It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Violently overthrowing governments leaves violent governments in charge.

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Government = Corrupt leaders

So how in the world could you "elect" [which is a total lie] a leader to run your country, but on the path to becoming a leader, you get power and money which = corruption

The only true government I can see that would work is based off a resource based economy, but only if the rest of the world would agree to throw away THE MONEY THAT CAUSES CORRUPTION !!!

Money has done it's role guys, it's time to stop letting the very top few benefit from this creation.

WE COULD WAKE UP TOMORROW AND THE WORLD COULD DECIDE TO BURN ALL CURRENCY, THINK HOW GREAT YOUR LIFE WOULD CHANGE!

We are breaking the very laws mother nature itself enacted upon us way before our species was even around. In a world without money, we would not be so wasteful like we are now, the only reason we are wasteful is because of money, for how can you make money if your product lasts forever, called Planned Obsolescence.

Just look at our landfills for 5 minutes and this rings very very true.

Also this whole egypt thing is interesting and all, but 18,000 PEOPLE S T A R V I N G every single day from lack of money is more important to me.

While those people are starving, did you know as a rich billion-air you can put only 1 million in the bank at 4% interest and get paid 40,000 for contributing absolutely nothing to society. The system is designed for the top to get richer and the poor to get poorer, period.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
You want change. I want change. Everyone wants change.
When a group(s) violently overthrow a government, doesn't that just leave a violent government in charge? What peace does this new government bring, after dripping blood from it's own sword of "peace"?

I'm looking at many facets, many countries, many protests. I'm also trying to see past the "glorious revolution" and trying to look at the new country(s) that may emerge.

This is not a prophetic thread about Egypt, not a veiled one at America. But a general warning, a caution. To what may be coming. What might be expected.

Personally, I think the title says it all, but if you have any thoughts on the issue, would like to hear them.


Although this is true many times, this is not always the case.

Sometimes rightoues governments have had to overthrow wicked ones by means of violence, and God himself promises to overthrow all human rule in the near future by means of a worldwide battle termed Armageddon in the Bible. (Revelation 16:16).

All human rule on earth is a failure. Although there are some that are more corrupt than others. And if you get a government while being sinful that wants the good for mankind and maintains a certain degree of stababilty then so much the better for those living under that rule. But to be sure, you cannot have peace until all the unpeaceful are done away with. And the root of the matter is in peoples hearts. As long as people continue to be born into families that instill hatred, whether it be religious intolerance, or ethnic strife, or racial hatred in their children we will never attain peace.

God says that he will determine each and every person's personal heart, and the ones he deems worthy of destruction when the appointed time comes, he will eliminate them. He will leave the meek and peaceful under a rule of rigorousness and peace.

Many times on earth though, you are correct, corrupt, and violent people are in charge of violent regimen changes, and they continue the sad chain of corruption and perpetration of wickedness and evil upon the common man.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
cool info: Ill look forward for more thanks.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quasar_La-Zar
Government = Corrupt leaders

Government be membership-list keepers.
Executives be execution or punishment managers.
Executive Government punishes membership.



So how in the world could you "elect" [which is a total lie] a leader to run your country,

Forget such abstract notions,
live with those that are your friends and family,
they are who you can hold personally accountable,
form a tribe, cohese, live in equilibrium.



but on the path to becoming a leader, you get power and money which = corruption

The only true government I can see that would work is based off a resource based economy, but only if the rest of the world would agree to throw away THE MONEY THAT CAUSES CORRUPTION !!!


Resource Economy is just another words for Totalitarian Socialism.
Ya sure oh the "computer" is gonna make it better,
Soviet Union tried cybernetics,
and died shortly thereafter.

Though who knows,
maybe if the computer had a soul,
and was an egalitarian high level spiritual entity.
it could work, for a time at least.
Gaia mother-earth,
has a soul.

Tribal societies,
are historically the only success,
with lots of egalitarian activity,
especially within a tribe,
where everyone knows each other,
and can hold each other to account.

money is one of the greatest inventions of all time.
it is the physical equivalent of karma.

fiat-money and usury is an issue that stems from banking.

corruption is merely bribery,
and that can happen even if you do it with favors and products.
A better system is simply to keep a record of said personal-donations.
That way the other tribe-members can also get generous personal-donations.
Anyone that is willing to invest much wealth in your tribe,
is likely to be worthwhile for maintaining relations with.




In a world without money, we would not be so wasteful like we are now, the only reason we are wasteful is because of money,

That's totally insane, that's like saying "If we had no accountability, we'd be much nicer, we promise" *crosses fingers behind back* lol



for how can you make money if your product lasts forever, called Planned Obsolescence.

yes, a direct result of fiat-usury and taxation.

people can avoid taxes,
If they defend their own land.
people can avoid usury,
If they handle all their own transactions.


once they don't have predators constantly sucking blood via taxation, and usury debt collection
then they have the ability to relax, and allow for stability.

sure they would have less incentive to produce,
though some people will still do so.

gotta make things at least for yourself,
if they have life-time design,
then can sell them once you're done,
or made yourself new items of the same.



Just look at our landfills for 5 minutes and this rings very very true.

Also this whole egypt thing is interesting and all, but 18,000 PEOPLE S T A R V I N G every single day from lack of money is more important to me.

lack of fiat-currency.

money are just promissory notes,
which is something anyone can issue.
with a price-calculation formula,
can insure fairness in transactions.
(time+mass)^chakra/abundance*utility=price

but people's food is a total other matter,
and has to do with people not having a habitat,
that means land on which to grow their food.

In Egypt, because of the Resource-Economy called Soviet-Union,
they decided to take advantage of the Resource called the Nile,
by putting a massive hydro-electric dam,
that stopped the yearly floods,
and dried up the farmers.

Honestly hydro-dams are an abomination to nature,
in the vast majority of cases anyhow,
they should be utterly destroyed.

We can make electricity in ways which allow waters to flow freely.
such as diverting some of it to be used on turbines,
we could collect wind and solar power also.

When we do it by ourselves or in a tribal setting,
it becomes far more economical and redundant,
meaning that the civilization has higher resilience.
edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: resilience

edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: account

edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: maintaining

edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: Gaia



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions


You can overthrow a tyrannical government without becoming a tyrant yourself.

How is it that people can honestly not see this being done?

Doesn't history show otherwise?!

The common man, overthrowing oppressive governments, and installing a more sane government?!

How the hell was the United States even formed?!




what a terrible analogy..

last time i checked they left their home, they didnt go back home and overthrow their gov.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Violent governments of the right kind. A violent government is not bad. A violent government against the common man is bad. A violent republic is the best form of government, and is the current one being established in many of these nations.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The Revolutionary War was a violent overthrow of government.

Sometimes it's necessary.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
BREAKING NEWS: The government of Jordan has just been "fired" based on riots and protests inspired by the Egyptian protests.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Uhhmm I beg to differ with you, Iran 1979, Shaw to Khomeni...much much worse...!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


Islam is aligning themselves as one country

The thought that all these dictators are giving up their power without having some sort of endgame is ludicrous. This transfer of power is well orchestrated . Since when would the head of an Arab nation give up power before wasting a good portion of his own people?

In 2 weeks time this is happening in Egypt, Tunisia,Yemen, and now Syria......Who's next ? Libya of course.

This will be their undoing....As a group, They'll be easier to defeat.

Is there a whiff of New World Order ?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Thank you for your input. But communism non-violent?
I'm confused.


what communism are you thinking of? Is it Marxist leninism? Yeah that has a central government. Central governments are flawed.

I am talking of communism without a state.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That's why you don't fight physically.

There are other ways to win wars.You'd be amazed at what phone calls or e-mails can do.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by beezzer
 


I Understand your saying, A Government Born in the Heat Of Battle Has Blood on its hands


I suppose thats right But i Very much doubt they'd be any-worse than the Government they Over-run.


It has to come down to motive. What was the previous government's motive? What is the NEW government's motive?

Ultimately, what do they want?


All governments will acquiesce to the influence of money, if the players remain, the game will never change IMO.

Even under the guise of revolution, influence will always find its way back


Ban all private ownership of infrastructures.The public owns it. Waterworks,Power,roads,railroads,harbors,land(no property tax).
Ban all private ownership of business entities.The public owns it(1% per local resident no more).
Back money up with raw resources like nickel,copper,platinum,silver,gold,fresh water,non-GMO crops etc.

No central banks.No FIAT currency. PERIOD.

Pay is determined by how much you contribute to the community in paid volunteership hours.Sit on your ass you get barely enough to pay the bills and some cheap subsidized food. Contribute and you can get a condo and eat at a nice restraint and order a pizza.

Giving money to another person is impossible AND illegal(secured debit).



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Ban all private ownership of infrastructures.The public owns it. Waterworks,Power,roads,railroads,harbors,land(no property tax).
Ban all private ownership of business entities.The public owns it(1% per local resident no more).

You an aspiring socialist dictator?

Oh ya, once you have public agriculture,
you'll probably starve the populace.
Cause that always happens.
"By accident".


Stalin, Mao, you name it.
Industrial Russian Agriculture still can't grow an food.
people have to grow at home, or else they'd starve (mostly).




Back money up with raw resources like nickel,copper,platinum,silver,gold,fresh water,non-GMO crops etc.

No central banks.No FIAT currency. PERIOD.

then what are you backing up?
you mean You want to be The Central Bank?



Pay is determined by how much you contribute to the community in paid volunteership hours.Sit on your ass you get barely enough to pay the bills and some cheap subsidized food. Contribute and you can get a condo and eat at a nice restraint and order a pizza.

Oh Soviet Russia,
how lazy everyone was,
all the same pay,
a scientist,
or janitor.

why work,
when you can socialize?
still putting in the hours.



Giving money to another person is impossible AND illegal(secured debit).

Oh ya, soldiers with machine guns walking around,
on the streets enforcing anti-trade laws.
Yep, definitely most people starve.
edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: quotes


at least in Soviet-Communism, internal-trade was ignored,
there was the bazaar or farmer's market,
which provides the bulk of the food,
without it, we'd mostly be dead.

during the artifical-famines,
my grandma starved so hard,
she had a swollen colon, like those sympathy-ad African children,
even though they were growing potatoes and vegetables themselves.

the less fortunate reverted to cannibalism,
and there is still lots of "black humour"
to remind us of those days.

A joke I overheard at the dinner table:

One Cannibal as discussing with another:
Why shouldn't you make a student in soup?
why not?
Cause they'll eat all the vegetables!
ahahaha

Ya I was surprised,
they were so hungry,
that they would eat vegetables.
edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: Cannibalism



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You have plenty of Stars so evidently people agree with you. The flip side is a complacent society, ie. the United States, will be trampled on, deceived, lied to and manipulated. People think we have a "fair" democratic system but that couldn't be further from the truth. When was the last time you saw somebody of little wealth or power become president? When is the last time we had a president that really identified with the American people? In other words, a president that came from humble beginnings and worked his way up through the ranks? And don't tell me Barak Obama. He has been spoon fed and corn bred to be president. He was travelling the world at a young age and has always had money behind him. To this day we still don't know who financed his early globe trotting, but he sure as hell isn't the "poor, under-privileged black kid" that they want us to think he was.

When you look at the vast majority of the politicians in Washington, they all come from money. John Kerry, John McCain, the Kennedy's, Rockerfeller's and the list goes on and on.

We may think we choose the president but that's just an illusion. The real power chooses the candidates then they give us a choice. It's all an illusion to make the masses think that they somehow have control. It's really laughable.

So, for all of you mamby-pamby, bleeding-heart pacifists, you will get what you deserve. If you think that you could somehow reason with Hitler to make him a nice guy, (without violence), or Saddam Hussein, or any other ruthless dictator, then you really deserve what you get for your naiveté and ignorance.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 

Sorry, just got off work.

First, to all; Thank you for replying. Wow. I have enough material in this thread to write a book on the subject. I appreciate all your replies. One and all.

To address some points. I initially made the OP neutral. I did that intentionally. Focusing on America or Egypt or Russia or Hungary etc would have been like throwing a pair of dice once and just focusing on the one roll. Because it is a crap-shoot.
America got lucky. Washington could have been another king and led the country into another form of tyranny. Before Castro was Batista. Before Communism was the tzars. Before the Ayatollah was the Shah. But as Kokats pointed out, before Hungary was the communists.

To take the theme from several posts here, revolution doesn't stop the minute the king/despot/ruler is diposed. Revolution is an ongoing process. In America it takes place every few years at the ballot box. We are assured (?) that there is no tampering, no cheating by the ruling class because we are armed. It keeps them honest.
Or at least it used to.
Just because a mob enforces a quick transfer of power shouldn't assume that they will keep it any longer than the next sunset. Those who live by the sword. . . . .

What I've learned from all of your posts, and believe me, I learn much from all of you, is that no revolution is lasting. The more violent the beginnings, sometimes lead to just as violent ends. History is rife with Empires, from the Alexandrian, to the Ottoman to the American to the British. And the only thing permanent in any of these, is change.

I'll be up for a while and will try to address as many specific points as I can. Thanks again for all your input.
Beezzer



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
One point I'd like to make, many have likened America as an example of a people violently overthrowing a government.
But we didn't. King George III was still in power. Just a colony decided to become independent. We never replaced King George with our own "George".

Or am I nit-picking?
edit on 1-2-2011 by beezzer because: pyto



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


I never said anything about brainwashed people. If governments know they can be overthrown easily by the people they would either fear the people and listen or disarm the people and build up military strength. But if their military is also against them they really have no chance except to get foreigners.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


Yes, the Revolution did give way to more violence. Instead of repeating myself I'll link to my reply on page 6:

reply to post by Sphota
 



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I don't disagree with you in substance, but 2008 did change one thing (though I'm not sure how many people got the message instead of focusing on the object of that message- Obama). It clearly illustrated what our potential is; what we CAN do if we ACT: by showing up to indicate our direction and by voting. It repeated itself in the Nov 2 elections. Even though on a much reduced scale, with not a little cynicism and disappointment in play, we created a second statistically historic change. We CAN. The question is WILL we.

It doesn't take violence. It only (HA. "only") requires awareness, commitment, and follow through. Now if our officials should choose to ignore our dictates, we'd need a Plan B. Imo, that still wouldn't require violence on our part because we have a military and law enforcement who are sworn (and I believe they will, based on my firsthand knowledge) to uphold the Constitution and protect the US- to act on our behalf. Given the nature of those two bodies, our civilian government would have no choice unless they tried to amass martial support of their own. A "military coup" would then be theirs, not ours.

GREAT thread, Beezzer!!
edit on 31-1-2011 by DogsDogsDogs because: do I HAVE to?


Thanks. Sometimes I think violence is lazy or (just to be fair) the last resort. It takes hard work, thousands of people to enact change through other means. People have to make an effort, they have to wake up and not just throw bricks, but plan ahead, what kind of change DO they want?

Case in point. I'm in the Tea Party. Most of us want smaller government and less spending. But it has been pointed out, and rightly so, that they don't want social security/welfare/retirement fundings cut. They don't think things through. They want small government except when it effects THEM.
But change, real change starts inside a person. Then a people, then a mass, then a population. My comments have always been along these lines when I've met with others in my "group".

We're asking for the government to take measure. We should be asking that of ourselves as well.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join