yea, there's also some concentration of intellectual and wealthy elites that try and control everything, then everyone else just starts complaining.

You do realize that the founders of this country though of the same thing... and established an indirect democracy with elements that are not subject to public passions, right?

Or is you $60k history degree failing you?

>>107716
There were different historical conditions at the time, your argument is invalid.

>>107730
> There were different historical conditions at the time, your argument is invalid.

>1789
>2011

>>107730

>>107740
Exactly.

>>107716
Also, the founders were rich fucks who controlled the means & tools of production, but (prior to the revolution) not the state.

>>107667
Those two ideas are completely unrelated to eachother.

>>107781
There aren't, they are both phenomena of social evolution.

These various "distribution of wealth" charts would be more effective if they
listed the differences in wealth by yearly income, instead of vague percentages
of the population.

Because most people are going to think of themselves in a higher percentage
category then they actually are ("ohh, I'm probably in the Middle 20% or so")
but break it down into cold, hard cash and people will shit when they see how
rich the rich really are.

>>107793
But the United States would've fallen apart as early as the Whiskey Rebellion if the framers of the constitution had placed the country under mob rule. Mob rule is always bad. Always.

>implying Americans are civilized or have a civilization worth something

>>107814
Who the fuck is talking about mob rulling? I'm talking about the mayority of the population owning the means of production and distribution as an inevitable outcome of history just as the Franch Revolution was.

>Implying civilization hasn't collapsed.

Have you taken a fucking look around you lately?!?!?!

Men are "marrying" men. Little boys are being taken by Jewish lesbians who castrate them. The most disgusting jungle savages are paraded around on television and their grunts are put forth as "music." Miscegenation is happening and children are indoctrinated into racialself-hatred in public indoctrination centers.

>>107834
I guess no post can be /pol/ related without a retard.

>>107855
>hurr durr anyone I disagree with is a RETARD!!! durrrr

This is 99% of anti-white "arguments"

>>107889
No, anyone who thinks homosexuality can ruin a civilization is clearly a retard and closet gayman.

>mfw leftards treat wealth like a zero sum gain

Would you rather have 50 horses and your neighbor having 5000. Or you both only having 20?

That's what I loved about America in the past, you guys understood how the market worked. Did you know the United States was the first nation to coin the term "to make money", everyone before you thought wealth was a static quantity to be expropriated and to only exchange hands. They didn't understand that you literally make your wealth.

>>107906
>No, anyone who thinks homosexuality can ruin a civilization is clearly a retard and closet gayman

Uh reproduction is kind of essential for maintenance of a civilization you retard.

Also "civilization" implies standards and norms and if those norms are subverted the civilization is weakened and weakened until is essentially destroyed (which is what has happened)

>>107948
>implying there are THAT many homosexuals in a civilization to completely stop it from reproducing altogether
you're a fucking idiot

>>107972
The biggest threat they pose is downloading sperm into your butt.

>>107972

That is not what I implied at all you faggot. The promotion of homosexuality leads to a breakdown in sexual morality and lower birth rates (don't you even fucking deny it the evidence is all around you)

Also you failed to address the second point.

>>107716
Where did OP ever say that they didn't?

The thing is, you're partially right. I am not an American, but I do know some American history.

Thomas Jefferson did express fear over just giving the public a right to choose, but he ultimately concluded that he had to let go of his fear and do the right thing: And give the people the right to vote. It definitely was a scary concept, that's why he encouraged education. At one point, America had the highest literacy rate in the world.

And besides, Jefferson, despite his concerns, was so strong in his belief of democracy that he ditched Washington's cabinet and formed the Republicans just to say 'fuck you' to Alexander Hamilton's classist bullshit.

Finally, yes, the American revolution and early government was all about money and wealth for the rich white men at the top. This is just a fact. But even if the points I made above weren't true, what would it matter? "Some historical figures Americans are told to respect did stuff and therefore we must follow". That's retarded, and why I never understood the American preoccupation with the constitution.

>>107948
First of all, "civilization" implies no such thing. "Culture" implies that, but a civilization's culture is never 100% homogenous. "Civilization" refers to the various stages of a society from more to less advanced socially and technologically, with a decent level of organization and structure. It says nothing of behavioral norms.

Second, do you really believe that the entire population of the world is just waiting to turn on the gay the second someone gives them permission? I think that says more about you than anyone else.

>>107948
1. There isn't as many homosexuals
2. Civilization 'norms' are not static.

>>107986
The idea that accepting homosexuals causes their existence is like thinking that your bedroom doesn't exist when the lights are off.

>>107994
Hamilton was right.

It sounds an awful lot like civilization is a monolithic entity that never changes, progresses or moves forward. So, basically, under this definition, a dead culture. If homosexuality is capable of tearing down civilization, then it's apparently this civilization's only chance to escape from this limbo, like chemo breaking down cells to eliminate the cancerous ones.

Guess I'll get the lube.

>>107834
>Little boys are being taken by Jewish lesbians who castrate them.

wtfamireading.jpg

>>108090
I'm a pretty hard leftist, but to a degree, he was. The population in America at the time consisted of a bunch of violent, hardcore Christians who would start REEEEVOOLLUTTTIIOOOONNS over a Whiskey tax. They were bent on destroying the central government, and clearly didn't have the education to make decisions.

They should have started up a strong education system, and then slowly gave an increasingly educated population more and more political power. You can't just go up to someone who only knows how to fight Injuns and farm tobacco and expect them to make good economic decisions. So you make school mandatory to a certain age, make sure that man's grandchildren can put together a critical argument and then you give them the vote. Otherwise we'll get everyone going full retard.

That's just the practical point of view. Whether not it is moral is an entirely different issue.

>>107986
>The promotion of homosexuality leads to a breakdown in sexual morality
How? Because it seems hetero marriage has been breaking down morally for quite some time. See Vegas.

>and lower birth rates (don't you even fucking deny it the evidence is all around you)
Not really. There aren't enough gays to drastically change the birth rate. And even if there were, these people, open or not, probably would just be 'spinsters' who never got married anyway. So it's not like thousands of potential mothers on going on a lesbian pilgrimage.

But adoption and child care facilities are overwhelmed. These children cannot be cared for by the state, and mass amounts of adoption and free pre natal care could save your country tons of money on welfare, police, and mental institutions. So having gay people could actually save money. Because instead of adding more holes for resources, they adopt a child that your taxes would otherwise be paying for.

Also you failed to address the second poin

>>107834
>Men are "marrying" men.
>and this creates problems that I never will bother to list

>Little boys are being taken by Jewish lesbians who castrate them.
If you mean circumcision, I do agree that it's wrong. But even though Judaism never explicitly prohibits homosexuality, I know that Orthodox (the most common and wide spread Jews) would definitely raise some hands. So I assume that these "Jewish" lesbians aren't are much religious Jews that would follow the circumcision laws as much as ethnic Jews.

>The most disgusting jungle savages are paraded around on television and their grunts are put forth as "music."
>I don't like it therefore it isn't music.
Hi, I would love to introduce you to Nina Simone, John Coltrane, Billie Holiday, the Ink Spots, Little Richard and all great American music like rock n' roll, blues, jazz and funk. America would have no musical culture without blacks. Just saying.

And hip hop and rap can be fucking awesome if you bother to look. But clearly you have confirmation bias so you never bother to explore the genre anymore than what you see on TV. Well you know what? When I turn on music television I see Lady Gaga, Beiber and Katy Perry. Clearly all white music is horrible.

>Miscegenation is happening and children are indoctrinated into racialself-hatred in public indoctrination centers.
>no examples provided