>filled with vets that formed a Militia
That is a not a militia, that would be a paramilitary, and this is the first step to civil war.
On Revolution
When is the right time for a revolution and how should it be achieved?
To the first question, there are two answers: The ideological one and the practical one. Both answers are quite simple to state, yet not so easy to detect. Ideologically,a revolution should happen when the nation is ruled by a tyrant or when leadersβ incompetence is damaging it.Practically, a revolution should happen when there is more to be gained than to be lost. The truth is actually both:A revolution should happen if the nation is tyrannical or incompetent and there is more to be gained than to be lost.
Yet, as said, it may be easy to say this, yet itβs not as easy to determine when those conditions have been reached. When are leaders tyrannical? When are they incompetent? When do you know you have more to gain than to lose?
Iβll start with the first and easiest one: When do you know you have more to gain than to lose? This one is simply mathematics yet ofttimes, revolutionaries overlook it. Theyβll oust their leaders with the belief that βthings could not possibly get any worseβ, then things actually do get worse.Evaluate: What services does the government provide? Is there justice in the nation? Who are our enemies and how would they react to a civil war? Can we keep the nation supplied in food, water, fuel and other goods without the current government?
In the end, what good is it to get rid of a tyrant just to starve to death? Or to replace incompetent leaders with even worse ones? So, all the variables must be taken into account before engaging in a revolutionary act. As the saying goes, βOut of the frying pan, into the fireβ would not be a good thing.
Next, how do you know your leaders are incompetent?'''
This is seen through calamities; famines, pandemics, immense criminality, financial crashes, etc. Yet, these events could be completely out of the hands of the leaders: Even the most competent leader canβt predict, prevent or end natural disasters which can lead to these issues. However, one can tell if they had prepared for such eventualities, how they react to such events,if they acted for the good of the nation rather than their own when those incidents happened.
It goes back to the βprofits/lossesβ equation:Can you tell with relative certainty that different leaders would have handled the situation better? If so, then itβs time for a revolution.
Finally, tyrants. Believe it or not, detecting a tyrant is more difficult than youβd imagine. Even the most benevolent of leaders will have to take decisions which will harm a minority to help the nation. To these people, the leaders will appear as tyrannical. Yet here is the key, isnβt it? If the decisions always harm as few people as possible while benefiting as many as possible, then theyβre clearly not tyrannical.So, we can define a tyrant as a leader who takes decisions which benefit a minority to the detriment of the nation at large. We can thus state the following:
βIf leaders are taking decisions which benefit a minority to the detriment of the nation OR if different leaders would definitely be capable of taking better decisions AND there is more to be gained than to be lost from a revolution, then it is time for a revolution.β
Yet how can a revolution be achieved?
People think revolution and they inevitably think βviolenceβ, yet it is not always necessary. In fact, most revolutions are non-violent, we simply call them something else: elections. Yet there are other kinds of non-violent revolutions. Iβll examine three types: The violent revolution, the election and the quiet revolution.
The violent revolution is the one people have in mind most of the time when they think about revolution. Yet, it is the least desirable: A violent revolution brings about death and destruction. Simply put: The losses incurred by a violent revolution are great and thus will likely outweigh the gains. Still, undesirable does not mean unnecessary.
To know if a violent revolution is necessary, ask yourself two questions:
1. Is a revolution necessary?
2. Is it impossible to have a non-violent revolution?
If you answer yes to both of these questions, then itβs time for a violent revolution.
The first step here would be to obtain the collaboration of people who know how to engage in violence, namely the armed forces and the police forces. This is not always possible, yet if it can be achieved your victory is assured and in fact will be far less violent. When obtaining their collaboration however, make sure they have the same goal as you, namely improving the nation. This is difficult to achieve and can only be done through ideology, yet it can be done.
Weβll go over the first and best known type of non-violent revolution: elections. Whether youβre a democracy or any other kind of republic, it is possible to remove the current rulers and replace them with others through an election. Rather than explain such a well-known process, Iβd rather touch on when itβs time to go for something else. Namely, when the voting pool gets limited to candidates which are all incompetent or tyrannical. The obvious answer here would be to present candidates which are neither, yet this is not always possible.
So, when all candidates are incompetent or tyrannical or in the case that free and fair elections are impossible, it is time to abandon elections as a viable option.
The other method I would like to propose is one which was witnessed in my society, and actually in quite a few others: The quiet revolution.
The quiet revolution happens when the entirety of the population (or so close as to make no difference) stops listening to what the authorities say at once.
This works best if the enforcing bodies, namely the military and police, collaborate with the population. In this case, citizens need to build new, alternate power structures to replace the old ones, to compete with them. As time passes and the new, better power structures actually do their job, the old leadersβ authority will wane and the revolution will be achieved. However, a quiet revolution requires a very homogeneous population which is in agreement with the abandonment of the power structure. It is a hijacking of authority, so to speak.
To give a specific example, letβs imagine a government has an office of roads. They manage roads. They do it badly. Now, a citizen says βIβll make my own office of roads!β, receives donations from citizens and actually starts doing the job the old office of roads wouldnβt do. Eventually, people stop paying their taxes to the office of roads and instead start paying them to the new one. The old gets replaced with the new in a non-violent way. As said, this is only possible if you have the collaboration of enforcing agents. If the old office of roads tells the cops βGO ARREST THAT NEW OFFICE OF ROADSβ and they listen, then it becomes impossible to achieve a quiet revolution.
So, before violence, you should attempt elections or hijacking authority.
There is much more to be said on revolution, and I suggest you read up on it because it will unfortunately be very important in the coming years. People need to understand that revolutions are necessary, yet they also need to ask themselves two questions before doing so:
1. Is it worth it?
2. Can we do it without resorting to violence?
If we can educate people in this matter, I am convinced we can avoid many horrors in the near future.
Denying the legitimacy of revolutions will not prevent them from happening; it will only prevent people from learning how to achieve them properly.
We are so far past the point that you should be worried about who can get your identity. Your enemies know who you are already, they know where you live and work. You shouldn't be concerned about "who" knows who you are at this point, you should be concerned with preparations of making them pay when they finally come for you.
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββ’ββββββββββββββββββββββ‘β’ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββΓββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘ββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββΓβ«βββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘β’ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ βββ‘ββββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββΓβββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ ββββββββββββββββββββΓβββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββ’ββββββββββββββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ βββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ βββ ββ’βββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ βββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ βββ ββββ βββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββ«βββββββββββββββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ βββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββ‘ββββ βββ βββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘ββββββββ βββ βββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββ«βββββββββββββ ββββ ββββ β’βββββββββ βββ‘βββ’ββββββ’ββ βββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ ββββββββββ βββ‘βββ’βββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββ βββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββββββ«βββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββ’ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββ’ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββΓβββββββ
ββββββββΓββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββ’βββββββββββββββββββββββββββΓββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββ’ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββ’ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β βββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘ββββ βββββββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ βββ‘βββΓβββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββΓβββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β β β β β β β β β β β β ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
>so obviously the military would act to intervene in this effort
Which would by definition be a military squaring up to a paramilitary unit. Avalanches are started by tiny snowballs.
>Tha fuck you on about? You take a RISK with EVERY connected device.
If you have a debit/credit card they already know more about you than your wife or kids do. Stop worrying about who knows who you are and start making a plan of how to stand up for your rights.
>The authorities practice 'might makes right,' aka "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Because we allow them.
βRights are not protected by law, but by the citizenβs willingness to use violence against the authorities when they are not respected.β
We often talk about rights. In fact, George Carlin had his own routine concerning rights, where he questioned the legitimacy of rights as an idea and eventually came to the conclusion that either you have all rights, or you have no rights at all. His explanation was mostly aimed at being humorous, but I think it is important to examine what rights are and why we have them, or rather why a government would feel inclined to let us have them. I propose the following answers:
-
Rights are what the citizens of a nation are entitled to as long as they follow the conditions following those rights, namely following the law. It is not laws which dictate what rights citizens have, but their rights which dictate what laws are possible.
-
The reason a government would rather let its citizens have rights is to avoid violent conο¬ict. Violence is undesirable because of the inevitable destruction it brings and so by knowing what the government is not allowed to do unless it wants to face a violent uprising from its citizens, violence can be averted. They are essentially a way to have βcivil discourseβ if you will.
Let us examine the ο¬rst answer I give, namely that rights are what citizens are entitled to as long as they follow the law, and that laws are designed around rights, not the other way around. First of all, a citizen who follows the law should expect his rights to be respected. And even if there is an accusation against him, certain rights also protect him in that they allow him to have a proper defense and the such.Without rights, citizens would essentially be constantly at the mercy of their government. They would have no ofο¬cial power to oppose the authority in any way.
However, as long as they have rights and they are respected, then the citizens are capable of defending themselves against potentially abusive authorities.Likewise, this is why it is not laws which should determine what rights you possess,but rather the rights you have which should determine what laws can be created.If laws can change rights, then the government can decide which rights you have and they are essentially meaningless. On the other hand, if laws must be designed around predetermined rights, then the government does not have the power to create laws which violate your rights.
Yet all this is meaningless unless the citizenship is willing to enforce its rights.
So we reach the most important point I am making here, which is the necessity of the citizenshipβs willingness to engage in violence if the government denies its rights.
You see, one must ask himself what forces the government to respect rights in the first place. If they ignore them, if they trample them, what ill will befall them? Who will stop them? The answer here is simple:The citizenship must stop them, and the only means by which they can achieve it is through violence.Some foolish souls may claim that merely electing a new government will change things, but voting is in itself a right and if a government is willing to remove one right, it will not hesitate to remove another.And if one party does not suffer dire consequences for attacking the rights of the citizenship, then the other parties have no incentive to restore those rights. Thus, paradoxically, it is violence which gives rise to rights. And rights arise and are respected in order to avoid violence.
Governments themselves have an incentive to respect rights. As said, violence is destructive and it is far more efficient to arrive at a peaceful solution, which involves respecting the rights of the citizenship. Though it could ignore said rights, this would be at an undesirable cost. Or rather, it should be, which brings me to my ultimate point.
This is why everything is going wrong with the west right now. This is the root cause of all the issues which we are faced with: Governments are not respecting their citizensβ rights, yet these citizens are unwilling to use violence to defend themselves. Rather, they sit back and grumble quietly, telling themselves that itβs preferable to lose those rights than to engage in violence.
It is not.
It is unacceptable for any man who believes that he has any rights to allow these abuses to take place. Though it is important to make sure that rights have been violated before taking action so as to make sure one is righteous, once it is truly determined that a citizenβs rights are not being respected, it is the duty of all to rise up and oppose their government. Those who sit down and begrudgingly accept these repeated outrages are no better than slaves and deserve no better fate than slaves.
And so, remember this, and plan accordingly. Once your government thinks they can take away your rights, it is time to hold on to them as tight as possible with one hand while thrusting your spear with the other. Otherwise, you are nothing but a slave and deserve to be treated as such.
Violence is the pillar on which all societies are built and its repression is tantamount to societal collapse.
For societies to function, there must be a set of agreed upon rules, which we call laws, to govern all individuals which comprise them. Without those rules to abide by, individuals would likely work against each other and societies would collapse. Even assuming the good will of the individuals comprising a society, having laws allows us to determine the point at which a dysfunctional individual must be stopped by force.
Of course, laws are simply words. Spoken words or words on paper, but only words. Laws gain power through their enforcement, and enforcement is only possible through violence or the implied threat of violence. As an example, a man may pay off a speeding ticket because he thinks itβs the right thing to do, but what stops him from deciding he doesnβt feel like paying it is the threat of being forcefully taken to jail. And once in jail, what keeps him behaved is the threat of further confinement, which is achieved through violence. Thus, without violence, laws cannot be enforced. If laws cannot be enforced, the laws mean nothing. If the laws mean nothing, then nothing stops individuals from acting against the well-being of that society. And if nothing stops individuals from acting against the well being of society, then the society will eventually collapse. It will take longer in societies where individuals are responsible, but it will happen eventually. What keeps the predatory, the sociopathic, from gaining full power over individuals aiming to make society function, is the threat of violence against them.
Thus, the notion that βviolence is never the answerβ is a laughable one.We teach(or rather, our governments teach)our children that violence is wrong, that they must never use it no matter what. The aim of this is to create a society of slaves who will never protect themselves when abused. It is slave morality and we must emancipate ourselves from it.
Yes, violence is acceptable, in certain conditions.It may not be desirable, but it becomes acceptable β nay,necessaryβ if one hopes to have a complex and functional society. Otherwise, what you have is merely a parody of a society, a human organization which does not work for the good and improvement of humanity, but for the glory of its sociopathic leaders. This, in essence, is the reason behind the westβs continued descent into decadence. If the decent, righteous folks who constitute the majority of mankind refuse to engage in violence, then dysfunctional individuals wonβt hesitate to take what they want by force. Over time, this will allow them to gain positions of power where they will weaken the laws even further and allow even more dysfunctionals into positions of power until we reach a point where the common folk are dominated by a handful of psychopaths, refusing to defend themselves as they believe violence is wrong while letting violence be used to dominate them.
Once such a point is reached, the less intelligent brutes will begin using violence not because they want freedom from the dominating castes, but merely because no one is stopping them. The decent folk refuse to use violence to stop them while those in charge donβt care. Worse, those in charge now hesitate to use violence to stop the brutes because it might set a precedent, teach the decent folks that violence is indeed the answer. This is how we wind up with riots all over the place and eventually, either when someone sees an opportunity to seize power or the decent folks finally have enough, civil war. Once the civil war blows over, people with power and the will to enforce laws will create their new state, with new laws, but none can tell if these laws will be the kind which allow a civilized society.
In conclusion, it is my belief that to prevent a total societal failure of the west, it is imperative to teach violence to people again. Teach them how to do it, when to do it, why they should do it.
==Remember that it is not a prayer which will keep the darkness at bay, but a sword.
>like posting it a millionth time will make your position stronger
I don't have a "position" that's what you miss. Position implies debate, of which there is none. The moment Americans decide this shit ends is the second this shit ends. Always a pleasure, concernshill.
>go back to the think tank - yu fit in thar
Imagine thinking calling someone intelligent would be an insult.