Intellectual debate on how to stand up against "The Man"

So we are at a tuning point in human history... sink or swim for humanity and our civilisation.

Ok we are begining to wake up. We no longer accept the horse dung we are force fed. We are begining to see the truth for what it is.

My question and what i hope to open up a debate about is how do we deal with the problem infront of us.

Is revolution enough? Civil war perhaps? Do we play the peace card and take it lying down?

What are your thoughts and opinions on how to actually stand up to the man and say enough is enough?

I would really like to open this debate because although we are awaken i personally am frustrated because i honestly do not know how to stop "The Man" TPTB, The Machine...

I think the same can be said for many of my brothers and sisters who live in despair, fear and poverty, injustice and control. I strongly believe i am not the only one who feels totally helpless..

What is the best way to overcome this problem that is slowly killing us before its too late?
Thoughts please.

I think we need to all just stay home for a month. No work, no purchases, no activity of any kind that develops any sort of economic activity whatsoever. 1 month. I think the whole house of cards would collapse.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


besides 'not paying your taxes' I think you just gave the best option i've heard out there as far as civil disobedience.

reply to post by SirClem

By not working, we would be robbing them of 1/121t "their" revenue. So that is also "not paying taxes", to a degree anyway.

This is a huge question that I doubt any one person could answer but bringing together all the experiences and ideas from like minded individuals could it work? Can we really overthrow the rotten governments?

Sadly I think beathing "the system" and TPTB is probably the easiest part. It would have to be world wide, the goverments and the NWO are so closely intertwined we'd have to lop off the heads of all of them at once and that in itself is sadly probably impossible. Can we rouse the masses of billions of people to revolt all in the same cause? Some people just can't see it, some are happy with their lot, a lot more will probably just be suspicious of our cause or think we're mad.

I agree it needs to happen and will add ideas and thoughts to help pull this off.

My biggest worry though is this, Who or what do we put in its place?

reply to post by Mister_Bit


Indeed, that is a very good question. Not only do we need to know what it actually is we need to do but also who we need to do it to!

At least we all seem to agree that we need to do it, whatever it is.

Not paying taxes.. seems to be a good idea but what is the reality of that idea actually manifesting when so many people find comfort and security in their 9-5's. There has to be another way....

Best thing to do is turn "we" into "I". Many people unfortunately do not want change unless others are going to change with them which is no different from following what's hip or trendy. Thus you are not your own person but a victim of what's new.

So, no.1 is to focus on changing YOU so you can become self-sufficient and self-reliance. If you can't do this, then you are truly that knee-jerk word most ATSers use so often "sheep".

Sonofliberty's idea is great but problem is that most Americans are not self-sufficient enough to survive not working for even a month. I thought of the idea a long time ago but realized that there are people in America who are working two or three jobs, come home and still don't have enough food to feed their kids AND them.

reply to post by DevilJin

Sonofliberty's idea is great but problem is that most Americans are not self-sufficient enough to survive not working for even a month. I thought of the idea a long time ago but realized that there are people in America who are working two or three jobs, come home and still don't have enough food to feed their kids AND them.

I agree that it would be tough for many. But Dammit if we do not do something drastic and large scale we might as well go ahead and put our chains on.

to quote George Orwell "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" so once we over throw the government some one will have to become a leader and how do we know eventually they wont do the same thing. first off how do we do it. in my opinion the best way to do it is to not pay taxes for a few months so the government is crippled and they don't have the money to pay police or the military. than we create a big riot in one part of the city than we get another big group of people to go to the white house/ parliament buildings )depending on where you live) and kick them out then burn it to the ground (or you can stay there and create a blockade and wait until they run out of food and force them to resign)

immediately you'd need a 'ministry of common sense' - a department with the right to cancel any stupid #ing laws or WARS if the public demand it.... and of course ... online government... we the people decide and civil servants go back to serving, rather than controlling...

every decision, big or small, can be presented to the public by invidual teams who present the facts about each situation and everyone (who wants to) has a chance to vote....regular checks by 1000s of individuals to avoid corruption..yada

oh, and create a new currency without inflation that is run by the people, not private bankers

After reading so many posts here on ATS and countless others spread over the net it strikes me that to beat TPTB we have to counter their main "weapon" and in my opinion that would be..

MONEY

So Self-Sufficiency would be a good start, if only a small one.. it gets you out of their system.
Ideally we'd need to eliminate the value of their money, similar to the way the value of ivory was eliminated to try and beat poaching.
How do we even go about doing that? I don't know, it's a huge undertaking, maybe we start by offering each other favours instead of cash.
You know, kind of like, If you're good at D.I.Y. offer to fix someone's house in exchange for something they are good at, maybe you're getting married and they're good at photography... you've got your photos.
Simplistic I know, but every journey starts with the first step, every waterfall begins with a single drop.

reply to post by Beavers


I like this line of thinking, however how do we do this without the power hungry stepping on any progress?

Originally posted by Beavers
immediately you'd need a 'ministry of common sense' - a department with the right to cancel any stupid #ing laws or WARS if the public demand it.... and of course ... online government... we the people decide and civil servants go back to serving, rather than controlling...

You want a governmental body to enforce common sense? Are you serious? It is not possible.

every decision, big or small, can be presented to the public by invidual teams who present the facts about each situation and everyone (who wants to) has a chance to vote....regular checks by 1000s of individuals to avoid corruption..yada

Again, a governmental body? These "teams" a "ministry of common sense"? Government?

oh, and create a new currency without inflation that is run by the people, not private bankers

I just flat out disagree here. The new currency sure, backed by some actual medium or with a constant value. Running it by the people? Ummm... how do you prevent counterfeiting? How do you enforce acceptance of some person's "currency"?

You have the beginnings of some good idea here, but think about it some more. Government and common sense are mutually exclusive.

Getting publicity put on where the problems are is a start, the media is a flag in a war these days and does need independent control. 9/11 is an easy start, the economy is made a lot harder than it needs to be with all the scamming going on but needs serious fixing as well. If Ron Paul and Ventura get elected it will be a good start to cleaning up the corruption, but may even be too much for them.

Civil war is always an option, do not need to kill to many to clean out a lot of the rot. Really want public support for this one so it is back to the media control to get it. Otherwise the rest of the world may take the opportunity to take America down a peg or two when it is weak from being over extended in its military actions and financial mismanagement.

If the action could storm all the major tv networks with about 1-3 days worth of tv programming containing evidence of many of the major crimes public attitude would change real quick. Holding the tv stations against a possible military assault would be the hard part, but with enough service men in on it there would be nothing TPTB could do about it except try to run. Call for a national strike and peaceful protests during this time.

Then what to do once the old powers are out? I recommend having some type of open source electoral system ready to establish the new governance. It will take a lot of people to organise and may be classified as a terrorist if it fails and cannot pull it off in time. It is going to make a big difference how the military thinks if it works or not. Sounds like a lot of the top brass are paid off and bad, lower down the chain attitudes would change.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Beavers
immediately you'd need a 'ministry of common sense' - a department with the right to cancel any stupid #ing laws or WARS if the public demand it.... and of course ... online government... we the people decide and civil servants go back to serving, rather than controlling...

You want a governmental body to enforce common sense?

Are you serious? It is not possible.

every decision, big or small, can be presented to the public by invidual teams who present the facts about each situation and everyone (who wants to) has a chance to vote....regular checks by 1000s of individuals to avoid corruption..yada

Again, a governmental body? These "teams" a "ministry of common sense"? Government?

oh, and create a new currency without inflation that is run by the people, not private bankers

I just flat out disagree here. The new currency sure, backed by some actual medium or with a constant value. Running it by the people? Ummm... how do you prevent counterfeiting? How do you enforce acceptance of some person's "currency"?

You have the beginnings of some good idea here, but think about it some more. Government and common sense are mutually exclusive.

I completely agree here. It seems like the solution to all countries is a revolution every few years to replace the current government because they ALL get corrupt. It's kinda like replacing your tires. Yeah, they've been good to you but now you need to get some new ones.

However, people NEED to be critical of their government, keep the media NEUTRAL, and be ready to stand against the government when need be. A government that does not fear its own people is a scary government.

reply to post by nikkibee


This is what Ive been thinking, it would be the most practical way. The first step is to indefinitely reject money. do pay taxes, don't work, just chill out. Obviously people would be able to get any food, unless the people who run the stores and stockhouses decide to give away the food. This would lead to mass riots and looting, which would be awesome. eventually the government would get involved, sending in riot control. This whole situation would be the return to "survival of the fittest", i believe.

At that point, the people would have to assemble into a massive mob, and march on the riot squads all the way to the White House. Of course people would lose their lives, for good cause if it works out the way it should. The government won't go down without a fight, naturally. When the mob reaches Washington and the white house, i agree it should be burned down, as well as the federal reserve. People do not need money, money is the chain that holds the people down, along with the government who implements the monetary system. people could, even now live with out money, everything could be free to make, produce, and free to have.

If the established government of America were taken down, the majority of the world would be freed. Then the people could unite, freely, and take down any other governments who opress its people. It would all be a very interesting scenario, and a great one to participate in. Eventually the people of Earth would be completely free to live how they wish, without the chains to hold them back.

In the rebellion, I'm sure leaders would arise. Only the people who posses real eyes could tell if these leader were out for power and control or would make good just leaders, ones who only wish benefit and progress human kind. Plato refers to them as "Philosopher-Kings". If it is decided that a real democracy should be installed, if a government at all, these philosopher-kings should be installed as well, maybe like 50 of them. And should decide how to further mankind and ensure it survival perhaps.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, some of it is just wishful thinking

Originally posted by Dissent
reply to post by nikkibee

 

This is what Ive been thinking, it would be the most practical way. The first step is to indefinitely reject money. do pay taxes, don't work, just chill out. Obviously people would be able to get any food, unless the people who run the stores and stockhouses decide to give away the food. This would lead to mass riots and looting, which would be awesome. eventually the government would get involved, sending in riot control. This whole situation would be the return to "survival of the fittest", i believe.

At that point, the people would have to assemble into a massive mob, and march on the riot squads all the way to the White House. Of course people would lose their lives, for good cause if it works out the way it should. The government won't go down without a fight, naturally. When the mob reaches Washington and the white house, i agree it should be burned down, as well as the federal reserve. People do not need money, money is the chain that holds the people down, along with the government who implements the monetary system. people could, even now live with out money, everything could be free to make, produce, and free to have.

If the established government of America were taken down, the majority of the world would be freed. Then the people could unite, freely, and take down any other governments who opress its people. It would all be a very interesting scenario, and a great one to participate in. Eventually the people of Earth would be completely free to live how they wish, without the chains to hold them back.

In the rebellion, I'm sure leaders would arise. Only the people who posses real eyes could tell if these leader were out for power and control or would make good just leaders, ones who only wish benefit and progress human kind. Plato refers to them as "Philosopher-Kings". If it is decided that a real democracy should be installed, if a government at all, these philosopher-kings should be installed as well, maybe like 50 of them. And should decide how to further mankind and ensure it survival perhaps.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, some of it is just wishful thinking

edit on 9-4-2011 by Dissent because: (no reason given)

For the "rebellion" to have a "leader" I think could be fundamentally flawed from the start. Someone to follow and inspire the people maybe but with all that power at his hands a true democratic leader would stand down when asked, would a rebel leader do that? Lots of historical revolutions show not.
Would then that leader not use his people to force his "righteous" vision onto the others?

This is the fundamental problem that bothers me, what do we put in place? Governments simply don't work for the people and if in the unlikely situation that they did, not everyone would agree all the time with all their decisions or laws, so then you get the question, who polices all this? The police are run by the government.

reply to post by Mister_Bit

For the "rebellion" to have a "leader" I think could be fundamentally flawed from the start. Someone to follow and inspire the people maybe but with all that power at his hands a true democratic leader would stand down when asked, would a rebel leader do that? Lots of historical revolutions show not.
Would then that leader not use his people to force his "righteous" vision onto the others?

George Washington did it right. We need another like him.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Mister_Bit

 

For the "rebellion" to have a "leader" I think could be fundamentally flawed from the start. Someone to follow and inspire the people maybe but with all that power at his hands a true democratic leader would stand down when asked, would a rebel leader do that? Lots of historical revolutions show not.
Would then that leader not use his people to force his "righteous" vision onto the others?

George Washington did it right. We need another like him.

His intentions were pure and righteous, so how do we stop the new constitution of our new world from being corrupted and who decides what is written in it?
Who decides who is the leader in the first place and what if we didn't agree with the new the choice?

See the problem? I don't think there is a short sharp shock solution to this that will work in the long term. If it happens it's got to be truely revolutionary by all accounts.

Is it the man you're standing up to, or is that a decent man who has been convinced or tricked to serving degenerate goals? It depends on who you allow to "rule" you, and the social contracts of Hume and Locke are refreshing places to start since they outline the orthodoxy of the agreements between a (wo)man and state.

There are so many specifics to your Op, which are always enjoyable threads because they can explore a tree of concepts in place of a narrow train of thought - which more science-minded people tend to flock to. It also avoids too many off-topics calls from removing otherwise enjoyable content.

For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas.

plato.stanford.edu...

I would say the longer answer is to accomplish what many do on this site : picking up particular information on topics to attain competence with an issue, researching the often voluminous depth of issues to a reasonable coverage, and be keen to spot the leads others bring forward. Be brave enough to look into the matter yourself, because there are usually very valid reasons to investigate an important-seeming matter, even if they do not directly pertain to you. They could lead to discoveries only others will appreciate at times, but then again, arrive a disasterous set of litigation, cover-up, or other conspirational concern affecting you, many are willing to help.

Know as much as you can absorb on the topics you have a knack for, but not every topic is going to grip your background grasp or expertise, despite interest, and sometimes the best thing you can do is keep learning about it. Contenting yourself to becoming a good researcher solves the problem of not having a photographic memory, and allows the ever-changing scopes to become less clouded.

A great example, ElectricUniverse's very well handled argument with Phage's "isolated incident" standpoint on a topic well-presented by someone brand-new to the forums, tacjtg. His thread was moved to the Fragile Earth forums from the Introductions.

He brought us the link for the Austrailian IPS Radio and Space Services, which could be instrumental in earthquake charting and forecasting, and a good thread not to miss.

That link is worthy of bookmarks and interest ...

www.ips.gov.au...

Because each research already had a bias, just like your bias in claiming "there is no connection", but your bias is a completely closed mind. The different researchers were looking at what each of them thought could be the connection between solar activity and seismic, as well as magmatic activity on Earth.

When solar activity is low, then our heliosphere becomes weaker, allowing more interstellar dust, high energy particles, radiation, etc to enter the Solar System which affects all planets, and the Sun, and would also affect seismic and magmatic activity in all planets, including Earth.

Drawing a moral we should all be seeing, in our studies of the world situation, science, and any subject of importance ... She later summarizes.

One thing I have noticed with Chad, and Phage is that they tend to try to separate events, and try to point to just one thing being the cause of earthquakes, when the evidence says the contrary.

You have to look at the whole picture, not just whether solar activity was high. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the position of the moon in relation to the Earth, and the Sun. Whether there were any breaches in the Earth's magnetic field. The cosmic ray flux from outside the Solar System, etc, etc.

It is not just one thing, it is everything together that defines whether there would be an earthquake or not

That was a brilliant thread, and I've never seen so much proof and education in one place, at one time!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Lastly, some Marcus Tullius Cicero quotes, good food for thought.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

To be ignorant of what happened before you were born... is to live the life of a child for ever.

Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered.

By doubting we all come at truth.

A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?