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.

 

America - April 19th, The Start of the Revolution - A REVISIT

page: 10
111
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damrod
S&F...
You speak a lot of truth in there. Our forefathers went to war against England for a lot less than what we tolerate every day. It is a madness. A madness of complacency and apathy.


Threads like this give me hope... It shows that there are still true freedom loving patriots out there. Countless times over the last 10-12 years I said to myself "ooh that's going to spark the revolution" sadley it didn't. I'm not saying i'm hoping for a revolution. The fact is it's inevitable at this point. This country is so far in the hole financially the worlds biggest back-hoe couldn't dig us out. We need to stop relinquishing our rights for a little security. If your not willing to die for your freedom then you are not a true American. When "We the people" lose control of our government it is our "duty" as American's to fix it. Even if it includes tearing the whole damn thing down and rebuilding from the ground up.

Kuddos! Stars and flags all around for people not afraid to stand up and make there voice heard.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStarfire
 


I don't disagree with the problem of the intellectually inferior in government, only your speculation that anarchy would be doomed to fail should it ever come about. I believe you misjudge the degree of influence we have over ourselves in contrast to that of government and law. We ultimately rule ourselves. Our own knowledge has dominant influence over our actions. Government merely provides uniform consequences for straying from "moral" behavior, however that government's values are defined. Any and every government that has historically attempted to reach beyond that state of influence has and will fail. The Bill of Rights clearly (IMO) warns of our natural liberties not to be infringed upon for consequence of revolt.

I leave you with this video, albeit from a child's cartoon...




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


I do use anarchy and self-rule interchangeably, though. I probably shouldn't do that. Autarchy is what you refer to, no?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan

edit on 20-4-2012 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)

I too feel the injustice of this world and even if I am not American I do agree a revolution would allow us to live in a better world.
But IMO people don't do a revolution because deep down we are all greedy. We do not break everyhing, we do not fight for more rights or freedom because we do expect to get rich and be served and enjoy all the nice things that rich people have today. Humans have always been like this. Capitalism is surely a bad system, but it is alive until today because it gives you hope that someday, maybe, you will be able to leave your poor life behind. I might be totally wrong, I am still young and I hope I'll see someday that I am wrong about it. But for now it is the only explanation I have for why the world is like this.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
My answer to the OP and other extremists would be to just take it easy. No need to get so worked up because you think your cable bill is too high or you don't like that your neighbor makes more money than you. The U.S. economy, healthcare, school system, and military is far superior to the rest of the world. There is no reason to promote hostility towards our government just because you don't like paying $1.25 for your Twinkies.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blargcakes
 


Eh, money is the reason most every war is fought, no?

The three g's of war:
Gold
God
Glory

But to say anyone here would revolt based only on inflation is over-simplifying the case IMO. Unless you're sarcastically falling right under the point touched on by OP of the exceptionalists who believe in complacency due to the fact that "others have it worse."

And it's not a matter of my neighbor making any more than I do, rather it's more of the fact that less than 50% of jobs in the USA provide a salary above the poverty level.
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)
And that's before Uncle Sam takes his cut of your paycheck for undisclosed "privileges."
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


Thanks, for keeping it civilized and for the video...here is a video that I think explains allot...though I disagree with the conclusion that America was once a True Republic, I believe that America has always been an Oligarchy posing as a republic. and that every other form of experimental government aside from Oligarchy can never last and we always return to a state of Oligarchy...simply because it is the natural default form of government arising from the natural development of social hierarchy. Watch it and tell me your thoughts. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStarfire
 


oops bad link, let me try again

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStarfire
 


Here you go



Interesting vid, but I admit I stopped watching at the generalization of anarchy. Such a negative connotation attached to the word. Are you familiar with LeFevre? He preached a separate system of government not touched upon by your vid here which he referred to as "autarchy." It's rather interesting how he contrasts it to anarchy.

Autarchy vs Anarchy

Rather than the absence of government, the system he describes is much more of a true "self-government" or government of all as opposed to none. Just food for thought.

And as for the Federal Government always being an oligarchy, can you really say that with confidence about the Articles of Confederation in place before the Constitution? It was a much less centralized system and depended much more on local structure as opposed to universal. Hell, the country had something like 9 presidents under the AoC before Washington, but they don't like to teach us that in schools, huh?

Unfortunately, it was abandoned on account of lack of collaboration of law for those traveling between the states... I'm positive that the radical centralization we've seen over the centuries was not the aim in restructuring the foundation, though. I happen to believe that was more due to the Civil War and Lincoln's assuming extreme power through "disaster economics" in a nontraditional sense of the phrase.
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


ETA: I finished the video. Excellent explanation of the difference between democracy and a republic. However, it's flawed in saying that they're incompatible. The explanation of a jury's "unanimous" ruling as being different than majority rule is false. They're synonymous. The democratic-republican ideology that formed in opposition to the federalists is where I draw my understanding. Hence the democratic before the hyphen. I get that we were meant to have a republic meaning everyone had a voice to be considered, but democratic in the sense that a compromise had to be unanimously agreed upon.
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


That's funny I always thought that Autarchy was simply a synonym for Autocracy, which most of us know is a government ruled by a single individual. The alternate definition sounds like simply another word for true Democracy. Here's the definition by dictionary.com:

au·tar·chy

noun, plural au·tar·chies.
1.
absolute sovereignty.
2.
an autocratic government.
3.
autarky.

I think the more antiquated spelling of "autarky" is more what you had in mind, correct me if I'm wrong, here is the dictionary.com definition:

au·tar·ky

noun, plural au·tar·kies.
1.
the condition of self-sufficiency, especially economic, as applied to a nation.
2.
a national policy of economic independence.

I think that an autarchy is what Hitler had in mind when he sought to deliver Germany from the clutches of the Rothschild bankers after the economic collapse of the Weimer Republic. But of course they don't teach that in school either...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStarfire
 


Yeah, LeFevre touches on that in some of his other writing. He was basically trying to "take the word back" to it's etymological roots. He explains how Autarchy, Autocracy, and Autonomy all essentially mean "self-rule" but they've all been skewed to mean something completely different.


It is true that the word autarchy has fallen upon evil times. Usually when the word is employed, it has been given a social complexion. Autarchy (customarily in this usage spelled autarky) is employed to designate the economically self-sustaining state. But this is improper and a corruption of the original meaning. Auto means self. Archy means rule. Autarchy is self-rule. It means that each person rules himself, and no other. The autarchist not only rules himself but operates within a voluntary context respecting economic necessity.

Autonomy is a similar word with similar origins. It, too, supposes self-rule. This word has customarily escaped the economic implication which is found in autarky. It has been employed primarily to denote those communities or nations which practice democracy. An autonomous country is one in which the majority (or a plurality) select the rulers who will impose their wills upon the total population. An autonomist can be construed as one who supports the idea that self-rule is nothing more than majority rule. This, too, is a distortion, with the social coloration impinging upon the original meaning.

The word autocracy likewise has been subjected to social implications. This word, also, means self-rule. But it has been corrupted to mean total rule by one man over others.

The enormous effect of reliance upon political structures and the collective mystique is seen in our vocabulary. Three words, all essentially meaning self-rule and self-control, have been corrupted to imply collective rule of one kind or another. I propose to reclaim autarchy to its original meaning.


Just the words of one man, but hey, I find his concepts pretty intriguing. He was completely pacifist, though, even in means of self-defense. I'm not sure I'm with that, but his focus was self-discipline. I can respect the ideology.
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


Glad to see that you civilly reached an understanding without continuing to argue. I'll admit it was becoming a little disheartening there.

The intent of the US was the Republic but I too am inclined to believe that it never did happen, and if it did, it was no more than a few decades at best. The first few years were most definitely on the right path, but the moment that the Federalists came to power was the moment that all of that started to go down hill. Adams and Hamilton clearly had an agenda that was outside of the scope of personal liberties, and they made sure that the country continued down that path for years to come.

No one can truly say when the transitions came. Today we are definitely more of a Democracy than we are a Republic. Mob rule is the de facto way of life in America as even the last bastion of a a Republican system, that being the trial by jury system, is corrupted to this day by the appeals of mass media and public slander.

Obviously, the only way to do elections would be via popular vote, so when it comes to those - shades of Democracy would have to still stand in the electorate system. However, the electoral college system was a sham from the very beginning and has always cast a shadow over the entire voting system in this country, and it needs to be done away with entirely. The only thing that should matter is the popular vote.

In terms of our government being on oligarchy, no I don't think it is there quite yet. At least certainly not on an open playbook. It may seem that way from a conspiracy or outside looking in perspective, but I truly don't think it has gotten that far unless the rumors are true that some overlords do truly rule behind the scenes. Honestly, the rulers behind the scenes from what I see are the people with the money. The ones with the money who can give the others money in order to author legislation, vote certain ways, and pretty much operate how the money holders want. And honestly, when they have the money you either accept it and become rich, or they use the money to pay someone who wants it to destroy your life - be it to slander your name and the name of your family, or hell, to have you end up in a dumpster somewhere. In this world, there is nothing that the money of the rich can't buy from somebody.

A bought oligarchy if you will, but it probably isn't always the same buyers. A corporatocracy more like. These big business power players want to see things go their way and they make it happen. Once they have their legacy and they've done their tours of duty, they retire into their wealth and live the high life passing it on to the next crony in the pool of corporate greed. Sure there are a few big name players that have been around a long time and you hear their names all the time, but I am sure they are no more guilty than the others.

The idea is to shut them down. If revolution comes - there should be a legislative police force on Capitol Hill and honestly, any acceptance of bribes or illegal contributions from an outside source should result in charges of treason and immediate impeachment to any politician. That will be the only way to make sure that it can never happen again and the Republic remains alive.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
Interesting vid, but I admit I stopped watching at the generalization of anarchy. Such a negative connotation attached to the word. Are you familiar with LeFevre? He preached a separate system of government not touched upon by your vid here which he referred to as "autarchy." It's rather interesting how he contrasts it to anarchy.

Autarchy vs Anarchy

Rather than the absence of government, the system he describes is much more of a true "self-government" or government of all as opposed to none. Just food for thought.


I will admit that I absolutely support the development of a new word, for those who believe in von Misen Capitalism. They are not anarchists, and they should not be called such.

At the same time, I've realised that I don't adhere to the apparently standard leftist definition of anarchy, either. I read Infoshop's Anarchist FAQ, and was frankly horrified by the degree of authoritarian contradictions that I saw there.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I would like to think there will be a third large-scale revolt eventually but look at the Arab Spring.
If the contunity of Goverment is priority #1 then we could be facing a syria situation. Pockets of Resistance with hopefully reliable means of communication would wage war with Cops, and eventually National Guard and Military. Anything that has any simblance to revolt will lead to an automatically signed search warrant
, then God only knows what would happen.
Any revolution whether it is just or not will have Colossal Blowback. Think of the Power Vacuum if it were to succeed.
And if it fails then we lose our bill of rights, "Because we abused them".



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


We definitely need the balance tipped back to favor common decency and sense over greed. I still can't wrap my head around the Citizens United ruling. I think it was Mike Rivero that made the point that if corporations can have the rights of individuals then it's contradictory that they can be owned as property


I would love to see Constitutional rule reinvigorated towards it's traditional principles, but unfortunately, the opposite seems to be happening. You'd think there should be a limit on the number of EO's a president can invoke. All of the EO's Obama has issued to bypass Congress is infuriating. I understand democrats and republicans have trouble not bickering like children, but damn.
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
To what extent can the strict black-white discord in our government continue? The breaking point has to be on the horizon. How many more need to be disillusioned?

Maybe the PNAC cronies hit it on the head with the idea for unity being the face of a common enemy. I can't help but hope it won't come to violence, but at this point, I can't say for certain that it wouldn't be a welcomed means to an end. It's all so impersonal, though. There's no definitive enemy.
edit on 20-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I always dis-enjoy posting so late in a thread because it seldom gets met with attention as the heated arguements get pursued...

What country can be invaded that is a new world to set aside to a better encroachment
we cannot believe that war and the death of many and few will save us
you cannot believe that you will convince the masses already under belief to change their ways to a freer society
they will not listen
the best way is to also become global by moving around the globe and to saturate the world their systems of enslavement can only handle so much insubordination
there will be blood... but not mine



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by daynight42
 

you are complaining about the people who are complaining about the problem.

Things aren't going to change over night bucko, and maybe you spent one too many nights out there protesting to accomplish nothing - but that is my problem.


Backwards! My reply was directed towards Skewed. I'll copy and paste select parts of it, and YOU tell ME what's going on. I caught this non-sense and replied to set the record straight. Here's what I took offense to. I point out my issue with some of you, so you would see that in only one major way are you better than the rest, and I'd say it's for being aware of what's going on and being angry about it. Most people aren't there, but beyond that, you ain't doing jack to fix the problem either. You post messages, and anyone powerful is laughing at this pathetic excuse and "display of action." Just a reality check for our typing saviors, that's all!

original post link

ONE:


The American people have become wimps. We take the crap they dish us and we turn around and ask for more.


But, he must be talking about himself, because he sure ain't out there doing anything about it! Just sitting at home pretending to be useful while degrading the ones who are the potential threat. If they weren't a threat, they'd wouldn't be getting attacked. Duh! If it's so bad and worth it to him, he'd be out too! Must be easier to criticize the very people who are taking the very first hits for YOU and the rest!

TWO, THREE, FOUR:
(taken from separate paragraphs)


When tptb offer resistance to the protesters they begin to cry and whine.

My point is, we Americans are going to have to man up because tptb will not willingly concede their power, we have to take it and while we are crying about a little tear gas they sit back laughing at us.

those individuals that want to cry foul over a little tear gas


Funny! HE ain't out there! What a joke! Nice view of the action from your computer chair, eh! You've gotta be angry with yourself as well as all these other people! You ain't doing anything but sitting at home at your computer, lying to yourself, thinking you are making a difference! I'm also sitting at my computer, but I ain't knocking the very people who are willing to take the first hits! Big difference! You don't sit still and criticize the first wave of "fighters"!

getreadyalready said like I did that he isn't ready to fight yet either. Not only that, but he said he enjoys his life and BBQs and motorcycles, and he got 8 stars for his post! I guess people thought his was funny, so he gets stars. Perhaps he didn't say it, but maybe he doesn't give a dang about the rest of these "extremely comfortable" Americans either! That's a euphemism if I ever heard one, but let's remember he's including himself in that group. I have to say I agree with him, but I worded my post differently, and it was tinged with anger, but that was my honest reaction.

I am certainly not an extremely comfortable American. I'm pissed off, and I look around me and wish I had help to change things, and what do I see? ...a bunch of "extremely comfortable" people who can't even bear to hear and listen to the dang truth, no matter what! Just let them have their i-this and i-that, their movies, shows, porn, pharmaceuticals, and processed junk food, and they can't be bothered! And, I express outrage over this and point out why, and I get nearly no support! I also point out that anyone who is simple staying online and posting messages feeling like they are doing anything other than staying in the corner of the ring, and nobody can be bothered to hear that either! Truth must hurt! If you can't admit you are part of the problem, that denial makes it worse. Keep posting messages here! Stay out of the way! Speak up, but don't you dare get out and actually be heard & seen where it actually counts!

I'm willing to admit why I ain't going out -- because this country is filled with 99% in-denial imbeciles who aren't worth fighting for. We speak up and get ridiculed!! This country could be saved tomorrow and be back in the same condition in a matter of years (or less!) because the minds of our youth are o-w-n-e-d too! Too much TV, music, and anything else to keep them content! The downright nasty "elite" or "TPTB" or whatever have had and will have their way and will continue to. Nobody will touch them! Life's too good!! Gettin' my fix on! "La la la la la la! Were you saying something? Hee hee!"

Goodbye America! It's coming -- more bondage! Keep those heads in the sand! There's a war against you, but you refuse to see it!



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
If the government will kill but you wont, then you are already at a loss.

Just something to think about for any of you who wouldnt kill people for a revolt.



new topics




 
111
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join