amongst who were feared being drafted and exploited that focus.
You don't need to sell me on that.
But I embrace freedom and capitalism.
I think technology improves our lives, I think free markets and capitalism inspire creativity and advance technology.
I'll keep an eye out for work by Debord, if I don't get to one of his books, I'll watch for some of his films.
But I don't think it's appropriate to compare these things as though they are competing. I think it's more appropriate to view them as evolving.
Some evolutionary leads work, some don't.
The radical left movement, lead by people like Bill Ayers, never went away.
They simply changed their approach.
Not by today's standards. Those on the political left in this country share virtually nothing with the political philosophy expressed by the founding fathers.
"Left" isn't a hard and fast political definition, it's a misused location on an out of date political spectrum.
The American revolution was from freedom loving individualists who believed in limited government.
The progressive left in this country now shares none of those views.
Perhaps far, far left, a tiny minority that may have gotten press, but they weren't a driving force in the movement, they were a novelty, not a norm.
So, what changes Cal would drive college age students away from the internet, their smart phones, food in a box? I really don't see any changes that would be happening in the near future that would create that type of monumental shift in the basic fabric of what the average college aged person expects. I can see in the 70s where the average college aged student would march against a war that threatened their very life, but I don't see a college student risking arrest while marching protesting that they don't want their cell phone anymore?
The shift that The Invisible Committee is proposing is like going back to the Dark Ages. It will not be an easy sell, even to impressionable college aged people, or people in prison, or the poor.
Do you think the poor want everyone down to their level or do they want to have what they perceive everyone else has? I don't think that they want to live in poverty on a communal farm.. and that is what The Invisible Committee is selling, they aren't selling that everyone should have cell phones, they are saying that no one should have cell phones...
So, what part of the 'movement' here do you believe any strata of Americans would be identifying with? Maybe a couple of the old hippies that originally embraced the communal life style in the late 60s/early 70s, but even they now go on line, and have cell phones.
So, do you think that selling technology as evil will work, that we will be better off on the farm? It doesn't even sell in socialist countries, free market/capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on that.
I am not comparing them as 'competing' but comparing them as having 'relevance' within the society that they are trying to change. I think the revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s were far more relevant within their society than The Invisible Committee is within our current society.
They didn't go away, they changed their approach and over time they have become irrelevant. The next revolution has nothing to do with Ayer's and his ilk, but probably something we can't even think of.
Great last sentence... works for 'right' as well...
The political spectrum changes constantly. What was 'left' 30 years ago is irrelevant now. What was 'right' 50 years ago is offensive today.
What the founding fathers purposed was so radical it is hard to comprehend today the total shift that occurred. It was as far left, or maybe further, as the weatherman were in their day. By today's standards of course it looks very different, by contemporary standards of the time, incredibly radical.
So, since you know so much about the progressive left, and the methods they will employ, how do you explain any association between The Invisible Committee and the progressive left movement in America today? Where do they parallel? Anarchy? Destruction of cities? Communal farms? Abandoning technology? The absence of all education? The dismantling of society? The call to arms? I would really like to know why anyone is assuming that there is any connection between the two, or that they share any philosophical ideals. Or is it a way to scare people to imply that if one left group believes something and is calling for violent revolution, that all left groups believe exactly the same thing, and they are arming themselves to achieve the same goals?
That's all we are talking about. Thanks for confirming it.
As I mentioned, these "movements" are led by "the tiny minority" and then they find useful idiots to do the work.
The radicals in the late sixties and seventies weren't simply against the U.S. military activity in Vietnam, they simply USED it as a means of advancing their agenda. Bill Ayers wasn't just anti-war, him, among others, had a much broader, aggressive social, economic, and political agenda. The Vietnam war and the anti-war movement was simply a means of recruiting people into the cause.
You are well aware of this.
And you're making me repeat myself.
There's a lot of turmoil and opportunity on the horizon.
And I don't think for a moment that militant marxists or anarchists or whatever are going to take over the country through violent means. I don't think that's what's alarming about the popularity of the book.
I don't agree with this repeated claim that you're making that says the Invisible Committee wants to go back to the Dark Ages.
I disagree, the next revolution is preparing to take place right now.
Ayers and his ilk are more relevant today than they were 40 years ago. Back then, they were fringe lunatics. They were young and inexperienced. They had little political power or influence in the system.
Unfortunately, after the era ended, those of that ilk took shelter in academia. They expanded their power and influence. They refined their message and delivery method.
How are they irrelevant? They were not about Vietnam, they merely USED that cause to advance their movement. Bill Ayers is infinitely more relevant today than he was 30 years ago.
Yes, it does. The term "Right" wouldn't mean the same thing back then.
Someone on the political RIGHT now would be a liberal back then.
Someone on the modern political left stands contrary to everything the founding father's represented.
From personal responsibility to small government.
The patriots who founded the country were FEDERALISTS.
The left wing supports policy that centralize more and more power.
With that said, there are some Republicans who don't meet this definitions as well. But the national Democrat party has abandoned these principles in total.
The political spectrum changes dependent upon how you define or visualize it. If it's a left/right bar, or circle it does move.
But if you make that line represent more government/less freedom on one side and "less government, more freedom" on the other- you get a bunch better picture of things.
Are you comparing or equating the founding fathers to the weather underground??
You have sick and twisted sense of moral relativism.
I'm learning.
It's foreign to me, because the left relies on deception and dishonesty to advance it's agenda. It relies on manipulation and a sinister "by any means necessary" mentality that justify any destructive or disgusting behavior so long as it advances the cause.
You certainly know more about the actions and methodology of the left than I. You're on the inside. Unfortunately, you're not willing to discuss the actual details, philosophy, and methods honestly. You'll whimper that it's a defensive measure on your part, but we both know better than that.
I haven't drawn that parallel in this thread.
Nor can that be addressed in a short concise paragraph.
This particular group, this "tiny minority" strike me as being sort of anarchistic marxist idealist slackers.
The question isn't how are they associated philosophically, but how will the progressive movement use them.
Oh I see, you're worried that you're being grouped with bad people or reckless hooligans who don't understand the movement, yet you continue to marginalize and defend terrorist like Bill Ayers...
Anyone can read it here:
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/
And read the rest of the webpage as well for some additional context.
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/
And read the rest of the webpage as well for some additional context.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/books/16situation.html?_r=1
Liberating Lipsticks and Lattes
By COLIN MOYNIHAN
Published: June 15, 2009
They arrived at the Barnes & Noble at Union Square in small groups on Sunday afternoon, proceeding two and three at a time to the fourth floor, where they browsed among shelves holding books by authors like Jacques Derrida and Martin Heidegger.
Participants in an unruly Union Square event honoring the recent publication in English of a book written by French activists.
By 5 o’clock a crowd of more than 100 had gathered. Their purpose: to celebrate the publication of an English translation of a book called “The Coming Insurrection,” which was written two years ago by an anonymous group of French authors who call themselves the Invisible Committee. More recently, the volume has been at the center of an unusual criminal investigation in France that has become something of a cause célèbre among leftists and civil libertarians.
The book, which predicts the imminent collapse of capitalist culture, was inspired by disruptive demonstrations that took place over the last few years in France and Greece. It was influenced stylistically by Guy Debord, a French writer and filmmaker who was a leader of the Situationist International, a group of intellectuals and artists who encouraged the Paris protests of 1968.
In keeping with the anarchistic spirit of the text, the bookstore event was organized without the knowledge or permission of Barnes & Noble. The gathering was intended partly as a show of solidarity with nine young people — including one suspected of writing “The Coming Insurrection” —whom in November the French police accused of forming a dangerous “ultraleftist” group and sabotaging train lines.
As a bookstore employee announced to the milling crowd that there was no reading scheduled for that night, a man jumped onto a stage and began loudly reciting the opening words of the book’s recent introduction: “Everyone agrees. It’s about to explode.”
A security guard tried to halt the unsanctioned reading, but the man continued for about five minutes, until the police arrived. The crowd, mostly people in their 20s and 30s, including some graduate students, then adjourned, clapping and yelling, to East 17th Street. There they formed a rebellious spectacle, crowding into shops and loudly shouting bits of political theory, to the amusement of some onlookers and store employees and the irritation of others.
When the French publisher La Fabrique first issued “The Coming Insurrection” in 2007, it received comparatively little attention. But among those who did take notice were the French police, who began monitoring a group of people, mostly graduate students, living in the tiny mountain village of Tarnac in central France.
Last November nine of those men and women, ages 22 to 34, were arrested and accused of “associating with a terrorist enterprise” and disabling power lines that left 40,000 passengers stranded for several hours on high-speed trains. A spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutors’ office said that one of the nine, Julien Coupat, was believed to have written “The Coming Insurrection.” He has denied being the author but told interviewers in France that he admired the book.
The government eventually released the group — who have come to be known as the Tarnac Nine — pending further investigation, with some opponents of the official action accusing the police of carrying out arrests without sufficient evidence.
Meanwhile, the book Mr. Coupat was accused of writing has developed a small but devoted following. Dozens of anonymous translators have posted the text on Web sites. And Semiotext(e), a Los Angeles publisher that specializes in works by French theorists like Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault, published an English-language edition of the book at the end of last month with a print run of 3,000.
Hedi El Kholti, an editor at Semiotext(e), said that the book’s winding up as a key part of a controversial case added to the historical value of its message.
“Everyone is dancing around this notion that publishing a book can take you to jail,” he said recently by telephone. “That a book is an element that can involve you in a trial.”
The slender text is part antimaterialist manifesto and part manual for revolution. The writers expound at length on what they see as a diseased and dehumanizing civilization that cannot be reformed but must, they contend, be torn apart and replaced. To that end the authors direct their readers to sabotage authority, form self-sufficient communes and learn how to “support a conspiracy against commodity society.”
Like the authors of “The Coming Insurrection,” most of those observing its publication on Sunday night refused to identify themselves by name.
“The book is important because it speaks to the total bankruptcy of pretty much everything,” one man said after the group left the bookstore. “We’re living in a high-end aesthetic with zero content.”
Inside the Sephora cosmetics shop on East 17th Street, the crowd chanted, “All power to the communes,” as security guards wearing black T-shirts ordered them back outside. A few minutes later the cry was taken up again as the group marched into Starbucks on Union Square West.
Emile Olea, 28, a customer at the coffee shop who was visiting from San Diego, closed his laptop computer and gazed at the crowd.
“I have no idea what’s going on,” he said. “But I like the excitement.”
Liberating Lipsticks and Lattes
By COLIN MOYNIHAN
Published: June 15, 2009
They arrived at the Barnes & Noble at Union Square in small groups on Sunday afternoon, proceeding two and three at a time to the fourth floor, where they browsed among shelves holding books by authors like Jacques Derrida and Martin Heidegger.
Participants in an unruly Union Square event honoring the recent publication in English of a book written by French activists.
By 5 o’clock a crowd of more than 100 had gathered. Their purpose: to celebrate the publication of an English translation of a book called “The Coming Insurrection,” which was written two years ago by an anonymous group of French authors who call themselves the Invisible Committee. More recently, the volume has been at the center of an unusual criminal investigation in France that has become something of a cause célèbre among leftists and civil libertarians.
The book, which predicts the imminent collapse of capitalist culture, was inspired by disruptive demonstrations that took place over the last few years in France and Greece. It was influenced stylistically by Guy Debord, a French writer and filmmaker who was a leader of the Situationist International, a group of intellectuals and artists who encouraged the Paris protests of 1968.
In keeping with the anarchistic spirit of the text, the bookstore event was organized without the knowledge or permission of Barnes & Noble. The gathering was intended partly as a show of solidarity with nine young people — including one suspected of writing “The Coming Insurrection” —whom in November the French police accused of forming a dangerous “ultraleftist” group and sabotaging train lines.
As a bookstore employee announced to the milling crowd that there was no reading scheduled for that night, a man jumped onto a stage and began loudly reciting the opening words of the book’s recent introduction: “Everyone agrees. It’s about to explode.”
A security guard tried to halt the unsanctioned reading, but the man continued for about five minutes, until the police arrived. The crowd, mostly people in their 20s and 30s, including some graduate students, then adjourned, clapping and yelling, to East 17th Street. There they formed a rebellious spectacle, crowding into shops and loudly shouting bits of political theory, to the amusement of some onlookers and store employees and the irritation of others.
When the French publisher La Fabrique first issued “The Coming Insurrection” in 2007, it received comparatively little attention. But among those who did take notice were the French police, who began monitoring a group of people, mostly graduate students, living in the tiny mountain village of Tarnac in central France.
Last November nine of those men and women, ages 22 to 34, were arrested and accused of “associating with a terrorist enterprise” and disabling power lines that left 40,000 passengers stranded for several hours on high-speed trains. A spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutors’ office said that one of the nine, Julien Coupat, was believed to have written “The Coming Insurrection.” He has denied being the author but told interviewers in France that he admired the book.
The government eventually released the group — who have come to be known as the Tarnac Nine — pending further investigation, with some opponents of the official action accusing the police of carrying out arrests without sufficient evidence.
Meanwhile, the book Mr. Coupat was accused of writing has developed a small but devoted following. Dozens of anonymous translators have posted the text on Web sites. And Semiotext(e), a Los Angeles publisher that specializes in works by French theorists like Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault, published an English-language edition of the book at the end of last month with a print run of 3,000.
Hedi El Kholti, an editor at Semiotext(e), said that the book’s winding up as a key part of a controversial case added to the historical value of its message.
“Everyone is dancing around this notion that publishing a book can take you to jail,” he said recently by telephone. “That a book is an element that can involve you in a trial.”
The slender text is part antimaterialist manifesto and part manual for revolution. The writers expound at length on what they see as a diseased and dehumanizing civilization that cannot be reformed but must, they contend, be torn apart and replaced. To that end the authors direct their readers to sabotage authority, form self-sufficient communes and learn how to “support a conspiracy against commodity society.”
Like the authors of “The Coming Insurrection,” most of those observing its publication on Sunday night refused to identify themselves by name.
“The book is important because it speaks to the total bankruptcy of pretty much everything,” one man said after the group left the bookstore. “We’re living in a high-end aesthetic with zero content.”
Inside the Sephora cosmetics shop on East 17th Street, the crowd chanted, “All power to the communes,” as security guards wearing black T-shirts ordered them back outside. A few minutes later the cry was taken up again as the group marched into Starbucks on Union Square West.
Emile Olea, 28, a customer at the coffee shop who was visiting from San Diego, closed his laptop computer and gazed at the crowd.
“I have no idea what’s going on,” he said. “But I like the excitement.”
Cal - more on the actual book later, and our discussion, but why did you post the article regarding 100 people gathering to celebrate the book as it is released? Does this foretell of some great following?
Mark Levin drew thousands of people, who stood in the rain for hours to get an autographed copy of his latest book last spring in Virginia... So, by sheer numbers alone the right should be sitting pretty... And I think Levin's book got far less pre publication press than The Coming Insurrection has.
The 100 number is very tiny, and probably quite disappointing to the authors...
And the second to the last paragraph is very telling,
Will he be giving up that laptop anytime in the future, renounce technology and join with the Invisible Committee?
I don't think so.
Mark Levin drew thousands of people, who stood in the rain for hours to get an autographed copy of his latest book last spring in Virginia... So, by sheer numbers alone the right should be sitting pretty... And I think Levin's book got far less pre publication press than The Coming Insurrection has.
The 100 number is very tiny, and probably quite disappointing to the authors...
And the second to the last paragraph is very telling,
Will he be giving up that laptop anytime in the future, renounce technology and join with the Invisible Committee?
I don't think so.
So, cal - the radical movement from the 60s and 70s lives on? Continuing to use idiots to further their agenda?
So, how about the current day tea parties? The conservative movement from the 80s continuing to live on? Their rallies at least on April 15th drew thousands, were there 'useful idiots' among those people? Are they using the tax issue as a means to advance the rest of their agenda?
It is how political movements work Cal - left or right, you chose a hot topic, rally people around it, and then expose them to other threads within your agenda. Right, left, it makes no difference.
And don't get all 'holier than thou' here Cal. Politics is a dirty game. I believe the left is dirtier than the right, but I also believe that the right is catching up. I don't know if it is in self defense, or if it has something to do with the aging of those political activists from the 60s and 70s, and they have become more conservative as they age, but they remember the tactics of their youth.
So, what is alarming about the book? Which isn't all that popular by the way - I think it may have a printing of less than 10,000 here in the US. The press has pumped it up - well, Fox has pumped it up, but in reality - few people know about it. Beck's Common Sense tome will sell far more copies.
So, you have read it Cal - it is very anti materialistic, they want to get rid of 'everything' and start again with nothing.... but a few cucumber seeds and anarchy. Perhaps the Dark Ages was optimistic on my part - probably the Druids would be a better comparison. Lazy Druids who wouldn’t want to work, therefore, no more Stonehenges either.
So, is Ayers, your personal devil, relevant today? Is he organizing protests, or has some subtle form of brainwashing been going on in academia and we have zombies who will be Manchurian candidates for the cause? Heck, I might be the perfect example, I had a very 'svengali' relationship with one of the Chicago Seven in my late teens/early 20s. I obviously have been brain washed - correct? You have to assume that the intervening years wouldn’t have tempered my views or changed my outlook at all.
My gosh, it is subtle, but this is as much a conspiracy theory as Bryan posts on the other threads... Less than a dozen people worked their way into academia (I would imagine it would end up being about 6 or 7 of the weatherman who are/were in the education system), poisoned the system, and are bringing about the current revolution?
So, I am on the modern political left - there are very few things I disagree with the founding fathers on - in fact, usually I err on the side of more personal liberties, not less. But, they didn't expect this country to stand still either...
But, in many cases in today’s political spectrum you have more government/more personal liberties and less government/less personal liberties, that is yet another picture of how the party lines are drawn today.
I am comparing their relative position on the political scale within their timeframes, not their philosophies. The founding fathers were some of the most revolutionary men of any time. They fell very far left on the political spectrum of their day.
And, as much as you like to use this platform to paint me as some evil leftist who has some terrible hidden agenda to trounce on the Constitution, throw out the Declaration of Independence and embrace some marxist ideal, I am not that. You continue to judge me personally, when the discussion doesn't demand that you do. Here in the last two quotes you were able to attach the labels ‘sick’, ‘twisted’, and question my ‘honesty’. I like the discussion, not the personal attacks that you seem to constantly interject into them.
What I do try to do is discuss this rationally without trying to create some personal antagonism. Personalization is a rather crafty way to undermine the opposite side. I don't go against you personally Cal, I have no interest in that. Once again, I enjoy the discussion, but I don't enjoy the peculiar way you use this to label me.
From Thomas Jefferson (this section is often misquoted as 'every generation needs a new revolution') discussing the Massachusetts rebellion.
God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.