It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Revolts in the US are a stupid wet dream.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:40 AM
Why is it that /k/ has this strange belief that if their government turns against the populace, there will be a major revolt aided by large sections of the military?

Lets take a look at history shall we? Hitler, Stalin, China's [*SNIP*] "cultural revolution", the TWO Burmese genocides, Tienanmen square, Saddam, Iran, oh the list goes [*SNIP*] long...

In all cases the government killed civilians with secret police/military, and there was no nation wide revolt, nor was there a large scale mutiny of military troops. No civil war occurred due to the government ordering civilians killed/disappeared.

And you know why?

Because the guy in the military with a gun to your most likely a normal guy. And when a normal guy is told "shoot him or we shoot you", hes going to shoot you. Why? Because you are a stranger to him. Hes not going to lose his life to try and save you. And if he does, the next guy in line will just shoot you anyway. He knows that. So hes going to shoot you and live on.

Your life < their lives. Given a choice, almost everyone will choose to save their own lives over someone elses, especially if its someone they don't know.

Its especially easy if the government claims you are a terrorist, some religious extremist, part of a child [*SNIP*] cult, whatever...they will accept the reason, kill you, and pat themselves on the back for a good job done protecting the country.

Protip : Your country is not some special "holy land" where everyone will work together to save each other from a tyrannical government. There will be simultaneous nation wide revolt, entire battalions will not defect to "the resistance", and in all likelihood at least 95% of gun owners will do nothing but hand over their guns with some bitching, because there will be a squad of soldiers pointing rifles at them to make sure they comply.

lets say you and your buddies are told to arrest a bunch of guys.

These guys are a bunch of neckbeards with AR-15s and other military equivalents. They are hold up in their homes and have said they will only give up their weapons in death.

They are shooting at you and your buddies. Do you shoot back and kill them?

Oh and these guys also claim to be "resistance fighters". Do you still shoot them?

Oh and another historical note : My Lai massacre. "But we were just obeying orders". Did any of the soldiers there say "No" to the order?

This is a repost of the highlights of a thread on /k/


Mod Edit: Profanity and censor circumvention removed.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/2/2010 by AshleyD]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:10 AM
Dammit Happy, you woke me from my dream.

Are you saying revolutions have never worked?

Are you saying that it has never happened in the history of the world?

You are not being a disinfo agent, are you?

Their are other forms of revolution besides an armed conflict. Many different devices can be used.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:25 AM
Your history is a bit off. Hitler did not gain power from a revolution. He was elected and then stripped peoples rights, often in the name of security. The burning of the reichstag for example was a false flag attack they used to crack down on any opposition. You also forgot to mention two of the most well known revolutions in history - the French and American revolutions.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jacob08]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Happyfeet

Oh and another historical note : My Lai massacre. "But we were just obeying orders". Did any of the soldiers there say "No" to the order?

I am not answering your larger points, but as to Mai Lai:

If you look up the story of Hugh Thompson, Jr., you will see he was willing to open fire on U.S, troops to protect civilians during the incident

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:37 AM
I'm of two minds about the idea of an armed revolt in the US.

On one hand, there is a great amount of unrest and discontent in a nation historically bound to an armed populace and an anti-government culture.

I could easily see a point in which people attempt such an endeavor, but I don't see it working out well by a long shot. The groups which would be active generally have a knack for attracting some very undesirable elements from our fine American society.

On the other hand, we have spent the past 30 years or so binding ourselves to power through debt. Say the word and they could take your home, your cars, your ability to drive, and your freedom within the confines of the law.

The American people have also become beholden to the mass media for thought rather than for information.

A revolt in America is laughable at best, and I'd suggest that no one who truly wishes to act against the government ever say so on a phone, the internet, or any other means.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:13 PM
The methods by which a very small number of people can control, oppress, imprison, and slaughter millions of others against their will have been developed and implemented throughout the history of the 20th century.

For example, in the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks were a very tiny minority of those who wanted social, political, and economic reform. Yet they seized power ruthlessly, and cowed the population by instituting the "Terror", whereby secret police squads (mainly staffed by previous prison inmates), randomly picked up people off the street and executed them, regardless of their innocence. Of course, this resulted in a civil war which lasted for 6 years, and claimed millions of Russian lives, but in the end the Bolsheviks prevailed.

So if there is some sort of totalitarian coup that takes place in the US, then there very well may be some limited armed resistance, as there was in Russia (many of the czarist generals fought against the Bolsheviks), but the idea that the American population (addicted to McDonalds and the Simpsons), will rise up en mass with the cry of "Liberty or Death" is farcical.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:29 PM
---what do you call what has been going on in this country??--more noticeable since bush came into power --ITS a revolution against the constitution and the bill of rights---not to mention the environment,against the middle class. Some revolutions are ongoing and never stop

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:35 PM
When the trucks stop delivering because the company went bankrupt then the goods, food, and fuel are gonna stop being delivered. Times are bad enough with the trouble people are having keeping their jobs. If those with income can not buy food because the trucking companies went bankrupt you can bet people will resort to any means necessary.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:41 PM

Mod Edit: Profanity and censor circumvention removed.

If the rioters and revolutionaries are as good at circumventing terms of law as you, I would think again..

It's surprising how resourceful one man can be, what of 50 million?

That's why the bilderberg group wants to reduce population.

IMO watch Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory Episode 5. People are waking up, not just us conspiracy nuts.

Note, most revolutionaries either have total decorum or a total lack of it. why is that? Extremes I guess. When they unite, my friend, anything is possible.. why do you think the government and FEMA are so concerned about it if it's 'a wet dream' - it's not only a real possibility, it could easily happen tomorrow with the right catalysing event.

Catalysing event? Well, as it would say in the document called rebuilding america's defenses. that's exactly what the U.S needs.

Trust me, you'd be wrong to say it's a revolutionaries wet dream. But definitely a wet dream of the power base.




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by Happyfeet


...Gun Control..


...Gun Control..


I think you mean Mao? .... Gun Control..

the TWO Burmese genocides

Gun Control!

Tienanmen square

Well just as it is above, GUN CONTROL


Gun Control..


Gun Control....

Because the guy in the military with a gun to your most likely a normal guy. And when a normal guy is told "shoot him or we shoot you", hes going to shoot you.

This is true in all the cases above.. the guys with guns killed the guys without the guns.. they didn't dare turn against the other men with guns.. their chances of living were oh so much greater.

In the US a Soldier would then face the consequences of... going with the Army with guns, or the Army with guns.. it would come down to moral choice and obligation, and many would choose the side of the "people" (which includes millions of Military trained men and women.......)

So long as the US Citizens hold on tight to their guns, no one can harm us.. we are the worlds largest trained, unorganized militia.. the American citizens hold more guns than the Worlds armies combined.. So the only thing to fear is the Liberals who get the wet dreams thinking about taking your gun away.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:48 AM
Obviously the vast majority of (either soldiers or people) would prefer to shoot total strangers, than bring that fate on themselves or their family.

BUT: In this environment, if so much as a U.S, military, Corporal were to start making plans with men to attack Congress, or to start forging other links with just a few of our government’s many departments, then…
1. Support from his men would be higher.
2. So the chances of his plan getting “blown” by the secret service would be reduced, probably because the secret service itself would be worried about what exactly, sort of future, the dictatorship is creating for their sons and daughters.
3. Even if he failed, it would be maybe only weeks, before somebody (who may well have learnt from others mistakes) would try to follow the footsteps.

Overall, the reality of being in power would (for those in power) become more like being a member of the Mafia, than an Elite social glass.
This is because although they’re tyranny would Continue to grant them the (virtually) endless wealth some enjoy now, it would (just like the Mafia) seriously reduce their life expectancies.
Just like a drug dealer not knowing if or when, they’ll get caught; their wealth too could be confiscated at almost any moment. They may meet the same fate as Saddam, or (as history occasionally shows) a death that’s potentially much worse.

What’s Lacking For A Revolution…
1. Public support: Most Americans-Europeans continue to believe they live in a functioning democracy, one that may not be completely fair, but one that is good nonetheless.
2. Unity: Most people think our democracy needs improving, but few will support illegal ways of getting power, never mind violence.
3. Treachery: The people (who would at all levels lead the revolution) being employed by government (as fully paid up double, gov agents) or because they’d probably be an even worse government, than the current one.

The Final Obstacle: Distraction…
I think Government would sooner unite us all e.g. by bringing back the Draft in order to rob a whole generation of a good chunk of its intellectuals, then sit idle and not go to war with half the non-nuclear world.
This is what happened to society during World War 1 & 2 (because the fallen in wars tend to Brave & Politically passionate, whilst the survivors are better placed being Cowardly & Disinterested in politics.
Also (at least in) Russia, a lot of political radicals (who could otherwise have caused the Tsar, state, serious trouble) where sent to die in missions where they would probably not succeed. Even if they did succeed, there are always more missions they can put a “hero” like you on!

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by Happyfeet

Never work? Really? Wow... Then the Philippians are still ruled by Ferdinand Marcos? Cuba by Batista? Russia by the Tsars?

The United States as an independent nation is the direct result of a successful revolution. The changes brought about by the civil rights movement were a revolution. Equal rights for women? A revolution.

Revolutions are difficult, yes. Dangerous...usually. Necessary at times? Most assuredly they are.

Stupid wet dream? Hardly. Unless, of course, you're a big fan of the status quo.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:22 PM
Anyone who believes that the libtards that foster all these "Gun Control' laws are worried about the populace they represent is ignorant of the fact that these laws are implemented to protect these same self serving plutocrats and to maintain their power. They could care less about making schools free fire zones or the fact that our latest enemies know full well that malls and schools are their best targets. Revolution of and by the populace also takes many differing levels and prospects. As mentioned above, race relations, women's rights all came about because of a need to change the status quo! The documents that our founding is based on have been peeed on by a large segment of our elected officials and academia for 60 years. Those educated by them are starting to wake up and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that more are PO'ed than content with the way things are developing. Armed resolution of this conflict is not a wet dream. It is a very viable and probable end result if the will of the people keep being ignored by the Washington DC congress critters!


posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:56 PM
One thing to remember and remember well: No revolution has ever ended the way it began, as far as I know. If the "current order" is upended in some way, violent or otherwise, whatever actually happens and what you expect to happen are more than likely going to be quite different in the long run.

But of course in the long run we're all dead, as J.M. Keynes once said...and life itself is a kind of ongoing revolution that never ends. The violence and the change may be pushed here or there, near to you personally or far away at another part of the globle...but change and misery seem to be pretty constant factors in life for most of the people most of the time.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Happyfeet

I've talked to and known many military people in my day and most of them were entirely under the belief that there job was the protection of the American people and the rights/freedoms of the American people. So many of them, if they perceive the rights of the people infringed by the government, would be likely to join the revolution. People seem to think the government brainwashing of the military works, it doesn't work all the time. As badly as TPTB want mindless killing machines they aren't getting them and soldiers are waking up.

I think Revolution could come to America but I don't think a violent revolution would work. Only a revolution via information and education can work, a sort of mass awakening that needs to happen on a Global, not just a national scale. Think about it this way, there are maybe 1200 Billionaires in the world, most of the Elite who run things are in this category. There are 6 Billion other people... If we awaken there is nothing they can do. Which is why they try so desperately to keep us afraid, distracted, paranoid and entertained.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

I've talked to and known many military people in my day and most of them were entirely under the belief that there job was the protection of the American people and the rights/freedoms of the American people. So many of them, if they perceive the rights of the people infringed by the government, would be likely to join the revolution.

The question is, though, whose revolution? Revolution or revolutions? Chaos? Infighting? Too many chefs spoil the soup? Faction A versus Faction B, with Madame Guillotine to decide the outcome? Raw chaos? Catch as catch can? Lend a neighbor a helping hand? Splintering into several different nations? Fortified city-states? And so on...

Who can say? Not me, that's for sure.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:29 PM
Another thing to keep in the late 60s/early 70s, lots of people from all walks of life thought there was going to be "a revolution" of some sort. Heck, it seemed more of a foregone conclusion than anything else...nobody, "straight" or "hippie," thought all those crazy kids would ever buckle down and buy into "the system..." the idea that a mere 20 years later they would all be aspiriting to BMWs and MBAs would have been seen as ludicrous by anyone on any part of the political spectrum. The left were convinced "the system" was an evil thing that they'd rather die than join, and that it was going to collapse under the sheer weight of their exuberance and fervor. The right thought the massive baby boom generation was simply going to plunge the nation if not the world into dark chaos and the foundations of civilization would crack. Wandering through San Fransisco in those years, there was chaos everywhere...freaks dancing in the streets, cadres drilling and marching with berets and copies of Mao's Little Red Book, Hare Krishnas with finger-bells weaving in and out of this mishmash, kids eating out of dumpsters...heck, it looked like the revolution had already happened. Today there is a Ben and Jerry's at the corner of Haight and Ashbury streets in San Francisco, or so they tell me. (Haven't been to that fair town in several decades). Then you had all this stuff like the Vietnam war, the oil crisis, the dollar inflating worse than it is now...really seemed like the end of the world.

I'm not saying for sure that there won't be a revolution of some sort "this time"...just noting that in living memory I think we came closer to the brink but somehow "the system" was able to absorb those energies and swing with it. Maybe its been too enfeebled now to handle the stress and really will crack at last...but its far from a foregone conclusion. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives in relative predictability and monotony with as little pain as possible. This basic human desire can act as a great buffer of "normlacy" most of the time. But often, true enough, it can prove all too fragile...

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Happyfeet
In all cases the government killed civilians with secret police/military, and there was no nation wide revolt, nor was there a large scale mutiny of military troops. No civil war occurred due to the government ordering civilians killed/disappeared. And you know why?

Yeah, I know why.

It's because in all of the instances you cited, the government first disarmed the populace, so that no widespread armed revolt was possible.

That's not the case in the USA.

In the USA, we have this little thread of liberty called The Second Amendment to the Constitution that permits over 80 million American citizens to legally own some 280 million firearms and an incalculable amount of ammo for those weapons.

I don't care how you try to argue it, 80 million armed individuals are a more potent force than the entire U.S. military combined. More than that, 80 million armed individuals constitute a more potent force than the entire U.S. military and its international allies combined.

No, there is no way to go in, militarily, and disarm the American people. You're daydreaming if you think it's possible.

All it takes is a single Ruby Ridge Incident to turn millions of Americans against their government. We already know this as a fact. Ruby Ridge was an enormous public relations blunder for the U.S. government.

Now, imagine TWO Ruby Ridge Incidents. Imagine THREE Ruby Ridge incidents. Public outrage would build exponentially.

Now let's consider another number — if only ONE-TENTH of ONE-PERCENT of American gunowners decided to defy the government, such that Ruby-Ridge-type incidents became "necessary," then you are talking about 800,000 Ruby Ridge Incidents.

That's if only ONE-TENTH of ONE-PERCENT of American gunowners decided to rebel.

How long, do you think, would it be before all Americans and ALL American gunowners joined the rebellion?

Not very damned long, I can tell you.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by silent thunder

America is far to big and far to diverse for a unified "uprising" like the old days.. any form of violent "revolution" (for lack of a better word) would essentially be a complete systematic breakdown of central governing power. People in California and Oregon would want something very different than those in Iowa and Ohio or Georgia, compared to New England, compared to the South, etc etc etc.. America is way to diverse. So you are probably right in asking "Revolution(s)?"

I think the correct term would be Civil War.

Because of what is said above, the best solution is economic and political warfare.. you don't like what the banks did to our country, move your accounts, refinance, pay off the credit cards and tell them where they can shove their interest rates, bills and the looting of our treasury. Don't like the politicians? Vote 3rd party, even if they always loose.. if enough people do it, eventually things will change.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by Rockpuck]

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:06 AM
Revolution is far from a wet dream and it would certainly be possible if people in this country as a whole weren't so complacent. Despite unemployment and economic hardships, most people's lives are business as usual. For many, the changes in this country are subtle and as long as they can plop down in a recliner after a day at work, flip on the TV and unwind, they won't notice what's going on around them.

Everything is still too normal for most people, plain and simple. They might notice a neighbor or two leaving their area but for the most part we all live within a bubble of our own existence. If it isn't affecting us directly, we're numb to what is happening to people around the rest of the country. We might be aware of it but hey, it's not us.

The donkeys and elephants have both done a masterful job of shrugging off the year 2008 and convincing the masses that hey, everything will turn out fine. As long as people have that mindset, you won't see a revolution. I find it amazing that people in general are so reticent about taxation as a fact of life that they don't realize that the taxation on the colonists by England that started the American Revolution was a pittance, even accounting for inflation, compared to how they're taxed today.

Ignorance is bliss.

new topics

top topics


log in