The_Dunedan

As one of TFP's official Evil Rightwing Extremist Terrorists In Training*, I'd like to weigh in on this one. Being that my "extremism" runs to an individualist rather than collectivist paradigm, I can speak specifically only about myself, and only generally on the views of others.

Many or most on the libertarian right refuse currently to take direct action because:

1: Libertarianism disallows the initiation of the use of force. Starting a revolution is initiating the use of force. Ergo, no startage.

2: Many people recognise that, for reasons which remain the topic of debate, much of the population of the US (and indeed most of the western world) is if not hostile towards, then neither terribly receptive towards such ideas. While winning AmRev1 may have required only 30/10/3% support, they recognise that any such action today would require much broader support and would be a much harder sell. Additionally, with some percentage of 300-ish million people to win over, such a "sell" would take far longer and need to be far more complete. Not being willing to kill or imprison people to change their minds has some significant drawbacks when you're in the revolution business.

3: Most on the "extreme right" (racist asshats like the Nat'l Alliance, Aryan Nations, etc. not included**) recognise that any such revolution would be horrendous for both sides. Casualties would be utterly murderous. The winners, whoever they were, would have to be comfortable with the idea of killing somewhere north of a million people, and would furthermore sustain similar losses themselves; very few people are willing to enter the company of Pol Pot and Idi Amin without a -very- good reason. Most on the "extreme right" find nothing short of out-and-out aggression (such as forcible gun confiscation, foreign troops active on US soil, forcible land confiscation or large-scale "disappearances) to be even worthy of consideration as a "very good reason" to get into a gunfight. Willingness to sustain those kinds of casualties takes one HELL of a provocation.

My personal objections run in these veins, as do (in a general sense) those of most individuals with whom I discuss such matters. Nobody -wants- to start a fight, because those kinds of fights SUCK, real hard. They recognise that such a fight may be unavoidable, but in the main they are much more interested in winning the "soft war" through education, outreach, and propaganda, than they are in winning the "hard war" at the potential expense of their own and the certain expense of many others' lives.

*No, really, ask Janet Napolitano or Morris Dees or Mark Potok.
**This bunch are really entertaining. They all seem to think that once TSHTF, every white person in the country will simply join up, grab a gun, kill a few niggers and Jews without breaking a sweat or taking more than token casualties, and then the whole thing will be over and won and Whites will rule the world again. These people are the very definition of "deluded, asinine, divorced-from-reality moron." This view is probably related to the fact that NA types view blacks as incurably stupid, Jews as incurably cowardly, and everyone else as some mixture of the two, and therefor utterly incapable of resisting The Might And Righteous Wrath Of All White People Everywhere. They seem to have gotten their tactical and psyop information mostly from watching "Birth Of A Nation" late at night.