It will come down to this.

Guess you haven't heard about the occupy movement? People want revolution, just not enough people to make an actual difference or too lazy.

The state has become too powerful.

I don't think even even filling congress and the presidency with pro-liberty people like Ron Paul would actually fix the main fundamental problem with the US government today.

The only way to fix the fundamental problem with the US federal government is to get rid of it completely, by all states seceding.

>>1326998
As I've said before the call for freedom no longer rings true in the hearts of American citizens, we have our American Idol and sunday sports, we are fed by the government (47+ million on food stamps) and people are okay with trading essential liberties to give them a false sense of security (or we would have blood in the streets when things like USAPATRIOT act and NDAA get passed)

I'm gonna sit back and watch the march towards tyranny and wonder if history will remember this little experiment in human liberty we had.

>>1326998

I am disgusted the the cover art for a game in my beloved Total War series was used to make pic supporting ron paul

>>1326998
Revolt against a system that is inherently bad, like a monarchy or dictatorship.

Don't revolt against a republic. Work within the system and fix it, or else you'll end up with something 50x worse.

>>1327109
Because of this, I'm considering calling upon my German citizenship and moving there to spread the message of liberty and get involved in their politics.

It would be easier than trying to do so in the US.

It is blatant that our government is on a fast road to destroying our constitution and everything this country was founded on along with our own civil liberties in this state.

With NDAA passed right under our nose, and SOPA possibly aswell, we our losing our rights as America citizens. WE MUST TAKE THEM BACK.

It states in the Declaration of Independence when a government gets out of control the PEOPLE take care of it.

So in a non-conflict way what are some real, reasonable ways, to go about getting our country back while affecting the minds of other uninformed people to understand how important, what is happening now, will destroy our future generations.

Fuck anything that has to do with delusional Occupy, unless it includes a well planned out, peaceful protest with a clear agenda.

>>1327183
You think they believe in liberty?

Everyone I know who's over 35 seems to think that revolution is a given at this point.

They're mostly just sick of mestizos and welfare niggers, but what they rage most at is our shit politicians - who they regard as double niggers.

There's no one individual that has the "X-factor" that will make this happen, there's no leader with enough charisma that can make this happen... besides op, things aren't that bad. I like it here, all They need to do is rid congress of these rich old fucks who evidently have no clue, you know the same geriatrics and rotten pricks who use buzz words and pol-speak that make everyone fall asleep so they can do as they wish

>>1327201
More than the people of the US do.

Wise men have stated that if you think the ballot box no longer is an acceptable way to end the encroaching tyranny you must step out your front door on to your porch with your rifle in hand. If you see your neighbors doing the same than it is indeed time for the tree of liberty to be water by the blood of patriots. However, if you find yourself the only one holding your rifle than it is not yet time.

It is not yet time, but that time IS COMING, and it will be here relatively soon (if not this generation than the next).

The first step will be the control of your money.

The second step will be the control of the media.

The third step will be control of the internet, and secondary means to organize and the dissemination of information.

The fourth and final step will be the removal of the only means we have to right this grievous wrong; the removal of of firearms and ammunition.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you are seeing the beginning of step three before your very eyes. Are you prepared? Will you prepare, or will you simply cower down and accept the boot of tyranny on your throat?

Organize with like minds you trust completely, but do so secretly. Soon we will be forced to pool our resources, buy land, stockpile foodstuff and medicines, guns ammunition, and the means to create ammunition, and other resources suited to survival off the grid, and in secrecy. Create a network of enclaves, and get ready for the shitstorm that is coming, and hope we can weather the storm.

Fuck, I wish I had the ability to buy a chunk of land and start to prepare, but I just can't do this kind of thing on my own.

>>1327211
Well I guess you and I disagree.

Just get it already people, our government is controlled by special interests, they are power hungry tyrants who will do anything for more control. They scum thieves and liars. OUR GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT, THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST PROGRESS. They are nazis its that simple. New world order, old world order, whatever, they are as the kings were, as the nazis were. just drop the bullshit rationalization of what and why, understand they are destroying the ideas of liberty and freedom, they control the media and soon they will control the internet ( if they succeed) fuck sopa, n fuck the defense bill along with all the other fascist shit like the patriot act.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWqD_VOympU&list=FLlmNWKr0Bi2Eon8YOUiNkzg&index=27&featur
e=plpp_video

>Why not a real Revolution?

Because all 34 of you will get shot, and ain't nobody wanna get shot

>>1327173

didn't seem to be a problem for the romans. it seems to me a republic can only take you so far, and to rise to the greatest heights you need a benevolent dictator. but then of course there's the tricky issue of succession.

perhaps some day a true leader of men will arise, and the obama's, pelosi's, gingrich's, and romney's of that day will find their decapitated heads posted on the street lights leading into the capital. dare to dream...

‎"If an entire nation has become cowardly and there are only a thousand left who want to do something great, who have the power to transform the state, then these thousand people are the nation." Adolf Hitler

>>1327319
>>1327319
>didn't seem to be a problem for the romans. it seems to me a republic can only take you so far, and to rise to the greatest heights you need a benevolent dictator.

Do you even fucking know a modicum of Roman history? Gaius Julius Caesar FUCKED Rome. The Republic was solid and there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with it for hundreds of years until he gutted it in a Machiavellian hostile takeover and made himself the god-king of Rome, giving Roman emperors "divine right" to the throne (If you look at the line of Roman emperors, many of them were serious douchebags). This started the Roman "Empire" on its steady decline into oblivion.

Prussian/German academics responsible for the traditional school of Greco-Roman history were colored by the political atmosphere of Germany at the time (mid-1800s). Predominantly, their outspoken opposition to the English Enlightenment thinkers and the French Revolution. They were the ones that glorified the "one great man" myths about Gaius Julius Caesar and Alexander "the great" of Macedon.

Vesting that much power in one person is fucking retarded. This is why our country is a Republic, like Ancient Rome was, and not a dictatorship.

Republics can be fixed. Dictatorships are broken before they begin.

Name ONE successful dictatorship.

I'll wait.

>>1327761
Octavian, Justinian, Constantine, Frederick the great, Queen Elizabeth, Napoleon and Alexander were all successful dictators

>>1327788

but they don't last. Alexander's Empire fractured on his death.
A dictatorship is dependent on a great man to lead it.

>>1327788
NONE of those people were at all successful in the end.

Read a fucking book.

>>1327858
Alexander was NOT a great man.

He was a man-child, complicit in patricide, obsessed with a twisted sense of Greek arete perpetuated by his religious reading (and misinterpretation) of the Iliad and constant paranoia. He rode the Greek army ragged, conquering for the sake of conquering, until he could conquer no more. He then drank himself to liver failure and died.

What a great guy.

It's like if you gave the guy who killed John Lennon a fucking country.

>>1327346
So I'm the USA? Or at least what's left of it?

Pussies are afraid of a few rads, fuck em.

We're building THIS if you people like it or not!

>Project Orion, it makes me jizz in my pants

>>1327858
> Code of Justinian
Yup, total failure
> Hammurabi, a dictator
Nothing of importance there
> Elizabeth
Yea, she certainly was a total failure
> Octavian
Total loser
> Constantine
Did nothing to shape western culture

>>1327938
Saying that they had an influence on history doesn't make them "great people" nor does it make their empires and dictatorships reasonable political models in the modern age.

Monarchies, dictatorships and empires are always destined to fail and fail BADLY.

>>1328004
Those political models have all held up longer, at one time or another, than any of our modern democracies. There's no reason to think we aren't destined to fail as well.

>>1327788
>queen elizabeth
>acting as a dictator
>female

Uh-huh.

I think that it is coming if America continues on its current course. Something has to give, sometime the people have to start suffering from the concentration of political and economic power, and the erosion of rights. Then they will start to wake up. The economy is going back into recession in 2012....

bump

>>1328046
None of these political models held longer than the Roman Republic, until a dictator undermined it and took Rome in an elaborate military/political coup d'etat (and set the foundations of its painful and drawn out descent into nothingness).

You are absolutely wrong.

>>1328526
Not to mention that our modern democracies have not "failed." They're simply bogged with red-tape, corruption and bureaucracy.

The system is sound. The people within it are not (which is why a dictatorship never works anyway).

Also, Ron Paul is a fucking joke.

>>1328526
Caesar wasn't the first dictator, though. The Roman Republic was undergoing reforms atleast every generation (although it didn't get fundamentally bad until Sulla).

Also, a culture that is insular can maintain a strong totalitarian state much better than one that is surrounded by free economic cultures. The sustainability of states is very limited the more coercive the state is, and unless there are insular cultural factors to maintain it, it crumbles very quickly compared to liberal, less coercive state models.

Unfortunately the U.S. has increasingly become a much more coercive state in the last couple generations (and especially the last decade or so), because of fear for safety and security. It's only a matter of time before something snaps and a major set of reforms or revolution will occur.

The problem is what do you replace it with?

Also humans these days view killing with more morality then in the past. People have made killing another human a such a big deal that it haunts them. Also killing a human goes against our evolution. We like to protect our species so in order to make the purge easier we have to demonize the other side. Violent revolution is not the solution. Unless people can come together and wake up from the dream, draft up a new government that gets back to our roots and is a pre-1890's government I just don't see it happening. The only way it could is if we go full DMZ. DMZ is a comic and covers this subject. It all starts after people protesting for food or something get mowed down.

>>1328587
>Caesar wasn't the first dictator, though.
I was speaking "dictator" in the modern sense, with regards to Hitler or Stalin and the like. Caesar was the first "Emperor" of Rome (What is NOW known as a "dictator"), following the republic that he undermined and destroyed.

"Dictator" of Rome was a temporary position whose appointment was made by one of the two consuls of Rome in the case of an emergency. This was a special position within the republic itself and was NOT permanent.

>Also, a culture that is insular can maintain a strong totalitarian state much better than one that is surrounded by free economic cultures.
But that mentality falls apart when confronted with the rest of the world. You can't turtle up and Best Korea your country forever. It's just downright illogical. You'll be left in the dust by the rest of the world without commerce and the exchange of ideas.

>The sustainability of states is very limited the more coercive the state is, and unless there are insular cultural factors to maintain it, it crumbles very quickly compared to liberal, less coercive state models.
How academic, tossin' 'round dem college words. I agree, however. Nevertheless, it's hard to maintain a liberal, less coercive state in a world filled with VERY coercive state models. AKA lamb in a lion's den.

>>1328798
>Unfortunately the U.S. has increasingly become a much more coercive state in the last couple generations (and especially the last decade or so), because of fear for safety and security.
>because of fear for safety and security.
Economic gain, power and influence. That's what it's always about. The "fear of safety and security" is simply the soma for the masses. However, our government and politicians have become WAY too intertwined with the current economic dynasties. Again, the system is sound, the people are corrupt.

>It's only a matter of time before something snaps and a major set of reforms or revolution will occur.
I like reforms MUCH more than revolution.

Just look at the French Revolution. Not good times. Revolutions are to be avoided at ALL COSTS. That's like lopping off an arm to stop a bleeding cut.

>>1328660
>It all starts after people protesting for food or something get mowed down.
Yeah, that would about do it.

I wouldn't mind getting murdered in a rebellion. The time for revolution is long gone, it would be a short insurrection, and the majority of us would be killed, but it would send a message to the world, that liberty will not go quietly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7HPQM0Jgg

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother"

>>1328891
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgsdexkv18

>>1328798
>But that mentality falls apart when confronted with the rest of the world. You can't turtle up and Best Korea your country forever. It's just downright illogical. You'll be left in the dust by the rest of the world without commerce and the exchange of ideas.
I know, I'm against statism in general and coercion as they are unsustainable in the long term. I was just pointing out factors that could allow that sustainability to be inflated by other means.

>Nevertheless, it's hard to maintain a liberal, less coercive state in a world filled with VERY coercive state models. AKA lamb in a lion's den.
Not really. If the United States was an example of anything, a strong economy a free culture is much more militarily powerful than strong strict fascist regimes. Also if personal safety wasn't so legally restricted and taught to people, the acts of war in the modern world used (terrorism) wouldn't be as harsh in the long run either.

>>1328801
>However, our government and politicians have become WAY too intertwined with the current economic dynasties. Again, the system is sound, the people are corrupt.
>I like reforms MUCH more than revolution.
I agree. The system is relatively sound, but it could be better. The more minimal a state is, the longer it can sustain itself before coercion and corruption become problematic. Decentralising government functions that don't need to be mandated (especially at federal levels) would be a good start, same with social services. Of course this would have to be done over time, establishing the education for localized organizations and institutions to replace these functions on a more voluntary, self-moderated, local level.

>>1328918
The original is better. For some reason the real lyrics always move me. I may loathe this country with every fiber of my being, but I will defend to the death the principles on which it was founded.

The framers of our constitution would be ashamed of us, and rightly so.

>>1328951
agreed about the founders part, but I like that version also the only good version

but lee greenwoods version is better in my opinion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Q8Xa0bPy8

>Revolution with 10% of the country max supporting you
>90% of your army composed of angsty teen potheads

Shortest revolution in history

>>1328891
>I wouldn't mind getting murdered in a rebellion.
Really? You do realize that means you die in a pointless conflict, right?

>The time for revolution is long gone, it would be a short insurrection, and the majority of us would be killed, but it would send a message to the world, that liberty will not go quietly.
Lay off the infowars, man.

>>1329009
>>90% of your army composed of angsty teen potheads

IT'S SO TRUE

America will go quietly into that long black night....people are too dumb

>>1329062

as long as the government can keep TV on air, the american public isnt rising up

>>1328891
>I wouldn't mind getting murdered in a rebellion.
Alright guys, who wants to kill him first?

All you need to for a real revolution. Is for everyone to stop working and help each other out.

Sounds really commie, but with the internet and instant communication its possible.

>>1329110
That's sort of how Tahrir Square worked. People from all around the city supported the fatass crowd in the city center with food, and other logistics

>>1329038
Its better than living in this hell. I don't even own a television anymore due to how trivial our culture has become.

People just don't care anymore, and life just seems so pointless. Even my generation's movements are pointless, look at OWS.

>>1328891

>it would send a message to the world, that liberty will not go quietly.

Exactly, it would show a democratic nation wouldn't allow rebels to destabilise it just because their batshit insane candidate got 10% in the primaries

>>1329144
>even my generations movements are pointless

this. We're,as a whole, baby boomer level retarded

>>1328798

>implying rome wasn't at the height of it's power under trajan

lrn2historykiddo

>>1329186
>implying the seeds of Rome's eventual destruction weren't being laid by that time

Really, if we compare both Rome and America's historical trajectories, America has passed its point that would be equivalent to Trajan on Rome's timeline

>>1328930
>I know, I'm against statism in general and coercion as they are unsustainable in the long term. I was just pointing out factors that could allow that sustainability to be inflated by other means.
The thing is, there are positive aspects to the state, we just have to balance it out. Social programs like welfare, unemployment and food stamps are positive when it comes to poverty, and nary over 2% are "gaming" the system, but they need to be reformed (not done away with). Many of our country's subsidies are outdated and ridiculous, like Dustbowl-era farm subsidies, etc. (alluded to in Obama's utterly failed "spilled milk" joke lol).

As for the anarchists... A stateless nation cannot last. Anarchism is illogical and childish.

>Not really. If the United States was an example of anything, a strong economy a free culture is much more militarily powerful than strong strict fascist regimes. Also if personal safety wasn't so legally restricted and taught to people, the acts of war in the modern world used (terrorism) wouldn't be as harsh in the long run either.
Liberal, non-coercive isolationism can't last. WWII is a perfect example of that. Nevertheless, if the EU is any indication, the world is congealing into a global government. The only thing stopping that is mutually assured destruction if some idiot with a nuke loses his shit and starts thinking people are stealing his bodily fluids. It's GOING to happen, as it should. This multi-state system of the world is illogical if we want to advance as a species. The government that ends up on top, however, should be a democratic one.

Also, personal safety restricted? Second amendment, man.

>>1327870

>implying augustus wasn't successful
>implying the byzantine empire wasn't a direct offshoot of the roman empire
>implying the ottomans weren't a direct offshoot of the byz

sure is over a millenium of unsuccessful in here.

The US was founded on the idea of a weak State that didn't have enough power to infringe liberties and a Constitution to severely limit its powers. The State has grown to be authoritarian and the Constitution is violated routinely. What good would a return to this system do? It has obviously failed.

There's only one possibly from mankind to break the shackles of the State. No State. No Constitution.

>>1329186
>Implying it matters how powerful Rome became during the Empire because it was all undone when Romulus Augustus was bitch slapped from the throne by Odoacer.

Dictatorships, monarchies and empires are not sustainable.

>>1329264
No our Constitution is still fine, with stronger safeguards against centralized power and stronger protection for individual rights and political power this time

>>1328930
>I agree. The system is relatively sound, but it could be better. The more minimal a state is, the longer it can sustain itself before coercion and corruption become problematic. Decentralising government functions that don't need to be mandated (especially at federal levels) would be a good start, same with social services. Of course this would have to be done over time, establishing the education for localized organizations and institutions to replace these functions on a more voluntary, self-moderated, local level.
There are A LOT of moving parts in the American government. Reform would have to move at a snail's pace and not everyone would agree with it. Rightly so, as well. Many people benefit a fair amount from federal regulations on certain things.

Also, people are stupid and easily cajoled to rebel against anything if someone yells at them about it loud enough.

>1329291
>monarchy
>not sustainable

human history would like to have a word with you

>>1327761
LOL nothing wrong with the republic?
rise of client armies?
the Gracchi brothers and the introduction of radical politics?
Marius?
The optimates response and the rise of Sulla?
Senatorial oligarchy?
Courts being in executive and easily bribed.
Governors raping provinces?
yeah, sounds peachy. The late republic sucked.
lrn2history.

If you like Ron Paul watch all of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Unkun3aA2o

Ron Paul is an anarchist.

>>1329366
*brofist*

I am so fucking sick of people who idealize the Roman Republic as somehow being 'better/morally' superior to the Roman Empire. It all goes downhill after the 3rd Punic War.

>>1329366
>>1329366
America today is SO much like the late Republic

>>1329390
I got u bro

>>1329391
>>1329390
Finally!
i've been lurking and its crazy. The early and mid republic was okay, but the late republic was full of issues. And the United States of today can for sure find some parallels with the late republic.

>>1329291
Monarchies are perfectly sustainable, and are fine even under Libertarian principles.
Have you never heard of The Crown? Do you know that they own about half of the fucking planet, including Canada, Australia, and bunches of other shit? They only let those people think they're free.
Canada tried to pull some shit last year in Parliament, and the Queen just said no.

>>1329144
Stop being such a cynic, first of all.

OWS succeeded in getting average people to talk about economic inequality and become informed.

If you actually went there, and saw it (barring the moronic hipsters that almost all of the original occupiers fucking hated) it was actually pretty cool, in Manhattan at least. I didn't see it in other cities.

People there were a lot more informed than the media made them out to look. The drum circle people were fucking full retard, though.

It also showed the police brutality in high definition, which polarized the country (it surprised average people that Bob from accounting was all "fuck the police" and Billy from next cubicle over was all "fucking useless hippies deserve to get stomped"). It fostered an idea that is still currently spreading like wildfire among the youth and young adults of America:
We need to fix our government.

OWS is going to start running political candidates now, which is smart.

Ron Paul is Cicero

>>1329407
Oligarchy, fraying of the social contract, bloodthirsty military industrial complex, bread and circuses, trouble with those pesky Parthians, crony capitalist slavedrivers running politics, economic displacement of the middle class resulting in social unrest. My body is so ready.

>>1329440
Wrong, he is Cato, obviously

>>1329440

...the Dragonborn shall not have this!

Didn't Cicero generally avoid politics? He was a lawyer and he wrote a lot about it which pissed everyone off, but I didn't know he actually was a politician.

I could be very wrong though, I don't know an awful lot about the Romans.

>>1329442
lulz, i'm glad some people in this thread are edumicated.
also i see that republic fag who i was replying to has had nothing to say.
also, fuck parthia. those bastards bitch slapped two legions and took their eagles and Augustus get them back with a peace treaty. pussy haha

>>1329426
I'm not the guy you quoted but,
>OWS succeeded in getting average people to talk about economic inequality and become informed.
The problem is not economic inequality, it is only a symptom of the larger problem.
>If you actually went there, and saw it (barring the moronic hipsters that almost all of the original occupiers fucking hated) it was actually pretty cool, in Manhattan at least. I didn't see it in other cities.
I was there, in Zucotti, in Boston, in Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Maybe 300 people in total knew what the fuck they were talking about. Most were bored hipsters looking for something to be a part of, like usual.
>People there were a lot more informed than the media made them out to look. The drum circle people were fucking full retard, though.
Like I said, not many. Most were talking about more regulation, higher taxes, etc.
>It also showed the police brutality in high definition
Very true, that's probably the best thing to come out of it.
>OWS is going to start running political candidates now, which is smart.
All I can say to that is, hahahahahahaha.

>>1329461
Cicero was super involved in politics in the late republic. He actually helped to avert an overthrow of the government in the Catilinarian Conspiracy which would have given Pompey cause to march on rome and become the new dictator. among other things

>>1329366
>>1329390
So deviation from the original ideals of the Roman Republic and corruption is what made the Republic shoddy. Not the original concept or practice of the Republic itself, which was successful.

Anyway, I'm going to bed soon, but I do believe real revolution is possible in the US, certainly upheaval, the Late Republic analogy along with many others I have thought about lead me to this conclusion.
>>1329461
>Cicero
>not involved in politics
>laughingnegros.jpg

>>1327926
The estrogen is strong in this one
Female detected

>>1329461
>Didn't Cicero generally avoid politics?

Only if being in office most of your life and holding the highest office in the country for a while counts as "avoiding politics".

>>1329465
>>1329465
And yes, Fuck Parthia. The fact that the Persians/Parthians never really got crushed by the Romans is why they are still so defiant to the West until now

>>1329494
it wasn't really a deviation from the original principles, it was just using the people and the imperfect constitution of the state itself to further oneself. For example, Augustus Caesar did not do anything that technically violated the republican constitution. he cloak imperial power in the terms of the republic.

>>1329516
>>1329496
>>1329484

Looks like I'm very wrong then. I have an exam on this guy in about three hours as well, but it's just about him as a lawyer. I'd always assumed that his later involvement in politics was more as an influential pundit or something, but now I know.

>>1327173
What statists dont understand is that the republic is every bit as systematically flawed as those other systems. You simply have to take the same reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I recommend reading david friedman, anthony de jasay, and the like

>>1329484
He also advocated tyrannicide and consider Julius Caesar a tyrant.

>>1329520
Oh, I agree. Rome had several opportunities to crush them, and they should have. granted after being sucked into the greek east 3 times in a row i can see why Rome would be hesitant about going full bore against Parthia. Just that much more territory and people to control

So, historyfags, whats your historical assessment of the modern US's chances for major upheaval against government/corporate oppression

>>1329535
uh, well seeing as he and Julius respected each other and Cicero saved Julius's life and Julius saved Cicero's life you aren't really on point. Indeed Cicero did see Julius as a dictator, but the two men also greatly respected each other, Cicero even told people that he believed that Julius was a better orator than himself

>>1329535
Cicero was just a giant narcissist that we have to hear about because the Renaissance Humanists thought he was the 'pinnacle of perfection' for golden age Latin. Have you read any of his dialogues against Cattaline? They just brim with "Must I, blah blah blah" "Oh the senate yadda yadda".

>>1329520
Parthia/The Sassinds were pretty awesome, shame you guys and the Byzantines kept on fighting to a point where the Muslims could just waltz in and torch all of your stuff.

>>1329484
Cicero almost saved the Republic, and brought it back to its original ideals, but Mark Antony was a prick.

>Pompey
He was just a puppet of Caesar. He danced just how he wanted him to dance until it was too late and was killed in a way best suited for a conniving son of a bitch.

Same with Caesar.

>>1329561
That was a shame, but the final Byzantine-Sassanid War was truly an epic for the ages

>>1329563
lol Pompey was not a puppet of Caesar.
Pompey went from the Optimates to the Populares and back to the Optimates and also fought a civil war against Caesar to control Rome. totally the actions of a puppet.

>>1327346

is that from mien kampf?

People are pacified by fast food and fast entertainment. Until you have a shitload of people kicked out into the streets with nothing left to lose, you won't get your revolution.

also, i'm out. got class in the morning. peace my fellow /pol/ people

>>1329563
Ron Paul confirmed for Cicero reincarnate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger

>Implying Ron Paul isnt more like Cato

>>1329586
>lol Pompey was not a puppet of Caesar.
At first he was, before the civil war.

Caesar played him for a fool until then. Then played him for a fool once more by having Ptolemy kill him.

>>1329593
Oh hi, 2008 recession reporting in.

>>1329669
No.

>>1329504
Lol, fine. Believe that he was a "great man." Not my problem.

Great military strategist, sure. Great man? Not so much.

>>1329669

>implying ron paul isn't Quintus Sertorius reincarnate

>>1329683
There needs to be more...to really wake the people up 2012 has to be fucking bad. It might be. It might be...after a year all bets are off at the rate things are moving now.

>>1329705
Oh hi, the great depression reporting in.

Still no revolution.
Just face it, the american people are all sheeps.

>>1329554
Armed revolution? Like street to street fighting? In your call of duty dreams, man.

The thing is, average citizens aren't the only ones who read history books. People who have power keep finding new and improved ways to keep it and make everyone so happy about it that they defend them. Seriously, look at how many people (poor, working class, struggling people) are coming out of the woodworks to defend corporations, "job creators" and corrupt politicians.

Look at the people making it a point to go "HAHA LOOK AT THOSE HIPPIES LICK THE JACKBOOTS. IDIOTS. I'M BETTER THAN THEM." at the OWS movements.

It's like stockholm syndrome coupled with a strange mix of superiority complexes and schadenfreude.

If there IS an armed insurrection in the coming years, color me surprised.

To be honest, I'd rather just see peaceful reform. War fucking blows man.

>>1329747
>>1329749
Huxley was right, the people is diverted from what really matters and they are not able to snap out of it and realize what is actually happening.

>>1329749
>>1329749
Yes, it does. I hope it does not happen either. Those attitudes you discussed are very prevalent, even here on /pol/ as this community risks being shut down due to shitty legislation being forced down America's throat by corporate lobbyists, that also opens the way for more and more surveillance and censorship. Still they shrilly attack anyone who dissents.

2012 will be bad economically, that will aggrevate people more. But not until after the election will things be interesting

>>1329749
I can see people justifying a 1984 like government and considering people that rebel against it as trouble makers. With television people will think whatever they're told.

bumpo

I just realized i've been using roman slave fantasies to get hard for two years now

oh lawdy

no true patrician would ever lurk /r9k/, they'd be like normalfags coming here to taunt us. Not to mention we'd be too busy toiling away at their latifundiae to bother.

the frog is sad again

>>1329793
The government displayed in 1984 is so non viable that the book almost reads like a weird dark comedy. The closest state we have is the DPRK and the only reason they manage to string along is due to massive foreign aid

>>1329852
I don't think its a literal analogy....

>>1329482
>The problem is not economic inequality, it is only a symptom of the larger problem.
Oh I know. But at least it was the catalyst for many more people to give a fuck than before.

>I was there, in Zucotti, in Boston, in Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Maybe 300 people in total knew what the fuck they were talking about. Most were bored hipsters looking for something to be a part of, like usual.
I swear to god... fucking dumbass hipsters ruin EVERYTHING. I was chatting with one at a party recently and he mentioned he protested at Zucotti. I asked him why, understanding the real reasons people were there because I was covering it for a local student paper.

He went off on some stupid shit and I couldn't help but laser-focus all of my cynical anger about the clueless trust-fund hipsters at OWS ruining the whole goddamn thing at him. It made me feel good for an hour or two until I remembered how shitty this country is doing.

>Like I said, not many. Most were talking about more regulation, higher taxes, etc.
MEH.

>Very true, that's probably the best thing to come out of it.
Yeah, it showed the level of brutality police are capable of in quelling peaceful protests. I interviewed one homeless guy there, a cop had beaten his ear in with a baton for calling him a piece of shit. Disgusting abuse of power.

>All I can say to that is, hahahahahahaha.
lol I know. Still, it's better than doing fucking nothing. I feel bad for the knowledgeable people that were gung-ho about it. I had a chance to talk to Jesse LeGreca. Cool guy. Bought me a beer.

>>1329865
I mean the book in general, I'm so sick of it being viewed as a plausible state. That's what makes dystopic literature so boring after a while.

>>1329852
>massive foreign aid
TRIBUTES. FOREIGN TRIBUTES TO THE GREAT LAND OF BEST KOREA.

>>1329874
You seem like a pretty knowledgeable guy. I went to Occupy LA a few times, met a few pretty knowledgeable people, there were a lot of freaks and fryers and hobos there though. Talked about Fed/monetary policy for like an hour with this chollo guy who I would have thought was just a dirty Mexican. But the unions and hipsters/weirdos fucked it up...

Do you think the status quo is viable?

>>1329877
Indeed, it is great to use for propaganda purposes every time the government does something.

However go for Brave New World by Aldous Huxley instead, much more probable.

>>1329877
>That's what makes dystopic literature so boring after a while.
You want boring dystopic literature, read Atlas Shrugged.

That's basically why I can't take Ron Paul seriously. He named his son after a radical capitalist pro-tobacco hypocrite who eventually supported herself through government aid after getting cancer (through a different name, of course).

That's like naming your kid Milli Vanilli.

>>1329917
>implying he named rand after ayn rand and hasnt denied that baseless claim countless times
>implying his real name isnt randal


His wife was the first one who started calling him rand.

>>1326998

Read The Society of the Spectacle. Then read some Pynchon. There. That's why.

>>1329892
>You seem like a pretty knowledgeable guy.
Chick. I don't usually advertise that though, especially on here.

>I went to Occupy LA a few times, met a few pretty knowledgeable people, there were a lot of freaks and fryers and hobos there though.
Same at Zucotti. I talked to a homeless Afghan dude who fought in the war with the USSR back in the 70s. The guy was so hardcore, yet completely unassuming. He said OWS would get nowhere because no one had the balls to actually stand up and revolt. He was right. Another guy from Iran's Green Party talked about how they needed to find leaders or else they'd fail, like the Green Party did. I sat there for a few hours chatting with this Jewish dude at one of the information desks about how the government needs to re-institute the Glass-Steagall Act.

I kinda turned a blind eye to the retarded hipsters and payed attention to the actual substance that was there. The media didn't, though...

Sadly, I wasn't able to get the story to the editor first. He published some fucking retarded hipster chick's uninformed pseudo-rant and ran it under some bullshit bait-and-switch headline. I hate my school.

>Do you think the status quo is viable?
No. Then again, no one's going to do anything about it. People in this country don't have enough of an attention span to give a fuck about something other than the new iPhone or Lady GaGa's new video.

>>1329941
I was just joking, but I stand corrected. Still, the man's extremist policies would never allow him to win. Coupled with his stance on abortion, he'd never get elected. You have to remember that a majority of our country is socially liberal and secular.

He has many good points, but the solutions aren't that well thought out.

>>1330018
Republicans have been anti abortion since Roe vs Wade

because a real revolution would be utterly crushed unless the military sided with the people instead of the Reaganite oligarchs ruining the country

>>1329852

It is a weird dark comedy, or at any rate a fable.

>>1330030
Yeah, I know. Your point?

>>1330070
They get elected more than Democrats. Republicans have had a majority in congress for the most part of 30 years and more Republican presidents have been elected since then than Democrats. They've had plenty of opportunity to outlaw abortion but they won't do it. It's all a show.

If we really needed a revolution, our military would likely pick up its arms and bare them against its own government (or a suitable portion of it would). If there was a real reason for a revolution, you would likely not have to worry about the military itself.

>>1330096
For the Bible thumpers, I know. Still, the media and other politicans will use anything in their power to burn the man in effigy. He is radical and, as such, unelectable.

I mean, you actually have people supporting Newt Gingrich of all people. GINGRICH.

>>1330044
>the military sided with the people
HAH.

>>1330108
>If we really needed a revolution, our military would likely pick up its arms and bare them against its own government
They'd follow orders, unless a rogue general or commander staged a coup.

>>1330124
I love the fact that Evangelicals vote for Gingrich. They have no idea he advocated abolishing religion a forward he wrote in a book. FOX won't tell their sheep about that little detail.

>>1330164
Whatever, man.

I'm moving to Canada.

>>1330134

You're an idiot and have no idea about the oath or the oath we take to the people do you? I guess you don't keep up to date with how much senators and congressmen screw us, and you think we'd let them use us to attack our families and friends of our families? Dude, get over your "I couldn't get into the military because I'm too retarded" angst act and get with reality. No soldier is going to turn on his family, friends of his family, the constitution, or the US citizens in general, no officer would support that. You'd have the bad eggs rounding up the good eggs and then vice versa in areas where the majority control, it'd be a civil war between military branches. The same goes for LEOs too, you guys are so sensitive towards this oppression bullshit. Quit playing so much fucking Killzone.

Pic related, "DUR ALL DA MILITURY AND LEOS ARE DA GALATICZ EMPURZ"

Get over yourself, faggot. That goes for the rest of you infowars nuts too, get the fuck over yourselves. I don't even know how you all even come to this conclusion with the fact of groups like Oathkeepers which is packed full of active duty, guard, reserve, and former military and some law enforcement; It's practically filled with them.

>>1330164
"The time has come for the next great step forward in American politics. It is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, or of left and right...but something more significant...a clear distinction between rear-guard politicians who wish to preserve or restore an unworkable past and those who are ready to transition to what we call a “Third Wave” information-age society…

A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles, changed ways...a new economy, new political conflicts, and...altered consciousness... Humanity faces a quantum leap forward. This is the meaning of the Third Wave…

Our argument is based on what we call the “revolutionary premise”... The revolutionary premise liberates our intellect and will.

Nationalism is...First Wave. The globalization of business and finance required by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national “sovereignty” the nationalists hold so dear...

As economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty... Poets and intellectuals of Third Wave states sing the virtues of a “borderless” world and “planetary consciousness.”

The Third Wave...demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems.

The Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered...to create a whole new structure of government... Building a Third Wave civilization on the wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures... The system that served us so well must, in its turn, die and be replaced."

- Newt Gingrich

I'm pretty sure he pretty much plagiarized the Communist Manifesto.

>>1330231
Geez, calm the fuck down, Tex.

From one tiny post, you assumed that I failed out of the military, don't understand the soldier's responsibility to the country, ignore how much congress fucks veterans and play too much Killzone (Which was a shitty game, imo).

Also, you assume I'm male, gay and get all of my information from infowars (Protip: None of my information comes from Alex Jones & friends).

Obviously not all of the military would be complicit, but there would be no substance to the resistance unless a rogue general or commander led the thing. It'd just be one big unorganized mess of rag-tag militia groups.

Stop being so fucking mad. It's like you're taking all of your butthurt from /pol/ on me.

>>1330233
lol wow.

I'd vote for him if he actually supported these things and wasn't lying through his fucking teeth all the time.

>>1330309

I never said you were gay. If I said you were gay I'd of said, "Hey, you're fucking gay." But no, I called you a faggot which is a general term here. Yes, I did imply those other things because how you responded is the typical for every person who says that. One General can't just step up and command it(Officers all over would be taking their men) It'd be formed off the backbone of other officers and NCOs, with multiple leaders heading it like in any war; There is never one big leader it's typically a staff of men. Regardless, it'd be nasty. I'd hate to see the US Military against itself, it'd be much more blood today than what the Civil War was years and years ago.

>>1330231

If They tell you to start rounding us up and shooting any resistance, most of you you will. We know that. They'll have some "great reason" and it'll be justified in your minds, and that'll be that. Sure, some will defect to the side of the people, but it will be a minority.

A short glance at a history book could tell you that. Hell, US cops and soldiers were murdering union members all over the country, less than a hundred years ago. Just for being in a union.

>>1330333
>mfw that picture is awesome

>But no, I called you a faggot which is a general term here.
Meh, I've been called worse.

>Yes, I did imply those other things because how you responded is the typical for every person who says that.
I don't look at the military as one big mass of grunts with guns, tanks and one-liners. My father was military. However, I didn't say the military wouldn't revolt. I'm saying that there would have to be some kind of cohesion or else the whole thing would fall to shit.

Also, you're saying that there wouldn't be a decent enough portion of the military straight up following orders?

>One General can't just step up and command it(Officers all over would be taking their men) It'd be formed off the backbone of other officers and NCOs, with multiple leaders heading it like in any war; There is never one big leader it's typically a staff of men.
An equally influential staff of men? There has to be some sort of moderator at least.

>Regardless, it'd be nasty. I'd hate to see the US Military against itself, it'd be much more blood today than what the Civil War was years and years ago.
It's hard to think about. I count myself as one of the non-sociopaths on /pol/.

>>1330233
Not to mention it lacks any reason for getting rid of the constitution.

The constitution is actually damn good document. It lacks specific laws, which is good. It's more about effective delegation. We really ought to bring that thing back sometime.

>>1330426
I know how to fix our problem, just get me some Sela Petrae and Drakestone, everything will be fine.

>Also, you're saying that there wouldn't be a decent enough portion of the military straight up following orders?

No, I said you'd more than likely have an equal turn out or a slightly higher turn out for the ones that are on the side of the traditional America. It'd be like this.
>Majority of bad soldiers
All the good soldiers would be detained
>Majority of good soldiers
All of the bad soldiers would be detained

It'd really depend on the majority in each state. And since this wouldn't really be a north and south, the lines for alliances would be drawn all over and the battle would more than likely start out as a giant cluster fuck pincer movement with no officially drawn lines.

>An equally influential staff of men? There has to be some sort of moderator at least.

There is, but he doesn't make the overall we're gonna do this! It's typically drawn by a group of men, reviewed by a group of men, and then executed by a group of men. It's all team in the military, every man has a job and must execute and perform his job. With multiple men designing something, it gives better advantage to see it's flaws.

>>1330507
Why would they use American military to subjugate the masses? They've got an army of contractors and could use foreign soldiers like NATO. The world hates Americans. You think foreign soldiers wouldn't hesitate to kill the fuck out them?

>>1330560

My God not this again, not same guy from a few months back I hope. But do you really think a PMC can match and contain the size of the US Military, let alone has the same amount of logistics? Secondly, not every PMC is a bunch of fucking whores like Blackwater, there are good ones out there. Third, why would NATO even do that? Oh I guess it's because the jews and the illuminati and something about the Templars and aliens right?

I agree. Lets fuck this place up

>>1330560

This is how the PMCs will take over America right?
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Order_66

Or will it be like the plot in Splinter Cell: Conviction or whatever that last one was called.

look up agorism

>>1330613
>appeal to ridicule

You didn't understand what I said. I'm not talking about a scenario where NATO tries to invade and fight the US military. I'm talking about a scenario where the US has some turmoil and calls for NATO to help establish order.