[mos6507]

Along the lines of Ludi's "bold predictions" thread, I've decided to start compiling select quotes that indicate that several doomers here are itching to start a violent revolution. Unlike Ludi, I'm going to include attribution. I don't see the point of keeping things anonymous. For those who think I'm flaming, I see nothing wrong with highlighting what posters choose to write. If nothing else, however, I think it's highly foolish to write these sorts of things in a public forum.

[mos6507]

"For the few who have yet to be infected by war hysteria, it's time to start thinking about revolution!"
--Eastbay

[mos6507]

"When the representation is inaccurate, this renders the public's ability to enact change using the legal avenues provided somewhere between unlikely and impossible. That is why the Founding Fathers acknowledged the right to bear arms as a universal, inalienable right; they expected Americans to actually use it to force their leaders to represent their interests if need be and overthrow them if they don't(see many of Thomas Jefferson's writings). This provision also must be within the limits of the Constitution; the American public does not have the right to take away the inalienable rights of others, like say, hypothetically vote to have all Muslims sent to camps and executed, or for a real example, allow warrant-less, suspicion-less wiretapping of phones."
--The Toecutter

[mos6507]

"I agree with your point that there should be some element in personal responsibility among EVERYONE, but don't kid yourself that the average person is culpable for the major political decisions made, because the average person didn't make these decisions, and often times even opposed those decisions. I suppose I could lambaste J6P for not taking up arms and shooting the fuckers, but that would be a little extreme, wouldn't it?"
--The Toecutter

[mos6507]

"I'm only an advocate for violence as a last resort, and it is pretty clear to me that all the legitimate means of changing the major decisions in society have been marginalized or destroyed."
--The Toecutter

[Oakley]

I'll save you some time.

I think that we are heading to civil conflict, whether you call it civil war or revolution.

Crisis periods resulting in violence have been identified as a recurring pattern in western civilization by Strauss and Howe in "The Fourth Turning". The prior three nation threatening crises were resolved by the American Revolution (1776), the Civil War (1861) and World War II (1941); note the four generation spacing between these periods of violence, roughly 80 years. This places the next nation threatening period of violence near 2020.

There is a revolution point that eventually is reached, and either the anger and frustration of the population is directed against the government itself as in the cases of the American Revolution and the Civil War, or the government manages to redirect it against a foreign "enemy" as in the case of WWII. This point is reached when the then current system of government plunder and control brings more pain than the pain that comes with civil violence. People at some point finally have little to lose by attempting to throw off the system that brings them pain. The weight of government is now heavy upon our backs, and increasingly is becoming intolerable.

It should be obvious that we are in a crisis period of increasing intensity, that we have a government that uses its power to favor the few at the expense of the many, and that there is a disconnect between the population and those controlling the government.

Consider that the prior three conflict periods were set against a backdrop of the economic expansion of the industrial age which itself began in the 18th century, and that the current cycle is set against the backdrop of the contraction of the industrial age for want of sufficient energy to fuel it. As Richard Duncan has pointed out, we are past the per capita peak in world energy production and heading down.

We are in the early stages of the revolution and it is still peaceful. The attitudes of people are changing as seen in the Tea Party "rebellion" for example. The idea that people are openly discussing the possibility of revolution or civil war is telling.

And of particular interest is the non compromising characteristic of the "spoiled" baby boomer generation (1945 to 1965 birth dates), the members of which are currently occupying the seats of power, previously occupied by the more compromise oriented silent generation.

The stage is set and all that is needed is an event or series of events that take us beyond the threshold. The thin veneer of civility that civilization demands of us will give way to our inner savagery.

[gollum]

I can't say I disagree with the comments reposted.

[PrestonSturges]

As I have said before about Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote the Tea Party loves so much - rereading it shows Jefferson was talking about uninformed people with largely imaginary grievances who none the less might have some pointless insurrection and get killed, but that the pointless deaths of these dingbat "patriots" was the price of a vibrant democracy, even if occasionally some dimbulbs earn their Darwin Awards on the point of a bayonet. He was talking about Shay's rebellion, and basically said, hey, you want an omlette, you gotta break eggs, and not all insurrections were going to end as bloodlessly as Shay's Rebellion, but their death still serves a purpose.

[gollum]

When governments become ineffective, and leaders isolated economically and socially from the people it invites revolution or collapse. If I were a betting person I'd bet on collapse.

[Plantagenet]

"...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "

Thomas Jefferson (1787)

[Arthur75]

If nothing else, however, I think it's highly foolish to write these sorts of things in a public forum.

Foolish for what reasons ? FBI spying ?

[Crazy_Dad]

If nothing else, however, I think it's highly foolish to write these sorts of things in a public forum.

Foolish for what reasons ? FBI spying ?

Probably. If not a human, then a google like bot.

[SeaGypsy]

It wasn't that long ago we had reversengineer here really pushing for Wall Street Lynchings and death to anyone worth over some nominal figure.
Sometimes it feels good to vent rage in such a manner.

Where you should be a little carefull Mos is taking such comments out of context. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this site is monitored for extremist sentiment, along with other popular sites critical of the government.
It would not be nice if posters started being harrassed simply for some out of context remarks made in the heat of the moment.

It is also very unlikely that these same people are the ones who will actually resort to violent instigation; I suspect the authorities are intelligent enough to know this anyhow.

The situation is very seriously stuffed up, hence people will feel and express all manner of responses, naturally. However these people do not make revolutions.
Violent revolution is only possible when a majority or a very large minority decide life is not worth living anymore under current conditions and thus it is worthwhile to die fighting the oppressor. Individuals and hate cells can't make revolutions, only acts of terror; which TPTB have found ways of subverting to garnish more support for the status quo.

Real revolution in the modern economies is much more likely to happen economicly than by force of violence. Ghandi-esque sit down revolution is the next most likely, a general strike.

The quickest way to really upset TPTB would be for millions of Americans to just quit going to work and paying their bills; then to gather every day to gridlock the cities.

Will this happen? Only when things get so bad there is no alternative.

[wisconsin_cur]

If one is a "doomer" I would assume this means that they expect things to fall apart. If you expect things to fall apart, why incur the risk of attack?

Even if in defense to the reactionaries, why risk dying on this hill instead of retreat, regroup and return (after collapse)?

Of course Mos, if one is a doomer and blames the current system or "PTB" for the situation we are in, I think some Schadenfreude would be natural.

For me, what I want to see is irrelevant, there is only how to prepare for the situations we are likely to face.

[ian807]

We used to have revolutions. Every 4 years. They're called "elections."

Of course, they're not really elections anymore, are they? One sanitized, pre-approved, major party shill for the wealthy is starting to look pretty much like another. After Carter, all we've had are useful idiots and errand boys both in congress and the oval office.

I have no love of revolution and hope to stay out of anything requiring bullets, but yes, I think it's coming - like it or not. Unfortunately, I think it will be a stupid revolution. Most people are still suffering media hypnosis. They believe in liberalism and conservatism and libertarianism, etc. Instead of going after the billionaires who engineered the government takeover for profit, we'll be fighting each other, which will suit the wealthy folks flying to Buenos Aires to wait it out and pick up the pieces just fine.

[Expatriot]

"For the few who have yet to be infected by war hysteria, it's time to start thinking about revolution!"
--Eastbay

How is this "violent".

[Expatriot]

"When the representation is inaccurate, this renders the public's ability to enact change using the legal avenues provided somewhere between unlikely and impossible. That is why the Founding Fathers acknowledged the right to bear arms as a universal, inalienable right; they expected Americans to actually use it to force their leaders to represent their interests if need be and overthrow them if they don't(see many of Thomas Jefferson's writings). This provision also must be within the limits of the Constitution; the American public does not have the right to take away the inalienable rights of others, like say, hypothetically vote to have all Muslims sent to camps and executed, or for a real example, allow warrant-less, suspicion-less wiretapping of phones."
--The Toecutter

How does the Toecutter summarizing founding father thought equate with him/her "itching" for a revolution himself.

[Expatriot]

"I agree with your point that there should be some element in personal responsibility among EVERYONE, but don't kid yourself that the average person is culpable for the major political decisions made, because the average person didn't make these decisions, and often times even opposed those decisions. I suppose I could lambaste J6P for not taking up arms and shooting the fuckers, but that would be a little extreme, wouldn't it?"
--The Toecutter

How does the Toecutter noting that calling for a revolution would be an extreme thing to do equate to him/her wanting a revolution?

[Expatriot]

"I'm only an advocate for violence as a last resort, and it is pretty clear to me that all the legitimate means of changing the major decisions in society have been marginalized or destroyed."
--The Toecutter

How does saying that violence is a "last resort" equate with "itching" for violence?

[Expatriot]

So Mos, I really didn't think I could be any more opposite you in ideology, but it turns out I am.

What's the motivation for this thread?

Seems to me, Mos, that you want to "make sure" that anybody who suggests/supports/expects a violent revolution, which you don't want and which you think is wrong to want, is "called out" and put on a list so that they are more exposed than they would be without this thread.

That makes you the forum tattle tale Mos. I think that suits you fine.

It's too bad that we're not all hanging out in person. I could get the ink and you could get the tattoo needle and could give everyone a number or barcode or something to keep the dissidents properly isolated in "relocation facilities."