1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

I Respect the Rebellion

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Irishone21, Nov 7, 2007.

  1. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    Although I advocate Revolution, doesn't it seem as if rebellion is the only way to trigger this? Civilians in America are not disposed to violence, so the best way to rebel would be to do nothing. To stay home, think, and write about what you want changed. Unity would help, but is this really possible? Haven’t they deterred all leadership with their technological capabilities? Filtered emails, restricted Internet access, tapped phones, to name a few.

    The government basically tries, whether unconsciously or not, to turn individuals against themselves and each other, causing them to compete or in some cases abdicate to a supposed illness, where in which he/she would be compelled to go to meetings with other passive men in disgruntled submission to the government, not the drugs or alcohol, the escapes from the society the government has created. Maybe an indolent rebellion may be a means to achieving further unity, for after the government realizes that acting as ruler entices rebellion as oppose to enforces subjugation or conformity, they will start to change, for otherwise, they will reap no benefits. The government satisfies with conformity, because people love equality. The government doesn't realize, or neglect the fact that conformity is not brotherhood, and it is the equality in which humanity should fear, not tolerate. It is almost impossible to unite, for the people are blind, exhausted, content, or apathetic. The time it takes to convince one person is too long in itself, and considering technology, although it is the last hope to democracy, enervates democracy, and causes isolative lifestyles, or a nation full of hermits, with similar beliefs, yet divisive all the same, attempting to unite a nation is as foolish as moving to Iraq, in preppy clothing without weaponry, seeking understanding of the people, in an attempt to reconcile hatreds. Yeah, both admirable, but is this not the actions of a martyr?

    Now, instead of realizing the status of our country is the result of a deceptive, obscure government and contemplating and pursuing means to change it, we accept it, believing it is an unchangeable fact of life, as if human nature is implacable and leadership is a meaningless effort that yields temporary results. Should we really abdicate to this theory? Are we all dogs obedient to our masters? I don't think we should hate the government, but we should prove to them that their tactics are not effective, and refuse to be compliant until changes are made. We all know the changes our country needs. Even our government knows of solution, but government officials are so rational, so caught up in the game of politics, that each person who works for the government becomes excessively irrational, as if the word of man, and the consequence of all historical events, were absolute causal events that depend on nothing but the actions, and not the time.

    It is not difficult to understand the common good. Complex issues require votes, but in regards to merging dichotomies, cooperating, and standing against war, all of this is mandatory. Even in the face of adversity we should be able to stand against war and hatred, and instead of instigating a war, or advancing impudently into a catastrophic hegemonic downfall called imperial oversight, we should try to understand why we have enemies. We must be empathetic and understand the intentions of the opposition. We may condemn the action, but we must not condemn the person, or the cause. Instead of destroy; teach, love, amend and repair. The majority calls me irrational and naive just as the majority calls Muslims animals and terrorist. My question is, are they just expressing their hatred for us, or are they only revealing their dissatisfaction with themselves? One usually insults someone when he or she recognizes a flaw in him or her in which he or she once had, and most likely despised. When this person observes this action, or when he or she is confronted by this action, the action sparks anger and triggers displacement, which results in a mirror image clouded with contemptuous observations of one another. I'm a victim of the cognitive distortion myself, but I'm honest about it. Some may say our government is the best in the spotlight, but I speak for the both of us, when I say our government is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    American is not a superpower; she is a nation full of prisoners. Our economic status, military power, technology, history, and institutions do not leave us on top, and claiming the do, would reassure us of our ignorance. Our money makes us susceptible to corruption and indolence. On the brighter side, the paradox of plenty may also imply an altruistic heart, for those with too much are inundated, and only relieved by giving. Wise altruism anticipates, prepares, and causes reciprocation, not ungratefulness, or loss of respect. With that in mind, what I suggest is not necessarily altruism; it is the neutrality between egotism and altruism, which is precisely the key to cooperation and leadership.

    We need to make drastic changes in our mentalities and policies, and procedures to bring about change within nations, in order to solve problems. Lawmakers feel compelled to continue to make laws, but they shun their responsibility of limiting or eradicating laws. The legislative branch must at least have the intentions of limiting or eliminating law that has passed into legislation. The legislative branch needs to communicate more with the people. They need to do this passionately, and emotionally. They must provide more incentives. Such as, if these crimes decrease, the law will become more lenient. Basically, the legislative branch must give the people a chance to earn the trust they deserve. The government does not deserve our trust, nor do we deserve theirs, that is why this must be an effort of both sides. The president needs to put his ego aside, and emulate his people, by adapting the best understanding of morality once it arises. He basically needs to work with everyone, as the face of democracy. He must represent the people and as Plato would call it, “the good” not himself. What is divinely correct is preeminent to what is politically correct. The only time the president is obliged to implement his personal power is when the people fail to understand morality. Only when the president discovers and understands what is best for society, is he/she allowed to pursue his/her personal interest. If the president demands something that coincides with the Will of God, we must abide and respect his/he decision even if we feel it may entail precarious risks. Forcing a nation to invade another country is a decision the congress must approve of, and hopefully, the congress is one with the people, which would make this a democratic practice, not that of an oligarchy. If the people demand military withdrawal, or reformation, they must be granted their wish.

    Separation of church and state keeps government out of religion and religion out of government, but not spirituality and identity out of politics. If politics and God are completely separate, conflict, devolution and/or dissolution will become inevitable. If this is the case, politics will become an empty and corrupt practice, while God will be misconstrued, ignored and fantasized or idolized, rather than revered and worshiped. For the courageous that held onto his/her enlightenment, he/ she will be incessantly mocked, disparaged, and judged by the majority, which usually, will isolate or expatriate him/her from society. These unfortunate circumstances will increase the pressure for the faithful, and overwhelm the stress he or she must bear to maintain his/her faith and responsibility. What I am describing is the prelude to dark ages. The people must be awakened!

    The government must seek to unite people, not divide them. The government must seek to help society, not hurt society. The government must seek to amend rivalries, not fuel them.

    One may research biblical philosophy and say vengeance is not condemned. I agree with this. But I also must make it understood that in no way, shape, or form is vengeance condoned. Revenge is a privilege, like free will, which has costs. Justice by man is achieved not by condemnation, or violence, or judgment but by righteousness and clemency. We can say something is wrong, but not someone is wrong. Justice is an act of God, which is far more powerful and lasting than any vengeance man can inflict.

    An exile without prejudice is a hero destined for leadership. This is the return of The Prince; Machiavellian is the past; the future we can only hope to understand. I speak to the government and the people. I will not beg for acceptance, only welcome adherence.

    Sincerely,

    Zachary Scott McBride
     
  2. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    I can't ****ing edit... that is so anoying. I also realize this is a process, not just an automatic switch. I realize that innocence may be the only thing capable of destroying innocence. Don't take my words out of context. We must move toward the good.
     
  3. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    Although I advocate Revolution, doesn't it seem as if rebellion is the only way to trigger this? Civilians in America are not disposed to violence, so the best way to rebel would be to do nothing, right? In other words, we should all stay home, think, and write about what we want changed. Unity would help, but is this really possible? Hasn't the government deterred all leadership with her technological capabilities? Filtered emails, restricted Internet access, tapped phones, to name a few.

    The government basically tries, whether unconsciously or not, to turn individuals against themselves and each other, causing them to compete or in some cases abdicate. An example of this is when people submit to a supposed illness, where in which he/she is compelled to go to meetings with other passive men in disgruntled submission to the government, not the drugs or alcohol, the escapes. Maybe an indolent rebellion may be a means to achieving unity down the road, for after the government realizes that acting as ruler entices rebellion as oppose to enforces subjugation or conformity, they will start to change, for otherwise, they will reap no benefits. The government satisfies with conformity, because people love equality. The government doesn't realize, or neglects the fact that conformity is not brotherhood, and conformity is the equality in which humanity should fear, not tolerate. It is almost impossible to unite under these circumstances, for the people are blind, exhausted, content, and/or apathetic. The time it takes to convince one person is too long in itself, and considering technology, although it is the last hope to democracy, enervates democracy, and causes isolative lifestyles, or a nation full of hermits, we might as well be our own leaders. In America, we have loners, escapist, and members of cliques or exclusive groups. We all have similar beliefs, but we remain divided over issues that require a vote. Attempting to unite a nation is as foolish as moving to Iraq, in preppy clothing without weaponry, seeking understanding of the people, in an attempt to reconcile hatreds. Yeah, both admirable, but are these not the actions of a martyr?

    Now, instead of realizing the status of our country is the result of a deceptive, corrupt government and contemplating and pursuing means to change it, we accept it, believing it is an unchangeable fact of life, as if human nature is implacable and leadership is a meaningless effort that yields temporary results. Should we really abdicate to this theory? Are we all dogs obedient to our masters? I don't think we should hate the government, but we should prove to them that their tactics are not effective. The last resort is to refuse to be compliant until changes are made. Staying home is not necessarily sacrificing value, so the means will not stigmatize the ends, which is a good thing. However, even this requires unity. What other choices do we have? Should an individual do something extreme like chain himself outside the whitehouse, with a written reformation at hand, and refuse to do anything until he gets attention? Would he still be ignored? Should it be a hostage situation prearranged in which fishes government attention, and makes demands that will be heard nationally that will hopefully have a domino effect, in which people will finally build up the courage to demand government reformation, restoration of value and change? We all know the changes our country needs. Even our government is aware of possible solution, but government officials are so rational, so fearful, so caught up in the game of politics, that each person who works for the government becomes excessively irrational, as if the word of man, and the consequence of all historical events were absolute truth. Philosophy changes with time, so words spoken in the past, may not apply to the present. History does not involve absolute causal events that depend on nothing but actions. History, like past philosophy, is guidance. Both should not be ignored, nor should either be made objective.

    It is not difficult to understand the common good. Complex issues require votes, but merging dichotomies, cooperating, and standing against war are things we should all do without question. They are mandatory. Competition is for games, not work. If there must be competition in work, that shouldn't mean those at a lesser level of functionality must live enslaved in privation. War is also a game, like chess. If man must go to war, he must first attempt all peaceful resolutions. Personally, I'd rather be purely defensive with value, than aggressively offensive without value. Even in the face of adversity we should be able to stand against war and hatred, and instead of instigating a war, or advancing impudently into a catastrophic hegemonic downfall called imperial oversight, we should try to understand why we have enemies. We must be empathetic and understand the intentions of the opposition. We may condemn the action if it is in fact, wrong or sinful, but we must not condemn the person, or the cause. Instead of destroy; we must teach, love, amend and repair. If we expose others, we must make sure we ourselves, are naked.

    The majority calls me irrational and naive just as the majority calls Muslims animals and terrorist. My question is, is the majority just expressing its hatred for us? One tends to insult someone when he or she recognizes a flaw in him or her in which he or she once had or currently has, and most likely despises. When this person observes this action, or when he or she is confronted by this action, this action causes anger and triggers displacement, which results in a mirror image clouded with contemptuous observations. I'm a victim of this cognitive distortion myself, but I'm honest about it. Some may say our government is the best in the spotlight, but I speak for the both of us, when I say our government is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    American is not a superpower; she is a nation full of prisoners and avaricious capitalist? At least this is the way it appears... Our economic status, military power, technology, history, and institutions do not leave us on top, and claiming they do, would reassure us of our ignorance. Our money makes us susceptible to corruption and indolence. On the brighter side, the paradox of plenty may also imply an altruistic heart, for those with too much are inundated, and only relieved by giving. Wise altruism anticipates, prepares, and causes reciprocation, not ungratefulness, or loss of respect. With that in mind, what I suggest is not necessarily altruism; it is the neutrality between egotism and altruism, which is precisely the key to cooperation and leadership.

    We need to make drastic changes in our mentalities and policies, and procedures to bring about change within nations, in order to solve problems. Lawmakers feel compelled to continue to make laws, but they shun their responsibility of limiting or eradicating laws. The legislative branch must at least have the intentions of limiting or eliminating law that has passed into legislation. The legislative branch needs to communicate more with the people. They need to do this passionately, and emotionally. People tend to follow emotions, so we must be weary of the emotions we express. They must provide more incentives. Such as, if these crimes decrease, the law will become more lenient. Basically, the legislative branch must give the people a chance to earn the trust they deserve. The government does not deserve our trust, nor do we deserve theirs, that is why this must be an effort of both sides. The president needs to put his ego aside, and emulate his people, by adapting the best understanding of morality once it arises. He basically needs to work with everyone, as the face of democracy. He must represent the people and as Plato would call it, "the good" not himself. What is divinely correct is preeminent to what is politically correct. The only time the president is obliged to implement his personal power is when the people fail to understand morality. If the president demands something that coincides with the Will of God, we must abide and respect his/her decision even if we feel it may entail precarious risks. Forcing a nation to invade another country is a decision the congress must approve of, and hopefully, the congress is one with the people, which would make this a democratic practice, not that of an oligarchy. If the people demand military withdrawal, or reformation, they must be granted their wish, if they are not, civil disobedience is a matter of moral responsibility.

    Separation of church and state keeps government out of religion and religion out of government, but not spirituality and identity out of politics. If politics and God are completely separate, conflict, devolution and/or dissolution will become inevitable. If this is the case, politics will become an empty and corrupt practice, while God will be misconstrued, ignored and fantasized or idolized, rather than revered and worshiped. For the courageous that held onto his/her enlightenment, he/ she will be incessantly mocked, disparaged, and judged by the majority, which usually, will isolate or expatriate him/her from society. These unfortunate circumstances will increase the pressure for the faithful, and overwhelm the stress he or she must bear to keep his/her faith and responsibility. These events will lead to dark ages. The people must be awakened!

    The government must seek to unite people, not divide them. The government must seek to help society, not hurt society. The government must seek to amend rivalries, not fuel them.
     
  4. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    One may research biblical philosophy and say vengeance is not condemned. I agree with this. But I also must make it understood that in no way, shape, or form is vengeance condoned. Revenge is a privilege, like free will, which has costs. Justice by man is achieved not by condemnation, or violence, or judgment but by righteousness and clemency. We may say something is wrong, but not someone is wrong. Justice is an act of God, which is far more powerful and lasting than any vengeance man can inflict.

    An exile without prejudice is a hero destined for leadership. This is the return of The Prince; Machiavellian is the past; the future we can only hope to understand. I speak to the government and the people. I will not beg for acceptance, only welcome adherence and support.

    Sincerely,

    Zachary Scott McBride
     
  5. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    somebody get this guy a girl
     
  6. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ArmChair, I'm definitely not a fan of your little 1-liners and can easily see myself banning you in the near future for them. That said, after looking at four posts-worth of text, this line was damn funny.
     
  7. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Jarhead, you managed to read the whole thing? When I scrolled down I gave it up then.

    That being said ,Irishone, great posts buddy. Sharp ideas and I enjoy the drive you show in these posts. The idealism portrayed in remarkable. If humanity could only go back and change a few key things. The world would be a different place.
     
  8. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    I couldn't edit, so I posted the same thing a few times (read 3-5 only)... sorry to hear you couldn't read it all... I’m a little disheartened, but it is ok. Idealism sounds so derogatory, so does buddy... Realism is irrational... ****ing labels, they are not help... I would love a girl, but I have high standards. If it means anything to you, I found this thread boring myself, but I don't think it’s worthless. I think my manifestos are very significant, and even I don’t know where I get the thoughts. Sometimes what needs to be said is rather boring and unmoving. I don't appeal to the reader. Plus, I wasn't pissed off, so the angry, emotional hatred people are so drawn to doesn't apply here. There is not much color in this, for there is not much going on in my life right now. Regardless, I have a responsibility to write these... call it a job with no pay. If the government does not know me, and all of my beliefs they are not doing their job. I should be on the inside by now... War pacifists are feared, not revered... the flouting is a defense mechanism. I would "chill out," but weed is illegal and drug dealers are not consistent.

    Peace.
     
  9. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    Bunz... it is not aboud changing the past, it is about correcting the present, which is what I'm basically trying to do. I can't change the world alone...
     
  10. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    Do any of you stop to think that I was chosen for a reason?
     
  11. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    if armchair was banned I think I'd miss him...
     
  12. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Irish, I am one who doesnt think idealism is deragatory at all. I think of myself as an idealist. I envision what an ideal world would consist of and see if something could be done to move in that direction.

    I dont disagree with anything you write. I also notice the paragragh breaks. That is actually much appreciated.

    It is obvious you want societal change. I think we all do to a certain extent. My question would be how radical change could come without violent revolution.
     
  13. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was just kidding about banning ArmChair. We have a love/hate relationship.
     
  14. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    that was the point of the thread Bunz... if you read it all. We should talk about these means to an ends... we should strategize and take it seriously... which will fish the government's attention. Trust me, there not going to just let us plan Revolution without their little spy tactics... and if they do, isn't that just as advantageos? Unity seems so essential to the whole thing... so do technological savvy people on our side who can promote our cause by control of the Internet. I do think Peaceful Revolution is possible (some violence may occur, but we won't start it, nor will we give up once it is started. Basically make a stand, and act meek, but stay strong in our conviction) and I also believe Peaceful Revolution is only possible in America, and this is the only time in the history of mankind it has been possible.
     
  15. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    we need to separate ourselves from corruption however, that is why means like manipulation and such will not justify the ends, they will only stigmatize them... we don't want a reign of terror, nor do we want a civil war... well maybe we do want a civil war, but civil wars are not violent, and come to agreements after compromise, because they are "civil".
     
Loading...

Share This Page