Critical Mass/End of Democracy

[Ætheling]

You might like a book called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

I don’t believe we’re on the brink of collapse. There’s a lot of change ahead. Socially, technologically. I think the current status quo will phase out along the same timeline as fossil fuel, about 30 years. Even when fossil fuel is essentially done, we’ll still be pulling oil and gas out of the ground to support plastics and other petrochemical products. Natural resources equal wealth equals power. Regardless of the rhetoric, all governments know this.

There’s a lot of change ahead. Some we agree with, some we don’t. Some we can change ourselves, some we can’t. My view is to protect what I can, prepare for what I can’t, and to adapt to the extent necessary between those two in order to live a happy life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Added to reading list.

There is definitely change ahead and I don't think it is bad. A revolution might begin bloody but the outcome can be very positive. I also think we are in a MAAD situation if a civil war were to kick off. I think a civil war these days looks only like governors beginning to tell the President "NOPE". The military is no longer a viable option to squash a civil war unless you are prepared to send the Airforce to bomb rural towns. People just wont have it. Maybe we grow so far apart both sides just decide to call it quits and go their own way. Personally I like the left balancing out the right and vice versa. A right wing government or left wing government with no dissenters would be really freaking scary. Basically communist Russia and Nazi Germany if there is no one to check the crazy. I could point to some comments I have seen on this website.

I digress.....

I believe or at least hope that the next system will be more benevolent than this democracy was in 1776.

[Ætheling]

Perhaps a shift back towards states rights is where we end up. This system would allow fixes to most of the issues outlined and also plays back to my original theory by effectively reducing the population within a system. If the system is no longer representative of our national population but instead of each individual state then each system now deals with a much smaller population. Don't like what they are doing in Texas? Move to Colorado.

Before those not getting this concept dog pile me I fully understand we de-jure have states rights in our constitution but we most definitely do not have de-facto state's rights.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Yep, we've long moved away from the idea of State's rights with the creation of things like Department of Education, Energy HHS ATF and a bunch of other alphabet cabinet level inventions that have nothing to do with the Constitution... In fact many of these cabinet level positions are prohibited by the Constitution... Those rights not expressly given to the Feds are to be State's rights. Half or more of the El Presidente's cabinet are unelected bureaucrats that are downright unconstitutional... yet, "the People" let it happen because we need the gubment to take care of us... HorseHockey!!

[EarleyBird]

For those hung up on the "enough to go around" concept let me help. It is irrelevant whether there actually is enough to go around. Of course there is enough to go around. De-facto/De-jure.

The truth of the matter is there are forces at play that keep many people from getting their fair share. Politicians and the Plutocrats have taken way more than their fair share and created a system to support this. You can call it plain ignorance but that in itself is enough to ensure that many will never get their fair share. I added the caveat of of bureaucratic fraud and bloat. If you cant understand these concepts that's okay, this thread is not for you.

As for the not wanting to work statements, I never said that. I said the technology will be available and used. If you got hanging Christmas lights out of that this thread is not for you.

This is true, but most of those forces are self-imposed, whether it's ignorance or laziness. I agree that the so-called elites have re-created a caste system in America that keeps some on their knees with their hands out, and that it's nothing new. Some people are just stupid and most are just lazy. But define "fair share." Hoodrats are perfectly content with their Obamaphone, a turkey leg of OE, and ol' girl getting good wigs and proper gov't-funded chlamydia treatment. I'm perfectly content with working my arse off to pay my bills, no more or less. I have a family member who won't stop until he thinks he's the richest guy in his circle. All of those expectations are being met by the people trying to meet them, respectively. "Fair share" is very subjective.

[Ætheling]

This is true, but most of those forces are self-imposed, whether it's ignorance or laziness. I agree that the so-called elites have re-created a caste system in America that keeps some on their knees with their hands out, and that it's nothing new. Some people are just stupid and most are just lazy. But define "fair share." Hoodrats are perfectly content with their Obamaphone, a turkey leg of OE, and ol' girl getting good wigs and proper gov't-funded chlamydia treatment. I'm perfectly content with working my arse off to pay my bills, no more or less. I have a family member who won't stop until he thinks he's the richest guy in his circle. All of those expectations are being met by the people trying to meet them, respectively. "Fair share" is very subjective.

Truth. Very subjective. Poor in this country is rich in almost any other.

[miket]

Perhaps a shift back towards states rights is where we end up. This system would allow fixes to most of the issues outlined and also plays back to my original theory by effectively reducing the population within a system. If the system is no longer representative of our national population but instead of each individual state then each system now deals with a much smaller population. Don't like what they are doing in Texas? Move to Colorado.

Before those not getting this concept dog pile me I fully understand we de-jure have states rights in our constitution but we most definitely do not have de-facto state's rights.

Precisely. The larger the federal government gets, the worse off we are. We were supposed to be a bunch of states joined together in a union, not a country broken up into states. The Civil War was the beginning of the end of the USA. The federal government making war against states that wanted out ( whether they were right or wrong ) was a blatant assault against ( most of ) the founders desires to keep the national government small, and having limited power. ( such as national defense, disputes between states, commerce between states etc )

We haven't truly been governed in accordance with the Constitution in well over 100yrs.

[Bill]

You need to look into the Nationalist movement, which is inherently tribal and self-preserving.

I think the size of the population is not that big a contributor to downfall, until you link it with forced diversity and multi-culturalism. That combination destroys a nations identity.

My simple take is we are witnessing a war on Western Civilization, by the very folks that benefited greatly from Western Civilization, while knowing they did not contribute to Western Civilization, much less create it. The Globalists are in the same boat, and on their side.

Rant off

Read Pat Buchannon’s book “The Death of the West”. Please. 20 years ago he explained it, predicted what will happen. That’s today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk