UN's "One World Government" or "New World Order"

[tombogan03884]

 I've never been good at waiting. I'd just as soon see it start as soon as possible so we can get it done and begin rebuilding.

[JC5123]

I've never been good at waiting. I'd just as soon see it start as soon as possible so we can get it done and begin rebuilding.

Agreed. As much as I would like to see a peaceful transition back to our founding principles. I fear that we are too far gone. The one comforting thought that I have is this: When all hell breaks loose, it will be the self sufficient people, the people that make this country run, that will survive. Darwin will take care of the leaches that have dragged this country down for the past 60 years. Then, we should be able to get back to common sense laws, and get back to being a self supporting nation again.

[fightingquaker13]

Agreed. As much as I would like to see a peaceful transition back to our founding principles. I fear that we are too far gone. The one comforting thought that I have is this: When all hell breaks loose, it will be the self sufficient people, the people that make this country run, that will survive. Darwin will take care of the leaches that have dragged this country down for the past 60 years. Then, we should be able to get back to common sense laws, and get back to being a self supporting nation again.

Guys, chill! We have a revolution every two years and its a lot easier to win an election than a war, particularly when you are the "terrorist insurgents". If you can't organize the political support required to vote the right guys into office, what in Gods name makes you think you're going to fare any better at drumming up the support to make a revolution work? Put down the guns, start licking envelopes and making yard signs.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

 Oh yes FQ, You are absolutely correct. Especially when we look at how well that has worked out over the last 60 years.

I refer you to the opinions in I expressed in a previous thread

http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=9499.0

[JC5123]

Guys, chill! We have a revolution every two years and its a lot easier to win an election than a war, particularly when you are the "terrorist insurgents". If you can't organize the political support required to vote the right guys into office, what in Gods name makes you think you're going to fare any better at drumming up the support to make a revolution work? Put down the guns, start licking envelopes and making yard signs.
FQ13

Here's a yard sign for you....

[Sponsor]

[JC5123]

Guys, chill! We have a revolution every two years and its a lot easier to win an election than a war, particularly when you are the "terrorist insurgents". If you can't organize the political support required to vote the right guys into office, what in Gods name makes you think you're going to fare any better at drumming up the support to make a revolution work? Put down the guns, start licking envelopes and making yard signs.
FQ13

And what makes you think that "voting the right guys into office" is so flippin' easy to do. Just look at the voter fraud in ACORN. I would like to know when the last time was that we had a truly FAIR and HONEST election. I am starting to believe that my vote really doesn't count anymore. (but I still vote) How can it, when three dead people vote against me. I'm sorry FQ, but while I haven't lost faith in the system that we have, I have NO faith, or trust in the people running the system. They have garnered too much power, and too much money. They have shown us time and time again that they will do anything that it takes to keep that power. Lie, cheat, and steal. They don't even try to hide it anymore. When a government get to that point, the people of the nation must take the power back. Unfortunately, the only realistic way to do it is by force.

I don't want to go to war against my own country, but we are supposed to be a nation governed by the people. When was the last time that you felt represented? When was the last time that you felt like your voice, and your vote counted? Do you want to leave the corruption and the debt, and a weak nation for your children?

[fightingquaker13]

I say again, no revolution has ever, or will ever, worked without popular support. The fact that Che Guevara wound up dead in a Bolivian ditch should speak to that. You can't win an election, you won't win a revolution. It might be cathartic, but all its going to do is wind up with you dead, you're cause reviled and you're enemies stronger unless you have popular support. If you're serious about this I would reccomend Antonio Gramsci's "The Prison Notebooks". Its a book that is the equivilent of a gun. It accurately describes how political power works, how its gained, how its lost. The down side is that the title is accurate and it was basically written on toilet paper and thrown over the wall while the author was a guest of Mussolini. Its very hard to read without a it of guidance as to what sections to read first (I am grateful to a prof who told us to start in middle, then the end, then the beggining). The thing is though he talks aout hegemony, the combination of coercion and consent that makes the state powerful. Revolution means that you have to erode the consent first before you can even begin to attack the coersive apparatus and have it do anything other than waste ammo and get you killed. You can't do this, stay home. The war of ideas is paramount as you MUST prepare the ground before you fight if you want to stand a snowball's chance. Again a great and well respected book, and one of the most dangerous ever written. I highly reccomend it.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

I say again, no revolution has ever, or will ever, worked without popular support. The fact that Che Guevara wound up dead in a Bolivian ditch should speak to that. You can't win an election, you won't win a revolution. It might be cathartic, but all its going to do is wind up with you dead, you're cause reviled and you're enemies stronger unless you have popular support. If you're serious about this I would reccomend Antonio Gramsci's "The Prison Notebooks". Its a book that is the equivilent of a gun. It accurately describes how political power works, how its gained, how its lost. The down side is that the title is accurate and it was basically written on toilet paper and thrown over the wall while the author was a guest of Mussolini. Its very hard to read without a it of guidance as to what sections to read first (I am grateful to a prof who told us to start in middle, then the end, then the beggining). The thing is though he talks aout hegemony, the combination of coercion and consent that makes the state powerful. Revolution means that you have to erode the consent first before you can even begin to attack the coersive apparatus and have it do anything other than waste ammo and get you killed. You can't do this, stay home. The war of ideas is paramount as you MUST prepare the ground before you fight if you want to stand a snowball's chance. Again a great and well respected book, and one of the most dangerous ever written. I highly reccomend it.
FQ13

FQ, for some one who teaches history you seem to overlook some pretty significant portions of it. The best example that comes to mind is our own first revolution, Patriot forces in the field never exceeded more than 3%, and at the time of Yorktown there were actually more colonials serving in British units such as Tarlton's Legion than were serving in the Continental Army.
Much is made of Ernesto Lynch, (his father was an American Naval attache in the Argentine Embassy) but the harsh truth is that he was a miserable failure as a revolutionary, he should have stuck to fixing teeth. His Bolivian adventure, like his previous ventures in Africa and the Dominican Republic, was an abject failure not because of a lack of popular support, but because of his own incompetence and the fact that his East German girlfriend Tanya was a Soviet plant and they tipped the Bolivians to his location.

[JC5123]

"Bullets change governments far surer than do votes."  Ian Holms from "Lord of War"

[fightingquaker13]

Tom, its true that ony about 3% fought. That's a little low, but sufficient, look at the numbers our military as a percentage of population. The thing is, that they had the active, or even just passive support of a large portion of our population. Mother's who would sendtheir sons to war, or provide supplies and food to our troops. Folks who would pay their tax money to the Colonials rather than the Brits, and a lot more folks who were prepared to accept them when they won, rather than rising in revolt against the "usurpers" and demanding that the Crown come back and fix the problem. Hell, even those who pulled a Sergeant Schultz were a vital part of the strugle. None of that can be accomplished by force of arms. If it could, the Brits would have won. I say again, you have to prepare the ground before you act or you will lose and lose hard. Again I reccomend Gramsci. You like to read and like history. I took a Ph.D level class that spent 6 weeks on that book. I consider it time and money well spent. I have taught it at least once a year every time I could get away with it. Consider it the AK of books, and PM me when you get a copy, because the table of contents is misleading and if you read it front to back it will make no sense. There is order to the thing, but the publisher wasn't smart enough to figure it out.
FQ13