This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Why Do Americans Like Revolutions?
Submitted by Zachary Zeck of The Diplomat,
As many of my colleagues have pointed out, last week China celebrated Mao Zedong’s birthday. Mao was many things to many people. For me, he was first and foremost a revolutionary. Mao was at least as significant to revolutions in the 20th century as Vladimir Lenin, and Mao’s model of revolution—building support among the peasantry before moving to the cities—was widely emulated by anti-colonial leaders throughout the world. During his time in power, Mao also gave material support to many of these anti-colonial movements.
For these reasons, Mao’s birthday seems like an apt time to ponder why Americans are so fascinated and supportive of revolutions. Although often times despising their outcomes, Americans—particularly American elites—are predisposed to generally support revolutionary movements. This inclination has endured across time. Many American elites—particularly Thomas Jefferson—initially looked very favorably on the French Revolution. Jefferson at times even defended the French rebels’ later excesses, writing to one American critic of their actions: “Time and truth will rescue & embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. the liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with as little innocent blood?”
Americans similarly initially cheered the onset of the Arab Spring (although none of these uprisings have produced genuine revolutions to date, the general feeling in the beginning was that they would). There was almost no reason for the U.S. to be hopeful about U.S. policy in an Arab world in which publics had a greater say, given the widespread dislike of America among Arab populations. While some in the U.S. recognized this reality, they generally cast aside these concerns. Typical was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s response, who implored that in Egypt, America should “trust that in the long arc of history those shared beliefs will matter more than the immediate disruptions that lie ahead and that, ultimately, our interests and ideals will be well served.”
It seems to me that Americans’ support for revolutions is entirely misplaced. To begin with, as a status-quo power in the international system, the U.S. has little geopolitically to gain from the instability and large-scale changes that are the hallmarks of modern revolutions.
More importantly, even the normative considerations that undergird Americans’ support for revolutions are based on misperceptions. For example, many Americans look favorably on revolutions today because America itself won its independence from England in a war that became known in the U.S. as the American Revolution. Since the American Revolution is unanimously seen as a positive, many Americans assume that revolutions today will also improve the societies in which they occur.
Despite its name, however, the American Revolution was not a revolution. At most, it was a war of national liberation. For the better part of a century before the war, American colonial elites effectively ruled the colonies under the British policy of salutary neglect. As England’s fiscal woes worsened following the French and Indian War, the Crown tried to crack down on the colonies in order to extract more benefits from its ownership of them. Most of the colonial elites objected to these policy changes, such as having to pay higher taxes to the monarch, and eventually convinced most of the colonial population to fight a war to free them from England’s increasing demands. Following the independence war, however, the same elites who governed under salutatory neglect effectively resumed ruling the now independent United States. Little of the underlying socioeconomic order was changed by the war, save for England’s nominal overseer role. And in the years that followed the American elite created a socioeconomic order that in many ways was modeled on England.
The other reason Americans support revolutions is because they believe they will transform autocracies into democracies. But this again is mistaken. Although the initial protesters may be seeking democratic changes, they almost never achieve them. This is certainly true of the major revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries—namely, the French, Russian, Chinese and Iranian revolutions.
Although some of the 20th century national liberation movements led to democracies, the vast majority only replaced the colonial powers with local strongmen. Furthermore, those national liberation movements that did lead to democracy were not very revolutionary at all. India, for example, won its independence from Britain without a major violent struggle against London. The system it adopted maintained many of the institutions of British India. Perhaps the most successful revolutions with regards to democracy were the uprisings against the Soviet Union and its satellites, which in some cases produced partially free, albeit unstable democracies. Still, the former Soviet bloc is hardly considered a beacon for democratic governance today.
The reason why revolutions do not produce stable democracies has less to do with the greed of revolutionary leaders than the nature of revolutions themselves. The rapid overhaul of political and socioeconomic orders—what Marx called the superstructure—will almost by definition need to overcome fierce resistance from those who have interests in the existing order, as well as those who have a different vision for the future. In nearly every case, this resistance can only be eliminated in the short term through violent means. Thus, one of the most common characteristics of modern revolutions is widespread bloodshed. Mao and Stalin, for instance, almost certainly killed more people while imposing their socioeconomic orders in China and Russia than died globally from World War II.
And this is why revolutions don’t produce liberal democracies. Societies torn apart by widespread violence and strife are hardly fertile grounds for democracy. For democracies to function over the long term there needs to be some shared consensuses among the major social, political, and economic actors in these countries. These necessary consensuses take time to develop and tend to only grow in relatively peaceful and stable societies. Thus, the strongest democracies today—including America’s—tended to come about as a result of evolutionary, not revolutionary, social and political change.
If the U.S. wants a world full of democracies, it must do a better job at formulating and sustaining long-term policies promoting evolutionary changes within societies, instead of holding out for widespread mass unrest to immediately replace authoritarian states with full-fledged democracies.
- 10092 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Democracy?
Do we need to go there?
pods
it seems so.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-29/caught-tape-suicide-bombing-russias-fifth-largest-train-station-kills-15-one-month-a#comment-4284395
question is : who wrote the memo that provided the nudge to go there?
Who needs a revolution when we've got HOPE & CHANGE !!!
The majority of Americans like revolutions because they themselves are revolting.
Encouraging revolutions to birth democracies and expand freedoms has been about as successful as the number of wars America has won in the last 70 years.
Them: AK's, RPG's and landmines
Us: An ever increasingly expensive, high technology, sophisticated, mechanized, airborne, electronic, military juggernaut the likes of which has never ever been seen before.
Scoreboard:
Them: Lots and lots, bunches and bunches, gobs and gobs
Us: zip, zilch, zero, nada, none, the null set, looser deluxe
Common sense result (sanity): Quit doing what don't work at all
Practical result (insanity): Kill the _______ or they'll end up eating our chillen'
Oh my, Knukies, oh my....
God, please help us, for we clearly cannot help ourself
We clearly need a goddamn revolution.
Brrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggh.
"...many Americans look favorably on revolutions today because America itself won its independence from England in a war that became known in the U.S. as the American Revolution."
The author gives too much intellectual credit to "many Americans". Many Americans do not know who the opposing forces were during the Revolutionary War and many more naturalized citizens could not care less.
The reason Americans are fascinated with other people's revolutions is the same reason they watch train wrecks on the news or rubber neck after a horrific auto accident. Morbid curiosity and shadenfreude, which allows many Americans to examine, if just for a fleeting moment, their own empty lives in an attempt to gain some perspective as to the state of their place in this world. And after such brief examination, they quickly return to their previous drone-like existence.
Revolutions diminish like the M&M gang, they melt in your mouth, but not in your hand.
Mao’s birthday seems like an apt time to ponder why Americans are so fascinated and supportive of revolutions.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao......you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow - John Lennon
Everyone wants revolution...not just Americans.
Stefan Molyneux (Canadian) with an open letter to Russell Brand (British)
http://www.planbeconomics.com/2013/10/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand-le...
I think Americans like revolutions because they have no fucking idea what it means.
Come on, it is so obviously born of the mythology built around the US revolution. When you visit France, Ireland, Cuba, Russia, you see the same state brainwashing.
I takes decades, even generations of direct hardship by statists to hunger for liberty.
Land of the Free and home of the Brave has to be fought for and earned. That Flag is still there. Take it, claim it and own it, Bitches.
When, during Honey Boo Boo commercials?
We are the change we were waiting for, it turns out, and so we want other peoples to just sorta wake up all at once, like we did watching Obama amongst the styrofoam grecoroman columns
If we like revolutions so much, then why aren't we having one here in the USSA yet?
NFL season doesn't end til Feb 2 . Then we'll talk , okay ?
But doesn't basketball season begin then?
And the presidential primaries, too!
Plus the new season of Twerking with the Epileptics starts
Knucks: Providing levity to our fucked up world, one post at a time.
Carry on.
Only 2 days on the calendar that a professional game is definitely not played ????
ANSWER. Day before and after the All Star Game.
You can fix a game, but not a race.
The American revolution was begun by people with means who wanted something different not just for themselves, but for humanity. Sadly, what they achieved failed and resorted to the old system of people with means versus everyone else.
Good job buying into the hilarious myths. It was never supported by the majority, it was led by a band of smugglers and bandits who were angry that LOWER taxes killed their profits.
I'd love to see examples of what you just said.
Lookie here LTER. Throughout history, men who understood liberty have always been few and far between, like today, but their bravery and blood loss has influenced and shaped what we take for granted. No one is entitled to anything, especially not you. Fairness is a fairy tale. Long live the queen (in clearwater), cause that wheel is comin round again.
Never read a Chinese history book comrade?
It's just before the part where Mao lead the long march from the front, machine gunning the capitalist lapdog KMT left and right, and charging machine gun nests single handed.
Gets me right there every time *wipes tear from eye*.
I just read a brief piece on the Boston Tea Party that collaborated that LTER. When the price of tea was reduced because people were not buying enough to support the higher price many people some soon to be rebels were caught with black market tea that was underwater. The book is where I read it, not here.
It was even more funny than that though. Here's the way trade had been flowing:
All goods were being routed through England, at which point a tax was levied on them, and the tax was passed on to the colonies. This tax had been imposed to help pay the cost of the French&Indian wars, which, obviously, the colonies should help pay for. HOWEVER, all the crazy whining and moaning about it as well famine in India resulted in a new deal where the trade was now direct, bypassing England, which skipped out on the tax as well as reducing costs. The trading company would then later pay a fee to England for this direct trade right, which was far less than the reduction in expenses resulting from the direct trade route. Smugglers who had been making a tidy profit off of black-market goods were now left holding the bag and had no way to compete, hence, the destruction of the tea in the harbor.
The wearing of native dress was not some "icon of freedom" or whatever bullshit is spewed in revisionist american myth. Plain and simple, the smugglers gained support for the act by trying to make it a twofer. You see, the British actually wanted to do this crazy thing where they kept agreements and treaties with the native tribes which had aided them in the F&I war. Primarily being a limit on colony expansion into their lands. Speculators didn't like this at all, not one fucking bit. The faster they genocided the natives and stole the land the better. The wearing of native dress was intended as some weird false-flag attack wherein they wanted to cause strife between the british and their native allies. This tactic obviously failed and turned into national myth.
Other fun sidenotes of history that are ignored. Those first settlers were a fun religious lot who had zero clue about farming or survival. They showed up, the native population already devastated by disease had abandoned many cities and fields. As in, they were planted and ready for harvest, stores of food were buried and good to go with no one to eat them. And they still starved and turned to cannibalism. They were more interested in digging up graves and caches of goods that had trade value than actually bothering to do anything for themselves. It had gotten to a point where there was a death penalty imposed on any settler who abandoned the colonies and "went native". Guess what? There were quite a few of em! Natives who changed sides however? Basically none. Livestock was allowed to roam freely and graze on native crops, any attempt to prevent it was deemed some casus belli and led to flat out genocide. Some tribes thought they would be smart and submit to "slavery" rather than being massacred. Unfortunately, their notion of slavery was that they would be integrated into the enemy's society, made to serve some basic needs and after some time, freed and allowed to be a part of it. NOPE, chattel slavery was the name of the game for the colonies. Well that and wholesale slaughter and exermination of peoples in their entirety.
Another fun game that was played by speculators was to venture off into native lands and establish "prayer towns" of converts. Pretty easy message to sell when word is getting around of all those massacres. For our american taliban friends, this caused a bit of an issue, it's harder to justify murdering "christians" than "heathens", so what you do instead is make compensation. The speculators of course negotiated the deals and made off with fortunes, then relocating their "congregation" to another patch. Rinse, wash repeat. Guess who was pissy about being limited in westward expansion?
The best part is that after these massacres, everyone gathered around to "thank god" for their success by consuming the stores of native supplies in a "Thanksgiving". There were many many of these "thanksgivings" until a single date was decided and codified, once again, ignoring fact in favor for preferable, more sanitary myth.
So, that's what america is built on. Greed, lies, criminals, theft, slavery and genocide, and a heaping helping of self-delusion and willful ignorance.
That is just... retarded. They gave us a system where we could control our destiny. Well, we controlled it by giving control to those who want to control us. Regardless of the failure of following generations, the founders did give us a system better than any other ever created.
The founders did not fail. The followers failed.
Tried - failed miserably.
Time to end the last reiteration of slavery: government.
Before the American Revolution, there was a Kingdom. United, if I'm not mistaken. I think they abbreviate it now to fool guys like you. They did not rule by choice of the ruled. They ruled by force.
The american revolution wasn't meant to be a one-time thing. It was meant to be ongoing and repeated often. we've just gotten comfortable in our pot of warming water.
And now we are being ruled by force again.
http://www.policestateusa.com/
Evolutionary nut shrinkage
Ok you go end government. I get the nukes, bio's, and chems. Then we can get back together and talk.
The genie is out of the bottle and it ain't going back in. Government is a must. The only way around that is the absolute complete destruction of every living being. While that would solve the problem it isn't a solution any of us could live with.
T'would be better to simply take back government, hang the traitors (thousands) and clean up the Constitution.
Is it the revolutions or the killing..........??
I know exactly why. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Communism looks good when you're not happy with your capitalism.
How 'bout no central controling entity. No isms just leave us the fuck alone. We don't need "leaders".
If the U.S. wants a world full of democracies
It would do well to start at home. But that would be like the NSA respecting the constitution and stopping its infinite spying on US citizens. That's about as likely as Obama speaking the truth.
Can a democracy exist without privacy and freedom?
US has no functioning democracy - Jimmy Carter, July 17, 2013
Breaking story
http://rt.com/news/russia-volgograd-trolley-blast-957/
Yes, it's really funny to watch the process, as the U.S. authorities are building a model of the classic military-police dictatorship of fascism at home in America, for (under the pretext of) "protect and promote the values of democracy over all country of the world!". LOL
Worse than that: freedom.
Democracy does not figure in the basic law of the land for the very good reasons explained by the founders at the time. We are not meant to be a democracy because democracy always, always devolves into tyranny. We are a representative republic meant to have self limiting central government and absolute, natural rights not subject to whims of even pretty big majorities of the people.
"natural rights not subject to whims of even pretty big majorities of the people."
But natural rights, which subject to the any whim of single real ruling party in the U.S. - is the party of big capital.
If "We are not meant to be a democracy because democracy always, always devolves into tyranny", why you use interference in the internal affairs of other countries and military force, to impose democracy on other countries of the world?
For the sole ruling party in the USA (the party of big capital) - it is certainly very convenient. I mean imposed by force democracy in all countries, which "always, always devolves into tyranny" and operated pocket U.S. dictators, is not it?
Could'a fooled me.
It would be nice to have a republic in the U.S., never mind elsewhere.
"Despite its name, however, the American Revolution was not a revolution. At most, it was a war of national liberation."
If national liberation means releasing the shackles of the currency of the UK and the intrinsic taxes that came with it to borrow said currency, then OK. Else, not buying the definition.
Mark Twain describes why we're here again. Moreso does Lord John Dalberg-Acton.
The UK had no Constitution then and still does not. The American revolution explicitly rejected that in favor of laying down natural rights and limits to government.
''If the U.S. wants a world full of democracies, it must do a better job at formulating and sustaining long-term policies promoting evolutionary changes within societies, instead of holding out for widespread mass unrest to immediately replace authoritarian states with full-fledged democracies.''
this is BullShit.......the US does not want a world full of democracies.....it wants the exact opposite.......
The United Consolidated Holdings of Goldman Sachs of Merica
UCHGSM
Gesundheit
I just logged in to say exactly that, but it seems you beat me to the punch.
Democracy leads to tyranny, so no, we don't want democracies anywhere. We want representative republics everywhere.
"We want representative republics everywhere".
You mean the "We want U.S. colonies everywhere"?
it must do a better job at formulating and sustaining long-term policies promoting evolutionary changes within societies
But but but... thirty, forty, fifty years ago... that was the (bipartisan) policy the US had for a long time. Softly, softly, trying to influence and not alienate our Authoritarian friends, bending their moral universe towards justice, one aid package and diplomatic ass covering at a time, while holding fast against our Totalitarian enemies. Jeane Kirkpatrick et al. Actually seemed to work well in some cases (South Korea, Taiwan, Chile) and not so well in others (Philippines, Iran).
And this policy was universally derided by Right Thinking People Everywhere ®
Because that's what they do. They deride what the United States does.
So I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes on that topic because it's the biggest waste going.
I don't regret the fact that my country seems to be pulling the mask off and behaving ruthlessly in its own interest. Whatever. China/Russia/Iran/Cuba/Nicaragua - romantic revolutionary nation du jour - whatever has the fancy of this decade's hipster humanists - they are all fabulous nations. And they can all go fuck themselves. Memo to world - you will get your wish - we are so done with you and your fucking drama. Which is about to get a lot more dramatic. Not because we are the nasty hegemon, but precisely because are vacating that role.
My only regret is that the powers that be in this country seem to have no fucking clue as to what their geopolitical interests really are.
We are vacating that role because entitlements are eating the budget, and will consume the entire thing very soon. And yeah, exactly right, things will get a whole lot more dramatic as the USA retreats from its mission in the collapsing world order.
It reminds them of the times when they actually had a dick, instead of Darth Vader doll running on Energizer?
Exactly.
No, most of the world thinks with their dick, and when he goes away (for any reason), the whole day goes to hell in a hand basket. Cause he designs things the way he feels, and the worse he feels, the more he want to make you feel bad physcially or financially. And over time we proved he has no other way to feel but mad & bad ergo the consequences of higher prices from return on investment become the status quo. All because he thinks with his dick and not with his mind.
I let my Penis do all of the big thinking for me.
Nobody "loves" a revolution. People hate taking shit. Shit is increasing. Hence, revolution talk is en vogue. A revolution means that's shit has gotten so bad, political methods have failed. As a father, that's worrisome to say the least.
Well, the people here watching others involved in a revolution on TV do.
But think about what would happen if one were kicked off here. We are not logistically equipped to wage a revolution if the other side were committed to total war. If I were in charge of crushing a revolution here and my heart was actully in it to the point of win at all costs, I would start cutting off food and electricity. Most people have no clue where their last meal originated, much less how to produce a meal from seed and animal. I wouldn't be worried about the MRAP/body armor vs civilian firarms angle, as we know what an insurgency can do to us. I would be worried about simple logistics of the organic variety. Of course, logistical issues work both ways, but everybody needs food, and if you cut off electricity, you force everybody to congregate around water sources.
way too complicated and disruptive. cut communication. power on, water on, food in the stores. and nobody has a clue. baaaaah...
If America was true to its history, it would be supporting revolutions to establish Constitutional Republics, not democracies.
It is the counter revolutionaries that support revolutions to establish democracies.
And that, ladies, is why it is all FUBAR.
If America was true to its history we would be conquering the globe with worthless currency, immorality, and killing of anyone with an ideology other than our own..........
You should listen to the guy above you Lunatic. It seems you were "bit" by the endless propaganda and don't understand what it means to be an American. I don't blame you, the BS has been everywhere for so long that it's very difficult to discern the truth. This self loathing applies not only to you, but to all of the West.
Only to the useful idiots at the Diplomat would Mao's birthday spark a conversation about America's love of revolution (it's really only love for the original American revolution and, perhaps, the upcoming one). It seems as if the intent is to dissuade rather than educate.
Munch, munch .. look honey, there is a revolution on TV ... fart
They wanna be like us, munch, munch...
fart... yes, they hate us because we are free... munch, munch, fart
I call Bullshit.
Americans 'love' Revolutions the same way they love anything else on Cable: 57 channels and nothin' on. Any titillation will do.
Flakes, flakes! In every shop on the coast. I swear to God they got the most. California's got a host of them, I swear they got the most of them...
I knew you'd be surprised!
Broken hearts are for assholes. Whatcha gonna do?
Only 57 channels!?!?! call Cablevision, we've lost most of our TV feed
Why should anyone with a brain want a democracy?
People with brains are always in the minority.
Democracy gave us Hitler, Mussolini, several terrorist regimes in the ME, thugs in Venezuela and Argentina, and monsters all over Africa.
And slavery here.
A republic founded on the idea of individual rights is what the Founders gave us and what we need to return to.
"A republic founded on the idea of individual rights is what the Founders gave us and what we need to return to."
Bing-FUCKING-O
One of the Tylers likes posting this guest-authored neo-con dreck from time to time; I don't know why.
Stuff like this piece from Thediplomat.com is so full of Orwellian doublespeak - like "liberal democracy," "promoting evolutionary change," "national liberation movements" - that it makes my head spin.
revolution? wake me up when it's over
I've been in the USA for 30 long years and never ever remember Americans fighting for something worthwhile except on Black Friday!
If we had the guns in Europe we'd actually use it!
LMFAO. The only thing europeans would fight for is more State welfare benefits. They've become weak and decadent (it's the reason their women are never satisfied). Their "belief" that they're superior is laughable. They'll all be speaking Arabic sooner than later.
Ssssshhhh... don't rock the apple cart... but uh... most European countries' gun laws are far more permissive than the average MSM-watching shmo believes and most Europeans are aware of.
So how should I put this... you have the guns... and don't even know it.
Long live the revolutiion.
A technological revolution can and will give birth to democracy.
Oligarchs are headed the way of the dinosaur. Their extinction is required for de-centralization. Only massive communications and collaborative innovative approachs will lead us to a position to effectively combat current and future challenges. Oligarchs and central planning are leading the world to destruction. They will go. We just don't know when.
I like Revolutions. One side likes to wear costumes. The other side , not so much.
The French have a long history of confrontation with their government. The same can be said for some other countries, but Americans are really lacking in this respect. No confrontation, and even plenty of fools who view dissenters with aversion.
Americans—particularly American elites—are predisposed to generally support revolutionary movements.
Because American elites are phony, double-thinking, self-loathing assholes. Read "Radical Chic and the Mau Mau Flakcatchers" by Tom Wolfe and it all becomes clear.
It starts when you are always afraid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0xmd4YRbpA
Buffalo Springfield (What's that Sound?)
Very relevant bunny..
Make no mistake, the women are frightened. So are the children. Are you men frightened too?
Whaaa?
A song about unhappy rock & roll fans who staged a mini-riot at the closure of a Sunset Strip club and the cops who pushed the kids out of the street to keep the road open?
Meh. Rather youthfully bombastic lyrics to describe a less than minor event.
Such things become legends when the reality is far different.
But it did come in handy later on when Mayor Daley made the shit get real for the '68 DNC.
Fletcher: Damn you, Senator. You promised me those men would be decently treated.
Senator Lane: They were decently treated. They were decently fed and then they were decently shot. Those men are common outlaws, nothing more.
You can only take so much. Back a human being who may also be a mother or a father into a corner and their blood boils and anger at injustice goes off the charts, find a group of them, a town, a state, a nation of them, and it's time to rumble because that state is an impossible one to continue (we need our sleep).
If the natives are not happy, no one is happy. Rich cats who think who stand before us and tell us this is for our own good, should have presented family planning 100 years ago, when they decided to seize the world (never again) and call it their own, design it as they wish, as if they owned the world. It doesn't work that way. It never has and it never will. But let them continue to push their agenda onto the masses, who have been medicated and educated into useless eaters, allowed to breed freely and rewarded for it, on the day the checks fail to arrive. The nicest homes on the block, in the city, in the state and in teh nation will be ashes when this is over. Don't let them say they were not warned. Winning by laying traps all the while insisting to assist in solving the problem created by same is just dirty low down tactic that weak men resort to out of resentment and envy.
Finally someone has figured out how to solve the problem of the 1%
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/28/22085685-great-granddaught...
"Carry on my wayward son,
For there'll be peace when you are done."
Kansas
Why?
Because every once in a while, the house needs to be cleaned out.
What is happening behind the scenes in many of the intelligence services and American military, is, they are as hot as hornets in a lightning storm, and who can blame them all. How about that Benghazi thing? Leaving Americans to die? No one left behind? The lower stones on the pyramid are pulling out the inner stones to soon bring down the apex and capstone of the babylonian goons that have long to long run the whole thing into the ground. Men of real Stone are Standing Upright Now to Do the Right-up thing.:
Yeppers, soon comes house cleaning and the commie socialists that think they have power today, may wake up some morrow and realize they are all under arrest for high treason and other high high crimes against the Unites States of America. What to do in a coup?
Calling all hands on deck. Every one is integral. Each snow flake in a storm makes it a storm, and every one is unique and integral. The snow storm would not be a snow storm, without one single snowflake. Truly, all are One. Do your good works when the time comes. When? Ask your heart.
Meanwhile, babylon bush nazi's plan another false flag event. Besides the rapidly escalating horrid three china sydroms in fukushima, lets all also watch the Madrid fault line for HAARP created ground activity and disturbances.
Bleep bleep bleep...warning Will Robinson warning...False Flag Alert!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH9zG28GQEg
This post is disengenious, ahistorical and absurd in both the premises and in its explication. Idiots.
Thank God this rediculous article wasn't a Durden piece. It struck me as off-point, and off-premise. To see that the .gov hasn't supported Democracy for at least a generation, all one need do is look at our track record of endless wars of agression, and the tyrants and dictators we've installed/done business with. Our elites only support enough "democracy" to keep the society under control until they've robbed everything.
And really, where does the author get the idea that Americans support revolutions? Does he mean the press? The war machine? Who here supports violence and agression? Nonsense.
The ancient Greeks invented democracy . Demos and Krat - is words in Greek means "people" and "power." That is - the power of the people .
But the problem is that each nation has its own traditions , its own culture and its own mentality. Therefore , American democracy - is the power of the American people. And for example French democracy - is the power of the French people.
We often see that the United States, with the help of color revolutions or military force, sets in other countries "American democracy."
What does "American democracy " in another country in the world? This means the power of the American people, over the people of this country. In essence, this means the colonization of this country.
Thus, under the pretext of spreading democracy , the United States regularly conduct aggressive colonial wars around the world.
But what is war?
- War - an act of seizure of foreign resources.
Who pays for the war?
- During the war always pay ordinary people - citizens of warring states.
Who profits from war ?
- Profit from war always gets the ruling class of the country , which is the winner. That is - the narrow circle of persons from the one ruling party U.S. - from the party of big capital.
Conclusion: Any war - is a way for the super-rich , to collect money from their people, plus from people of other country, and then take all this money in the their big pockets.
Anyone of ordinary citizens the U.S. began to live richer as a result of the war in Iraq? Or the war in Afghanistan? Or from the war in Libya?
Of course not. From all of these wars, the lives of ordinary citizens of the USA have become only worse off and poorer.
But in the U.S. there are people who have become much richer from all these wars, what was paid from the pockets ordinary American citizens not only their money, but their blood too.
I think that "American democracy", it is a perfect myth and perfect opportunity for a small ruling class of super-rich people, endlessly and without any limitation, to rob their own people and the peoples of any other country.
The US is not a "Democracy". There is not even a "right to vote", as that franchise is given by the individual states, who may simply appoint electors without a popular vote (see McPherson v. Blacker). If the franchise is given by the states, then no one can be denied the franchise based on race, sex or age. Certainly one can grasp the fact that if there is no "right to vote" then there is no "democracy."
Statists have used the supposed "right to vote" as a way to undermine the Republic, by making sure that Senators are elected rather than appointed by the state (17th Amendment--- enacted the same year as the Federal Reserve Act), thereby reducing the power of the states; giving women the "right to vote", thereby separating and neutralizing the family unit (19th Amendment); allowing 18 year olds to vote (26th Amendment)-- thereby introducing the young stupid and easily duped into the voting pool; and alowing the seat of government (DC District) to appoint electors (24th Amendment), thereby giving the "government" a vote for itself.
Statists figured out that they could undermine the Constitution, and basically void it by Amendment.
The US is a Republic (or was), based on a rule of law, which is the Constitution, The framers understood that 75% of the population were morons, and did not want everyone to vote.
Democracy is "Tyranny of the majority", and the majority are idiots.
The American Revolution was promulgated by the 'local' Colonial 'aristocracy' and leadership who resented Britain trying to reclaim their authority over the 13 Colonies - authority they had been lax in exercising during the French and Indian Wars.
The Colonial leadership wished to move the borders of their lands westward - in violation of the treaties Britain had signed with the natives (treaties they attempted to abide by). Many of the Colonial leaders were involved in land sales schemes and stood to profit greatly if they could legally expand westward. Other local leaders were deeply involved in smuggling.
The American 'Revolution' was not a true revolution but a formalization of what had become the status quo - with the local powers asserting their control instead of ceding power back to a distant King. Great debate and philisophical thought went into the form of the government they established but their efforts were clearly an effort to protect THEIR interests from both a powerful central government and from the chaos of the mob.
Voting went to the propertied, not the masses.
Prior to the civil war Americans didn't vote in federal elections. The general population had no involvement in the federal government and the federal government had no involvement in the general population.
There was no federal tax of any kind for the general population. Federal taxes were paid by state governments and voting in federal elections was done by state governments via senators and congressmen appointed by state governments.
There was no federal taxes on the general population and no federal benefits for the general population. The federal government had no involvement with the general population. People were citizens of the state they lived in, not citizens of the federal government.
The federal government was merely a "contractor" providing certain services to state governments, like national defense.
That was the republic established by the Constitution. Actually it wasn't the Constitution. It was the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution simply created a "contractor" of sorts, providing services to the states they could not do themsevles in a practical sense, like national defense, and carved out a small territory for this "contractor" to reside in, aka Washington DC.
The republic was overthrown in the civil war. The "contractor" rose up and conquered the states, becoming the new supreme national government.
The "contractor" was pretty smart. They didn't have to hire foreign mercenaries to conquer the states. They figured out how to get state citizens to do it. They came up with a good cover story to motivate state citizens to fight for them. The cover story was slavery, or doing away with slavery. And it worked.
The real purpose for the civil war was conquering the states and establishing a new supreme national government. And that's what happened.
There never was any formal declaration of it. It happened without any formal annoncement of it.
But we know it happened by the stream of constitutional changes that followed. The general population started voting in federal elections, stripping that power away from state governments. State governments lost their authority to appoint senators and congressmen, now it was by vote of the general population, who were now citizens of the new supreme national government. Later on came federal taxes on the general population. Then came federal benefits for the general population.
Some say the Constitution ended with the civil war. But I'm not sure that's the case. Prior to the civil war Congress had full authority over Washington DC, without any constitutional limitations. No, the Constitution didn't apply in Washington DC. Congress could make any law they wanted to make for Washington DC. It says that right in the Constitution.
After the civil war their unlimited authority over Washington DC expanded over the entire nation. Because the states were now conquered "subjects" of the federal government.
Did the Bill of Rights end too? That question is still debated. Did the Bill of Rights apply in Washington DC prior to the civil war, even though other constitutional limitations didn't? Does it still apply over the entire nation after the civil war?
Bottom line, the republic created by the Articles of Confederation ended with the civil war, because that's when the sovereignty of the states ended. They were conquered in the civil war, and lost their sovereign power over the federal government, which became the new supreme national government.
There never was any formal announcement of it. But the stream of constitutional changes after the civil war proves it.
I'm surprsied so few "patriots" know these things. They claim great knowledge of the Constitution, but they show amazing ignorance of what happened to it during and after the civil war. They still believe states are sovereign over the federal government, when they clearly aren't.
And here's the funniest thing. Many think you're not a "patriot" if you don't pay "your federal taxes".
Clueless idiots. They don't even realize federal taxes are proof we have a national government now.
And by the way, that Constitution they claim so much knowledge of says a grass-roots revolt is an insurrection, and it's illegal.
For a revolt to be legal, follow the Constitution, it must be initiated by state governments after formal decree of intent to dissolve the federal government or secede from the union and become separate nations. That formal decree must happen first, and the various state governments participating must lead the revolt under state military command.
No such decree has come forth, and no such decree will come forth in the future, because the states don't have that authroity anymore. They were conquered in the civil war.
I am often amused by statists who villianize a federal government (and rightfully) but who think that the shit of state governments smells like ice cream.
" giving women the "right to vote", thereby separating and neutralizing the family unit (19th Amendment);"
Yes, women should be kept barefoot, silent, prevented from owning property in their own name, submissive, and pregnant, and any other alternative threatens the family structure. A true anti-statist finds a state government almost as offensive as the federal government.
BTW, you forget to mention how the 13th and 14th amendments abolishing slavery and involuntary servatude undermined the moral structure of the republic. / sarc
MickV, that was a damned concise response. Brilliant.
When Mao assumed power in China, the nationalist soldiers on one side of the street crossed over to the other side of the street and the communist soldiers crossed to the side the nationalists occupied.
The Nationalists and the communists fought together to wrest the Chinese northern coastal lands from Japanese control.
For a U.S. revolution to succeed their would have to be a cornerstone of reason on which to build that which would replace what is. Initially it was the U.S. Constitution (and I would add declaration of independence).
Since for all intents and purposes the U.S. constitution is dead and the U.S. masses to divided on the shape of it's rebirth, I would say we are fucked.
Zero hedge comments section as a microcosmic example. Populated by many intelligent commenters who I doubt could come up with a unified cogent plan on how to reinstate the constituion in a manner that that could be agreed upon.
Might be interesting to try as a site exercise.
Easy.
Equally applied lawful governance.
Sound money controlled by the citizenry.
Death penalty for influence buying or selling.
Toss in a few odds and ends here and there, but that would pretty much get the job done.
Cops don't need tanks. Real bad idea.
I agree. A more likely scenario would be multiple types of government. I doubt the United States would be united anymore.
I don't want a revolution in the USA. Most Americans are too dependent on the system and totally unprepared for any disruption.
Its because they are largely unimformed and un educated
amerikans didnt want "arab spring"... it was secretly plotted over a 3 year period via a series of secret white house meetings with terrorists and their reps... to support the muslim brotherhood, the organization that obama's brother and ayman al zawahiri (also #1 al queda leader) belong to. ayman al zawahiri also called for retaliation for the drone death of Abu Yahya al-Libi and that was carried out on the ussa ambassador in benghazi.. ta is what obumbler is trying to cover up... that plus the arming and support for al queda in syria.. and support for iran... all mortal enemies of israel and the ussa... thus treason.
It doesn't get much more destabilized than having a revolution. So, yes; the US government likes revolutions in other countries. On the other hand the citizens have been taught (brainwashed) that things are just about perfect here in the "states".
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste."
I would add a one term limit to all politicians, a no-party system, completely unlimited gun rights and absolute property rights.