Skip to main content

You say want to burn down the IRS.

You want State rights to trump federal laws and public ownership.

You say that individuals are above the law.

Good fine, get on with it, but before you take on the might of the corporations, the military industrial complex and government security agencies you might like to propose what you intend to do after you have won. I would appreciate if you told me beforehand as unless you have a rock solid plan, you wont be around afterwards. You see the problem you have is that we on the left have been saying the apparatus of the state is just too powerful for decades; whereas those on the right you voted for have been building them up to keep you bloody safe for all these years. You always wanted an over powerful yet small government without actually thinking through just what that means.

Right that's the logistics dealt with, now...

Fidel and Che had a plan, what is yours? Some libertarian far west paradise? The Bolsheviks had a plan, even the Nazi's had a plan, the results were somewhat iffy to say the least.

So without government are you hoping for an anarchist inspired utopia yet you want everyone armed and dangerous. From what I have seen so far you are pretty good at chewing gum and looking brutish, but do you have what it takes to build a nation? Personally I might side with the government if you are the face of the revolution.

It is all very well posturing and chewing gum but where is your manifesto, somewhere in the bowels of the KKK HQ? What are your objectives apart from tax avoidance? Do you think the Koch's will be on your side if you threaten the economic stability that made them wealthy beyond all reason? I would even have a little bet that if your tea party heroes were voted in they would shock even your tiny minds by their authoritarian fervor.

OK, so you say you want a revolution, spit it out, I'm listening.

There will be crickets.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

      •  I understand the point you're making (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paddy999
        So without government are you hoping for an anarchist inspired utopia yet you want everyone armed and dangerous.
        You see the problem you have is that we on the left have been saying the apparatus of the state is just too powerful for decades; whereas those on the right you voted for have been building them up to keep you bloody safe for all these years. You always wanted an over powerful yet small government without actually thinking through just what that means.
        The anarchist movement was defined as anarchist by Proudhon, who coined the French term anarchiste in 1840, who famously declared "Property is theft!". That was the first usage of the word to describe a sociopolitical theory. Even the word libertarian was an anarchist term, and still is outside of the US and to some extent the UK. Anarchist are against hierarchy, including oligarchy, patriarchy, would abolish the owning class boss/employee relationship.

        The term was (and still is) a label for an anti-capitalist, socialist bottom-up, horizontal, social organization which would be formed by a network of worker collectives and participatory communities that federate on local, regional, and international scale. Examples of this can be seen to a partial degree in the Paris Commune (although it was not exactly working in accord in every way with anarchistic principles) and the Spanish anarchist collectives (involving hundreds of worker assemblies and several million of participants for nearly three years) during the Spanish Civil War, and among the Makhnovists in the Ukraine (an anarcho-socialist peasant movement crushed/decimated/slaughtered by Trotsky and the Bolsheviks).

        Anarchists are socialists. They would eliminate private property held by the owning class, and they would replace central top down authority with a highly organized system of community self-management.

        The right wing "libertarians" (another term the right has tried to co-opt) are not really for "no government." They are propertarians. What they want is private government, wherein business is unfettered by regulation, and thus enjoys the "freedom" to economical dominate and enslave the working class.  They basically govern the working class, determine their standard of living, dictate the conditions of their working environment, enslave and control them with crippling debt, and steal the fruits of their labor, and devise dozens of methods to extract wealth from them, including control of access to health care, housing, credit, vacation time, and even when they can relieve themselves at the toilet, or when and how long they can eat lunch to sustain themselves. Their advancement in the workplace is not democratic or fairly decided, their pay is unequal depending on color, sex, age, and any other number of subjective factors. Their creativity is unrewarded, their ideas stolen, their labor exploited, all by the owning class.

        And this sorry state of affairs is called --wait for it-- FREEDOM, or LIBERATION.

        And of course, they would scream for enforcement of property "rights", and thus would need police and armies to protect their assets from the masses, and therefore would need some form of government authority to accomplish their security goals. Imagine a private, corporate army under the control of a skeletal government ruled by the rich.

        Please do not call these people anarchists. They are NOT advocating a society "without rulers" or "without authority" as the term an-arko implies.

        Please don't use this term to describe the right wing. anarchism has always been a leftist term. Don't play into the Orwellian spin (and by the way, Orwell knew exactly what anarchism was, and had strong anarchist leanings, and he saw first hand the anarchist regions of Spain, and declared it was something worth fighting for, and he wished he had fought as part of the anarchist militias).

        "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

        by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:27:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was kinda the point you cannot have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ZhenRen

          an anarchist utopia with everyone armed and dangerous.

          They want nothing to do with actually living together more grabbing what they can by force.

          •  Look, if you had no laws you would have no crimes (0+ / 0-)

            since a crime is defined as the breaking of a law.

            Now in essence we have three types of crime, property crimes which we might define as redistribution's of wealth but not necessarily a consensual redistribution, crimes of institutionalized morality which if you think about it in terms of Mosaic Law got highlighted by Moses breaking all ten of the ten commandments. Evidently it was by breaking them  that Moses made a name for himself not by carving them, and then finally we have crimes of violence caused by the frustration of trying to deal with the first two types of crime.

            So wouldn't it be better just to have no crimes and accept the fact that people shouldn't be in jail for smoking marijuana or lose their voting rights for being in jail, or have to worry about being killed in places like Uganda because some missionary from the Bible Belt comes there and preaches death to the fags.

            Then if the 1% decided to rip us off with tax breaks and loopholes we could just go take their stuff. If people with guns were mean to us we could just kill everybody that owned guns until everybody that owned guns was dead and then all the gun violence would stop.

            If companies and banks deregulated everything and the means of production weren't safe for workers, workers could just stop working and go take all the 1%'s stuff and shoot all the people with guns that tried to stop them.

            Its all sort of like free markets, you just do whatever you want and then instead of needing lawyers, guns, and money to get you off the hook you could just go someplace and smoke dope and wait for the rising sea levels to take away all the cities.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 12:39:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Reading Bruce Ackerman's books helps, (12+ / 0-)

    the fall of the republic is a work in progress, but control by plutocrats has already arrived. Ackerman's recent "We the People, the Civil Rights Revolution" explains the dynamics of a legislative revolution, including the legacy of FDR and LBJ. The current crisis is with the Court, where Lincoln and FDR are instructive in rolling back judicial supremacy. FDR's attack on the Four Horseman opened the constitutional space for a flourishing democracy, of the type that elected publicly- funded Carter in 1976. After Buckley we haven't had a non-corrupt election, no longer a functioning democracy, according to election expert President Carter.

    •  If the right have a revolution then I will (14+ / 0-)

      be with the counter revolution

      ;-)

      •  It's not a revolution if it benefits only 400 (14+ / 0-)

        billionaires and their cult following. Constitutional Jonestown is not what Madison had in mind. Tea party populism only exists now to give its blessing to militarism in everyday life, as an armed militia. Militarism as a core cultural value. Huckabee runs on the issue of federal (as opposed to state and local) police state even as he would be happy to preside as the elected civilian in a military junta.

        •  Would the 400 revolt since they have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rapala, nellgwen

          already pretty much won? I think they might just lend a hand to any repression that they can get profit from

          •  The rich revolted in 1789 France (21+ / 0-)

            They wanted more power for themselves and weren't too keen on Louis XVI taxing them to help pay for the wars they wanted fought.

            Didn't end up so well for them.  Many had their shoulders separated from their heads.  Others lost everything BUT their heads.  Most ended up worse after their revolution than they were before they decided to rise up against the King.  There are various other revolutions where the rich thought they could get more and squeeze more and attain more for themselves only to lose it all.  You would think they would learn from history.  

            But NEVER underestimate the greed of the greedy to compel them to ignore history and try anyway.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:39:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the 0.9% versus the 0.1% (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shawn87

              In those days, membership in the ruling class was a privilege of birth (though in fairness Louis XIV - the Sun King - deliberately chose commoners as his ministers, but they were totally dependent on his favor), inequality was enshrined in law, and educated and even wealthy (merchants, proto-industrialists, etc.) commoners resented that.  England eventually successfully integrated the gentry and the nascent capitalists into the ruling class, but France (and what would become the US) did not.

              Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

              by Visceral on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That is what is known as a... (0+ / 0-)

              bourgeois revolution, wherein the ruling class throws of another ruling class.

              What Bakunin, a real anarchist (not the faux right wing version) wrote 140 years ago could well have been written today. Here's a sample from The Basic Bakunin, Writings 1869-1871:

                 

              From the beginning of history until today, there has never been a politics of the people, and by "the people" we mean the common people, the working rabble whose labor is the world's pabulum. There has only been the politics of the privileged classes, and these classes have used the physical force of the people to dethrone each other and to take one another's place. The people, in turn, have supported or opposed them only in the vague hope that at least one of these political revolutions—none of which could have been made without their help but none of which has been made for their sake—might alleviate somewhat their poverty and their age-old slavery. They have always been deceived. Even the Great French Revolution betrayed them. It eliminated the aristocratic nobility and replaced it with the bourgeoisie. The people are no longer called slaves or serfs; the law proclaims them free-born. But their slavery and their poverty remain unchanged.

                  And these will remain unchanged so long as the masses of the people continue to be used as the tool of bourgeois politics, whether this is called conservative, liberal, progressive, or radical politics, even if it gives itself the most revolutionary airs in the world. Because all bourgeois politics, regardless of its color and its label, has at bottom but a single aim: to preserve bourgeois rule; and bourgeois rule is proletarian slavery.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:34:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Correx: "throws OFF another ruling class" (0+ / 0-)

                "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:43:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  And, as is well established (0+ / 0-)

                Bakunin predicted that Marx's statist form of socialism, which featured a central authority, and top-down hierarchical control run by party elites would result in an insufferable authoritarian form of socialism that would not put self-management in the hands of the workers, and would not serve the working class, but would serve itself as a state, thus merely changing one set of elite bosses for another.

                And of course, Bakunin was proved correct.

                "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:05:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The Rich Can Revolt, Armies Revolt, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaFeminista, nellgwen

          any group can revolt.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:33:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm willing to have an open mind regarding (0+ / 0-)

        their rank and file, under certain conditions. But those are conditions the right wing libertarian rank and file are unlikely to meet.

        Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:15:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Right stopped making sense years ago (24+ / 0-)

    "Pro-Life" but fine with death penalties and war,  "Defend Marriage" but not by banning divorce, rather, by denying certain people the right to marry, "Getting government off our backs" but into our bedrooms, "Fiscal responsibility" while putting two major wars on the creditcard and giving away the surplus, "Small Government" while creating an 80,000 person TSA and 60,000 person DEA....
    The core of the Conservative movement is a study in CogDis.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:09:51 AM PDT

  •  armed compounds? (8+ / 0-)

    War Lords?

    Sure, if that's what it takes to be a law unto myself.

    I do whatever I want whenever I want, screw everyone else, just let them try and stop me.

    Beat and imprison my disobedient wife (wives) and children, just try and stop me. I am ready for you...

    I am a nation of ONE. Sovereign and Supreme!

    God spare me the Heart to fight them... I'll fight the Pirates forever. -Mother Jones

    by JayRaye on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:11:48 AM PDT

  •  but you forgot magic freedom dust. (12+ / 0-)

    I think it's provided by the sandman, but not sure.

    It's so you can drive your big SUV over magically appearing roads, to magically maintained parks, where I should be free to do what ever I want.  If I do damage, it will be magically repaired, so it's there when I return.
    and peace and prosperity comes to all the deserving who use it.

    now, what happens when the magic mystery tour hits the boundary of the equally entitled pot grower using the same park as his own personal plantation, which is defended by guns and such...

  •  Tiny Tribal Government, Global Corporations. (4+ / 0-)

    Because oppression and deprivation of rights can be done solely by government.

    If the rich or their businesses do force and violence against you, it's not oppression, it's freedumb.

    Oh and search for states' rights in the complete text of the Constitution and all the amendments. Good luck with that.

    It doesn't have to add up.

    It's conservative.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 07:34:48 AM PDT

  •  Right-Wing Death Squads Murdering Intellectuals, (11+ / 0-)

    et.al. is the solution of ultraconservatives -- more than 9 out of 10 people inhabitting the Earth have to go to restore the sustainability of life on the planet.

    It's how the authoritarian-brained, knuckle-dragging troglodytes have operated and will continue to operate
    so OBEY! or else suffer the consequences.

    (The teabaggers have already shown their true colors by spouting "2nd Amendment remedies" and openly displaying firearms at town hall meetings after Obama was elected to the presidency.  The Bundy incident recently in Nevada where cattle rancher Cliven Bundy refused to pay the federal government since 1993 for grazing privileges on publicy-owned grass lands owing the taxpayers over $1 Million and where heavily-armed, right-wing, extremist militia members from out-of-state confronted federal authorities trying to relocate Bundy's cattle back to his own ranch showed their willingness to protect ultraconservative deadbeats, moochers, freeloaders, etc. at any cost.)

    •  We have sponsored some of those abroad as a (3+ / 0-)

      nation. After seeing the results we should be reluctant to sponsor them within our own borders, but apparently some of our richest want that type of thing.

      •  The US Military Doesn't Spread Liberty & Justice (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Choco8, nellgwen, goodpractice

        for All, representative democracy, the Constituional Rule of Law, etc.

        Pat Robertson's fellow Kristian Rios Montt of Guatemala, Gen. Pinochet of Argentina, and many other blood-thirsty, murderous, psychopathic, corrupt Central and South American right-wing dictators who committed genocide murdering millions of their own citizens to "stabilize" their countries, along with Middle Eastern right-wing dictators like Shah Pavlavi of Iran, Far Eastern tyrants in South Vietnam, the Ferdinand and Emelda Marcos of the Philippines, and any other blood-thirsty bastards friendly toward US military and Fortune 500 corporate interests allowing the raping, plundering, and pillaging of their countries' natural resource wealth for personal obscene wealth are OK in Amerika's eyes.

        The "CIA & the Cult of Intelligence" (US version is heavily censored) by John D. Marks and Victor Marchetti and "Tales of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins are excellent reading on this subject.
        (CIA = Criminals Into Assassination).

  •  To paraphrase Ewan MacGregor: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, citizen dan, nellgwen

    Who needs a plan when you've got freedom?

  •  Ignorance is Bliss. The reality of a post... (10+ / 0-)

    revolutionary dystopia is beyond the comprehension of the idiots who would use women as human shields, and who would destroy all the fragile safety nets of civilization that stand between them and starvation, disease and widespread homelessness and the certainty of unleashed lawlessness.

    If they think things are bad now, they have no comprehension of just how bad things would get if they get what they think they want--and they have no concept of just how personally vulnerable they and their families would be.

  •  I don't want to burn down the IRS. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DiesIrae, ColoTim, Penny GC, high uintas

    I also don't want to burn down the NSA.

    To continue you're title song theme...

    "Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle..."

    I'm not paranoid or anything. Everyone just thinks I am.

    by Jim Riggs on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:09:19 AM PDT

  •  Nail on the head. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista
  •  In what universe does the Right *actually* (12+ / 0-)

    support small government.

    I was marching against piss tests in the 80s, and against the Patriot Act in the oughts, and guess what? No massive right-wing libertarian upswell joined me.

    It's, uh, nice and all that they discovered the Bill of Rights was important after a black man with a "D" after his name started abusing it, but pardon me for thinking that if it had continued to be a white guy with an "R" after his name abusing it, they'd still be standing on the sidelines throwing spitballs at those of us who really care and calling us dirty fucking hippies. Or traitors.

    So, uh, thanks for waking up I guess, right-wing constitutionalists or libertarians or whatever the hell you are. Admittedly, there's just as many Democrats who hated attacks on the Constitution as long as it was Bush doing it, who are now the most ardent defenders of the same bullcrap police state policies, because a guy with a "D" after his name is doing it.

    In my middle age, I'm starting to believe that partisanship, past a certain point, is a poison in the brain.

    Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:14:38 AM PDT

  •  Their plan is to implement a dystopia... (10+ / 0-)

    ...inspired by Atlas Shrugged.  A dystopia enforced by guns.  A free for all where the largest urban center is a Hollywood type old West town with one sheriff.

    If they get their wish, Ted Nugent and Duck Dynasty will become their spokespersons.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:15:18 AM PDT

    •  They should get some popcorn then. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave

      Not really much point in freaking out, wearing tricorn hats, and waving guns around. The Chamber of Commerce and Wall St are more than capable of creating any dystopia the right wing might want. And if they are in any instance incapable of doing so, I'm sure law enforcement and the security sector will fix whatever problems they're having with that project.

      Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:18:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  every time I see (4+ / 0-)

      the name "Duck Dynasty," all I can think of is Donald and his Uncle Scrooge. Which probably deserve more serious political consideration than those made-over yuppies with their bad makeup and camo.

      Great Questions of Western Philosophy: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

      by Mnemosyne on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:29:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  inspired by Atlas Shrugged...Or by The Postman... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nellgwen, Shockwave, coquiero, LaFeminista

      These idiots' wet dream is that they'll be like the Holnists -- those wandering warlords.  

      And they really think the 400 billionaires are going to allow this?

      “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

      by midgebaker on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:44:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like this quote: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richardvjohnson, nellgwen
    Good fine, get on with it, but before you take on the might of the corporations, the military industrial complex and government security agencies you might like to propose what you intend to do after you have won. I would appreciate if you told me beforehand as unless you have a rock solid plan, you wont be around afterwards.
    Of course, it also applies to leftist revolutionaries. Revolution is not a solution.
  •  Even in the French revolution, some of the early (5+ / 0-)

    leaders were beheaded by those who came later.  I'm trying to remember - was Robespierre one of those?

    •  Yes, Robespierre and friends destroyed Danton (8+ / 0-)

      and friends and then were destroyed themselves in the so-called Thermidorian reaction.  Similar things happened in the Russian Revolution, just faster and more ruthlessly.  And then finally Stalin used the Bolshevik right to attack the Bolshevik left (led by Trotsky) and then turned on the right.

      Armed! I feel like a savage! Barbarella

      by richardvjohnson on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:33:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Robespierre was one of them (10+ / 0-)

      The French Revolution was a fascinating study in the political spectrum and ideological backlash.  

      Robespierre was someone who prior to the revolution had no power and minimal support.  He was nothing more than a verbal bomb thrower from his perch in the upmost left corner of the Parlement where most other members could ignore him.  Sort of like Louie Gohmert or Steve King were before the GOP went all fucking nuts or like a Dennis Kucinich with more demagoguery.  

      The revolution was started mostly by the lords who wanted more power for themselves and less for the king (and didn't want to pay taxes to pay for the wars they fought vs the British and Spanish).  They pushed out the lords who supported the king.  

      The interesting thing was their seating arrangement in the Parlement.  The lords who wanted more power for themselves were seated mostly in the middle of the chamber and the ones who supported the king were on the right side of the Parlement.  Robespierre and his followers were mostly in the upper left fringe.  As the guys in the middle took control and expelled the ones who supported the king, Robespierre and his small band of fringe loons in the top left corner moved to a more prominent position closer to the middle.  

      However, the lords who wanted more power for themselves quickly found themselves on the out too as the more wealthy middle class business guys felt excluded and staged a counter revolution to this revolution.  They were literally shut out and had to meet at an indoor tennis court.  When word spread the lower class people soon started joining in on the revolution and turned against the lords.  They saw these lords as greedy opportunists and they wanted a say too.  Things snowballed, the Bastille was stormed and the lords lost control.   The greedy lords were quickly dispatched with on the streets of France via the Guillotine or fled for their lives.  As that happened Robespierre gained an even more prominent position in the now kingless and mostly aristocratic free government.  

      The problem is once he became part of the government he realized that his former position in the fringe had been occupied by other radicals who had far more support than he did.  He tried to dispatch them to stop this progression and there was a big backlash which ultimately claimed his life and his supporters lives as well.  That backlash reversed the shifting political spectrum and the ideological course of the revolution and led ultimately to Napoleon taking up the mantle of a new king/emperor of France.  

      In a matter of several years France went from a right wing rule of one by an absolute king to a more democratic rule with a figurehead king, to a rule by various representatives to mob rule to being ruled by one person again only this time an emperor.  Eventually Napoleon wore his welcome out and there was another backlash which shifted the political spectrum back towards the left again followed by another backlash and another.  

      So you can say with pretty much absolute certainty that not just Robespierre but MANY revolutionary leaders in that time didn't quite think things out.  They had a semblance of a plan for the revolution but no plan whatsoever on how to govern.   Robespierre was probably the most radical in that he tried to push through some really radical ideas like turning France into a secular state and even instituting a new calendar with no mention of the religious dates (BC and AD for example).  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:16:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Cliven Whatsisface worship... (7+ / 0-)

    ...does not even approach a fully formed thought.

    This is the right imprinting on a character, like they did with Joe The Plumber in 2008. He tickles the John Wayne center in their lizard brains. That is really as sophisticated as this is. There will be no revolution. The people who idolize this rancher are buried in Mountain Dew and Funyuns.

  •  the militia (4+ / 0-)

    don't want a revolution, they wanted an armed resurrection.  At heart, they are destroyers and haters, not visionaries and nation builders.  They think if they kill everyone around them it will kill the ugliness inside of them that is always clawing at their sense of worth and well being.

    Maybe that is to much psychoanalyzing without the proper licences and personal contact, but that is what I  feel from the locals that spout the same bullshit and waive their guns around.   These are not deep thinkers, nor people that have actually been greatly wronged by life,  but they are angry, afraid, abusive and lack the ability to see outside their very narrow point of view.

  •  People who believe that the wealthy should (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayRaye, old wobbly, LaFeminista

    rule are not anarchists.

    So without government are you hoping for an anarchist inspired utopia yet you want everyone armed and dangerous.
    Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules.

    C'mon.

    People who drop spoilers without warning roll their turds in little balls.

    by JesseCW on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:40:44 AM PDT

  •  It took me to like the 5th paragraph to realize (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen, LaFeminista

    you didn't mean for this to be read to the tune of the song...

    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

    by McWaffle on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:40:59 AM PDT

  •  I think you're jumping to conclusions. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    offgrid, bink, LaFeminista

    They don't want a revolution. They don't know what they want. They only (barely) know what they don't want. They are, like Rumsfeld, a repository of unknown knowns. That is, they are unaware of their own desires. Which, of course, is why they can never be satisfied. They've got a boundless ego to fill.

    I think even promising them an effort to satisfy does them a disservice. Because it validates that their concerns have merit, but they don't.

    People who don't know what they want deserve nothing. However, because they are our own kind, we have a need to care for them.

    I'm beginning to suspect that the resistance to Obamacare has less to do with Obama, than with testing the boundaries of this care we are touting. It's as if they were asking, "will you still care for us, regardless of how nasty we can be."  Children do that. "Prove that you love me, even if I kick you in the shins." Do we really love the sinner even as we hate the sin?

    The cons are people who never are direct about anything. Everything is round about and surreptitous and sugestive. It's safe. If they don't admit what they want, they won't be disappointed when they don't get it. On the other hand, if their needs are met, thank the Lord!

    http://hannah.smith-family.com

    by hannah on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:50:27 AM PDT

  •  Sadly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, nellgwen, LaFeminista
    Good fine, get on with it, but before you take on the might of the corporations, the military industrial complex and government security agencies you might like to propose what you intend to do after you have won
    ...in this world of ever increasing wealthy and power disparities, the same thing was said about most any group, even the "Good Guys".

    Who is going to rein in the NSA?

    Who is going to do a damn thing about Climate Change?

    Who is going to overturn CU and the latest assault on legitimate Democracy?

    I don't see any takers. Anywhere.

  •  How this works... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen, LaFeminista

    ...it's not really a Stalinist model.  The closest models are Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, neither of which are really nation-states.

    Here's how their revolution plays out.  It happens in skirmishes, not in all out upheavals.  Over time, certain parts of the United States will simply become lawless.  In these areas, neo-feudalism will slowly entrench itself.  These areas will become tea-party and Christianist ghettos.  When the rest of the world does not fall in line, they will become extremely violent.

  •  Our only hope is to build an ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen, LaFeminista

    alliance, and vote them off of the island; no hidden immunity idols.

    Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.


    Try explaining to your pet slug that you just had escargot for dinner.

    by glb3 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:12:08 AM PDT

  •  They want freedom from being bothered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista

    They have completely rejected society and responsibility to their fellow man. The Wild West is their utopia.

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:23:55 AM PDT

  •  It's Complicated (5+ / 0-)

    The problem is, people ARE REALLY GETTING SCREWED OVER. That part of their complaint is legitimate. This is really happening. NO REALLY.

    And government, acting as an agent of elites, is in fact responsible.

    The problem is that they perceive the root cause of the problem not to be the elites who are running this con game, but other comparatively powerless regular people.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:41:33 AM PDT

    •  depower government = depower billionaires (0+ / 0-)
      The problem is, people ARE REALLY GETTING SCREWED OVER. That part of their complaint is legitimate. This is really happening. NO REALLY.

      And government, acting as an agent of elites, is in fact responsible.

      This is exactly what they think.  Government works for "elites" - both liberal and neocon - who have their own money and/or power agendas that are clearly at odds with the needs and desires of the American people.

      David Frum expressed this sentiment as follows: "Overweening government may not be the sole cause of America's maladies. But without overweening government, none would rage as fiercely as it now does."  Granted he was talking about social issues, but the RW attributes the same cause-effect relationship to the economy.  Biggubmint is the super serum that can make Red Skull as easily as Captain America; it does not change or compensate for what's in people's hearts and minds, but rather magnifies it.  If what's in people's hearts is greed - be it the self-righteous greed of billionaires, the "innocent" greed of the underclass, or even the bizarre sublimated proxy greed of white liberals: "Give us all the money and we promise to spend it on you!" - then biggubmint will promote and reward greed.

      The problem is that they perceive the root cause of the problem not to be the elites who are running this con game, but other comparatively powerless regular people.
      They blame the "comparatively powerless regular people" for endorsing Big Government, not for masterminding it.  Instead, they dismiss "The People" as infants who see, want, grab, and love anybody who gives it to them.  "He givin' to us!" like the lady said.  Cynical politicians are only too happy to indulge the rabble, but good leaders have to be wise stewards and impose fatherly discipline ... while great leaders call forth all that is mighty and noble (not craven and grasping) in those they lead.

      Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

      by Visceral on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:47:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Scary Shit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, LaFeminista

    And I have travelled the world, served my country honorably, have fought for civil rights, gay rights, gays in the military, equality for women (my mother was a feminist in the '60's), have been to Vietnam, have been the victim of physical and sexual assaults, have experienced parenthood and grandparenthood, have had difficult relationships with paramours (great relationships also, I must say), and I still insist...

    This is Scary Shit.  Libertarians are deluded people, in general.  The right wing nutcases are so very dangerous.

  •  I want a DeRevolution...Its not about taking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, nerafinator

    the country its about taking the country back.

    The Problem:

    The link between the people and their representatives is broken.

    Why?

    Because they need so much money to get into office they have to listen to the money, while the money buys the election and their vote.

    The Remedy:

    Cut off the need for the money and its source.

    The Solution:

    Public financed campaigns, no outside advertising, and re-regulate the lobby system.

    The Result:

    The politicians must listen to their constituents to get re-elected, thus reestablishing the link.

    Thats my plan, not to take the country to some new unexplored place, but to take it back to where the peoples voice has clout with their representatives.

    Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 10:14:05 AM PDT

  •  It's an inchoate desire to burn down the world (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, LaFeminista

    Paraphrasing a line from Neil Stephenson's "Anathem" -

    They don't have to have a manifesto behind their desires. For them, leaving the world in peace just isn't as much fun as beating it up.

  •  Sadly, it's not just RWNJers... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista

    RKBA: Armed Revolution in America Today

    Some of our very own, check out the rec'ers and the comments, it's an education.

    I have to say I think the government's response has been about right to these idiots.  Back away slowly from the nut jobs, come back to arrest, place liens, sieze bank accounts another day.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:09:34 AM PDT

  •  In their defense (not really, actually) I have a (0+ / 0-)

    bone to pick with the IRS, having just done my taxes. Only $2500 of my student loan interest was deductible, and my interest cost was substantially more than that.

    "Those who put their faith in fire, in fire their faith shall be repaid..." -- Gordon Lightfoot

    by camlbacker on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:05:21 PM PDT

    •  Yep... (0+ / 0-)

      Same here. But that's not the IRS, that's the people's congress (cough) who make such laws.

      Meanwhile, businesses can deduct 100% of interest on business loans.

      We little people aren't so fortunate.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 12:39:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Five minutes after overthrowing the government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    they'd split up into separate armed camps and start killing each other over who gets to form the new government.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:24:14 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site