We want Socialism!

[immortalmack]

In light of right wingism around the world becoming distasteful with citizens will socialism and/or communism ever become popular again?

[Ymir]

The answer is yes. People never learn from the mistakes of others. Because the idea is seductive, but the end result will always become horrible.

[mad99001]

Why did you feel a need to start the 100th thread about this?

[Zero Angel]

I don't think so. Both extreme-left and extreme-right governments have died horrible deaths. Communism for example died a horrible death when it just didnt work for the Chinese and Russian governments.

If the left were to fall the state would become autocratic and if the right were to fall than it would become communistic. Democracy keeps the balance of power in check because people will always have opposing views.

I think that social-capitalism is here to stay.

[ApeTheDog]

The answer is yes. People never learn from the mistakes of others. Because the idea is seductive, but the end result will always become horrible.

You do not understand the difference between socialism and communism. If you did, you wouldn't claim that the end-result of socialism is always horrible. I won't waste many words on this. It just is not, and that is all I'll say.

You're not alone in this - it's been my perception that many americans make this mistake.

[ApeTheDog]

Concerning the OP: Will it ever become popular again? Eh?
It still is with many, many people in the world!

[demagogic_schizoid]

State spending levels in Scotland and northern England are higher than the national averages for many former Soviet states. Socialism never really died, it just re-branded itself, just like "right-wingism" has continually done. As the left is younger than conservative movements, it is less experienced at this - but getting better.

[Lee]

The west, including America is about half-socialist already.

There is really only one important choice to make, and that is between colelctivism and individualism. The great thing about individualist philosophies is that they have nothing against voluntary collectives. If all the communists and socialists in the world wanted to live in a collective wherein all was shared out equally, where social class and wealth were not a factor, they can do so in an individualistic society.

The problem is that socialist and communists aren't satisfied with that, and inevitably begin trying to coerce others to act as they would prefer. This is why many conservatives, fundamentalist Christians and "neoconservatives" are often better described as conservative socialists, because while they may have different specific endgoals, they, like socialists are intent on coercing others into a forced collective.

[demagogic_schizoid]

The problem is that socialist and communists aren't satisfied with that, and inevitably begin trying to coerce others to act as they would prefer. This is why many conservatives, fundamentalist Christians and "neoconservatives" are often better described as conservative socialists, because while they may have different specific endgoals, they, like socialists are intent on coercing others into a forced collective.


which forced collective are neo-cons intent on forcing people into?

[ptGatsby]

Lee's right... Left wing Socialism and right wing Fascism are very similar.

ie: Socialism - A system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth.
ie: Fascism - A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism

The only significant difference is that the political definition of 'Socialism' is democracy... mass rule. Fascism is more central than that.

As such, the US is far more Fascist than it is Socialist (public ownership is relatively rare, but they do have social and economic control policies). Politically, the US remains relatively democratic and is not run by a dictator (just because the system has been gamed doesn't mean it changes the game itself... not yet, anyway). Unlike socialist countries for the most part (some in Europe are questionable), the US certainly fits the 'belligerent nationalism'.



which forced collective are neo-cons intent on forcing people into?


I believe he was referring to the general belief of exporting individual beliefs to groups by force. Neo-cons certainly fit that.

[htb]

You do not understand the difference between socialism and communism.Consider, for a moment, that Ymir's response might have been based on Immortalhack's avatar, which is currently a picture of the communist mass-murderer who published Man and Socialism in Cuba.

[ApeTheDog]

Consider, for a moment, that Ymir's response might have been based on Immortalhack's avatar, which is currently a picture of the communist mass-murderer who published Man and Socialism in Cuba.

That is absurd. If he's going to respond to a thread, he should respond to the post in it - not the avatar of the person making the post. And should he be so absurd as to do the latter anyway, he should definately not expect people to make that jump as well, and understand/interpret his post in that light. If this was indeed what he did, which I do not believe to be the case here at all (but I'm just assuming it on your request) then his post was still a mistake, be it a different one.

So, in short, whatever his post was based on - text or pictures - it is wrong.

[immortalmack]

Consider, for a moment, that Ymir's response might have been based on Immortalhack's avatar, which is currently a picture of the communist mass-murderer who published Man and Socialism in Cuba.

=))

[Shimpei]

I don't want socialism again.

[htb]

Ape, Immortalhack began a thread demanding the return of "socialism and/or communism." Immortalhack's avatar is a man who was partly responsible for the muscle of the early Castro cabal and is, in some leftist circles, exalted as a communist "revolutionary." You and I both know what the acronym "USSR" stands for, and that the society it represented was communist. In this context, the terms are both intentionally and practically interchangeable.


I don't want socialism again.Yes. But someone who hasn't taken the time to find out what it is like to live under will probably insist that "it wasn't done right."

[demagogic_schizoid]

Socialism can often be used to mean communism Ape. You are thinking of social democracy.

[Madrigal]

in some leftist circles, exalted as a communist "revolutionary."
Uh... is there a doubt in your mind that this guy was a revolutionary? You needn't be in a leftist circle to understand reality, y'know. Basically he did lead a revolution. No joke! :D

[Shimpei]

Yes. But someone who hasn't taken the time to find out what it is like to live under will probably insist that "it wasn't done right."

Illusion

[Madrigal]

Consider, for a moment, that Ymir's response might have been based on Immortalhack's avatar, which is currently a picture of the communist mass-murderer who published Man and Socialism in Cuba.

He can mass-murder me anyday with that gorgeous smile.

[LuridLemur]

It would be a lot easier if you guys were using the same terms. (http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html)

[demagogic_schizoid]

It would be a lot easier if you guys were using the same terms. (http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html)

:rofl: good work

[immortalmack]

It would be a lot easier if you guys were using the same terms. (http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html)


Communism=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Socialism=http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/whatissoc.html

[Heleuiski]

Some of my random thoughts on the future of democracy.
.....................................................................................

I think in future we will have a very democratic system.
I think we will have responsible capitalism.

People will get together virtually and also IRL to get things done in an organic fashion.

maybe this is going to sound very perverse but the perfect example of a truly post capitalist organisation is Al Quaeda.

It has an ideological figurehead. It is not a top down hierarchy but organic groups *cells* of people coming together under one ideology and getting things done in the world.

Now Al Quaeda is using this organic structure for evil violent and perverse means, however we can take that model and use it for good.

Think about it....

:D The possibilities are endless. Maybe people online with shared ideologies will create their own political parties, groups of people clubbing together and buying stuff, living with people who share your values not just because they are in the same country as you....

I have already seen this happening. Today I was reading The Independent newspaper and they had an article called "Celebrity and the new Philanthropy - redistribution of wealth".

Called the "Fortune Forum" Bill Clinton speaks, Michael Douglas is there and Yusug Islam (Cat Stevens) is performing his new music after a musical silence of 28 years.

It's like a rich club that get together and meet to discuss projects and ideas to help the world.

They will raise money for:-

Red Cross
African Renaissance
Water Aid
Alliance for New Humanity (an anti materialist organisation founded by Chopra and the pop singer Ricky Martin (heh).

I see a renaissance in people power. We will probably all end up voting online.

People are opening their eyes and realising that working with others across the globe we can get GOOD things done.

Charles Handy (one of my favourite social philosophers) writes about this in his book The New Philanthropists. If you are interested.

[htb]

He can mass-murder me anyday with that gorgeous smile.The connotation of "revolutionary" is pretty charged, you know? Yes...you know.


IllusionWhich is how and why totalitarians win their adulation.

[Ymir]

You do not understand the difference between socialism and communism
Really? I know what those terms mean, and I still stand by what I said. Socialism and Communism share the same basic ideas.


Lee's right... Left wing Socialism and right wing Fascism are very similar.
Fascism isn't right wing, it's centrist.


Socialism can often be used to mean communism Ape.
Communism is just a subgroup of socialism.


I think we will have responsible capitalism.
Who defines what is responsible?


It has an ideological figurehead. It is not a top down hierarchy but organic groups *cells* of people coming together under one ideology and getting things done in the world.
What you are describing is just idol worship, an religion.


People are opening their eyes and realising that working with others across the globe we can get GOOD things done.
Good as you define it.

[Stoic]

Lee's right... Left wing Socialism and right wing Fascism are very similar.


Authoritarian communism might be similar to fascism. But true socialism or communism is about as far as you can get from fascism minus anarchy.

[ptGatsby]

*sigh*

Talk about definitions.

Communism = an economic theory that has political ramifications
Marxism = a political theory that involves communism.
Fascism = a political theory that involves a strong central government with economic control
Socialism = a political theory that involves the means of production to be socially or centrally controlled.

Communism = social democracy (yes, that is correct, that was the original use of it). Lenin was a Social Democract, for example. Social democracy = Marxism for the early 20th century (to about 1950ish).

In fact, the 'Third way' is the new core social democracy, and that emerged from the first definition of Fascism. Course, modern socialism was created as a mix between communism (read: socialism) and capitalism, which is in fact 'the third way'.



Authoritarian communism might be similar to fascism. But true socialism or communism is about as far as you can get from fascism minus anarchy.


Sure, that's easy to say.

Real socialism is similar to real communism is similar to real fascism.

You'll have to define 'true' for me to make any other statements. True socialism can be socially revolve around social owning means of production, same as communism. And true socialism can revolve around centrally controlled means of production, similar to fascism. Communism and Fascism don't bridge much besides that... both Fascism and Socialism are 'third ways', a mix between capitalism and communist economic theories.

In principle, unless you mean socialism = communism, rather than socialism as the 'third way', fascism and socialism are very similar 'third ways'.

[Architectonic]

When will people learn that ideology is not the primary driver of politics?

[demagogic_schizoid]

*
Lenin was a Social Democract, for example. Social democracy = Marxism for the early 20th century (to about 1950ish).


what the hell are you talking about?

[ApeTheDog]

We have socialism in Belgium - and there are many, many other countries in europe where socialist governments exist.

The difference is - in europe, politics is very much a coalition game. This is opposed to the USA where one party pretty much controls everything during it's legislation.
Any place where one party controls everything is going to have a more extreme form of government. Socialism works very well in a mature political system.

[RottenApple]

Interesting comments by Yona.

Personally, I'm cautious with my political opinions until I've had real life experience with a system. Most of the harshest critics of socialism I've spoken to have lived in socialist countries, which makes me somewhat suspicious of it.

Regardless, it seems as if I'm going to find out pretty soon what hard-core socialism is like. Our next president is probably going to be Jacob Zuma....and he's much more left wing than Mandela/Mbeki are.

[Shimpei]

We have socialism in Belgium...


:blink:

Our government is a socialist-liberal coalition but that doesn't mean we have socialism here.
We have a Western-style parliamentary democracy, and as to the economics: market economy.
When the communists took over in 1948 here, there wasn't communism in Hungary, it was just socialism, one step behind communism.

[Tlalocone]

:blink:

Our government is a socialist-liberal coalition but that doesn't mean we have socialism here.
We have a Western-style parliamentary democracy, and as to the economics: market economy.
When the communists took over in 1948 here, there wasn't communism in Hungary, it was just socialism, one step behind communism.

OHH YEAH! Of course not, you hypocrite post-communist Mszp-szdsz(liberal)coalition yar:rant: .:nono: :stop: Help us Stop Communists and Post-communists.

Pleeaassssssse help! Cause I've thought America is and always had been an anti-communist fellow->Uncle Sam. We(Hungarians) need ya America!
Liberate us from 'komcsi'-s. :Hungarian'56 Flag smiley:

[ApeTheDog]

Like I said, no one political stretch has been in power in my country since, well, the very very early years. We've had socialism, catholic parties, liberalism, ecologism and nationalism over here - all in mixed batches. If you're going to generalise it into one term, I guess I should say we've had nothing - and this for about 100 years. Or you could say we've had everything.

One thing socialism has done over here is get us very strong labour unions and a great health care and pension system - things which I happen to think benefit the people living here a lot. If those can't be transcribed to socialism, then what to?

[demagogic_schizoid]

The difference is - in europe, politics is very much a coalition game. This is opposed to the USA where one party pretty much controls everything during it's legislation.


This isn't true, because the American legislature is much more powerful in relation to the executive than it's equivalents anywhere else in the world, and even if same party is in the White House and controls both Congress and the Senate, they do not have the dominance they would in a similair situation in Europe because the party system is so decentralised, and there is so little formal party discipline, that Congressmen and Senators will happily act as individuals and not simply toe the party line like they do in most other countries (especially Britain, where party discipline is among the tightest in the world). This is partly because they have to raise their own funds, they do not feel a personal loyalty to the President (who is NOT leader of the party - it has no leader) in the same way that European legislators feel one to the leader of their party, and they have to face re-election every 2 years in the case of Congressmen, which means that their primary objective is winning the next election in their area, regardless of what the man in the White House or their colleagues say.

[Shimpei]

Like I said, no one political stretch has been in power in my country since, well, the very very early years. We've had socialism, catholic parties, liberalism, ecologism and nationalism over here - all in mixed batches. If you're going to generalise it into one term, I guess I should say we've had nothing - and this for about 100 years. Or you could say we've had everything.

One thing socialism has done over here is get us very strong labour unions and a great health care and pension system - things which I happen to think benefit the people living here a lot. If those can't be transcribed to socialism, then what to?

I referred to socialism as regime, not the ideology.
Good you have a strong social net.
Ironically it's the present socialist-led gov't that is to reform health and pension systems (i.e. switch to the Western-type ones) that had been introduced here in the socialist era.

[wildcat]

:blink:

Our government is a socialist-liberal coalition but that doesn't mean we have socialism here.
We have a Western-style parliamentary democracy, and as to the economics: market economy.
When the communists took over in 1948 here, there wasn't communism in Hungary, it was just socialism, one step behind communism.
Two steps behind.

Not that there ever existed the "one step behind- stage" anywhere in Europe.
In South America they had a socio-economic structure close to the Communist ideal. Not long before Cortez.

Not to forget the early dynasties of Ancient Egypt.

The NaDene speaking tribes enjoyed a social structure close to the Communist ideal, and not only in Canada.

The Eskimos come closest to the idea though. They even learned to share their wives.

Israel had the kibbutzim. They did not stand economically on their own feet but enjoyed a privileged status inside the state. Hence they do not count.

[htb]

We have socialism in Belgium - and there are many, many other countries in europe where socialist governments exist.Yes. Might, then, the call for the return of a political system that, by name, is already plainly evident have been for something different?


This is opposed to the USA where one party pretty much controls everything during it's legislation.Technically, but not practically. Even if one party has bicameral control, the respective political milieus of the House and Senate -- and therefore each chamber's legislative inclinations -- differ significantly. Factionalism makes for intra-party negotiations.

[C.J.Woolf]

The difference is - in europe, politics is very much a coalition game. This is opposed to the USA where one party pretty much controls everything during it's legislation.
Any place where one party controls everything is going to have a more extreme form of government. Socialism works very well in a mature political system.
One factor in the difference is that most democracies use the parliamentary system (executive elected by and from the legislature) whereas the USA has a directly elected executive separate from the legislature.


This isn't true, because the American legislature is much more powerful in relation to the executive than it's equivalents anywhere else in the world, and even if same party is in the White House and controls both Congress and the Senate, they do not have the dominance they would in a similair situation in Europe because the party system is so decentralised, and there is so little formal party discipline, that Congressmen and Senators will happily act as individuals and not simply toe the party line like they do in most other countries (especially Britain, where party discipline is among the tightest in the world). This is partly because they have to raise their own funds, they do not feel a personal loyalty to the President (who is NOT leader of the party - it has no leader) in the same way that European legislators feel one to the leader of their party, and they have to face re-election every 2 years in the case of Congressmen, which means that their primary objective is winning the next election in their area, regardless of what the man in the White House or their colleagues say.
That may have been true in the past, but presently the Republican Party has tremendous party discipline. President Bush demands loyalty and he tends to get it -- probably more from fear than from love, but he gets it. Former House majority leader (and former whip) Tom DeLay was called "The Hammer" for a reason. Congresscritters who don't toe the party line face three threats:

1. Loss of federal spending in their district (aka "pork").

2. Loss of party funds. (Despite what you say, a lot of funding comes from the central party.)

3. The party backs a challenger for their seat in the next primary election.

[htb]

2. Loss of party funds. / 3. The party backs a challenger for their seat in the next primary election.That doesn't explain White House and Republican Senatorial Committee support for Arlen Specter in 2004 and Lincoln Chaffee in 2006, each time in defiance of a rightward (and more agreeable) challenger.

[Tlalocone]

Nowadays' down-to- Earth type of Socialist regimes: (so not the 'original', idealistic one: )

'Let that be insanity, yet there is system in it!' (Shakespeare: Hamlet)

[C.J.Woolf]

That doesn't explain White House and Republican Senatorial Committee support for Arlen Specter in 2004 and Lincoln Chaffee in 2006, each time in defiance of a rightward (and more agreeable) challenger.
Good points. However, I don't recall either of them defying the party on any votes that really mattered to the party. There is a lot of Kabuki with blue-state Republicans pretending to be independent -- but how do they vote?

I suspect the reason the party backed Specter and Chaffee is that they knew their challengers would get trounced in the general election. Getting your man elected in Job One.

[Heleuiski]

When will people learn that ideology is not the primary driver of politics?

Actually it is.

[Heleuiski]

Interesting comments by Yona.


Thank you.

[Architectonic]

Actually it is.

And so it continues...

[htb]

I suspect the reason the party backed Specter and Chaffee is that they knew their challengers would get trounced in the general election. Getting your man elected in Job One.Chaffee votes with the Democrats more consistently than Specter, and has been more demonstrative in his heterodoxy by publicly announcing his vote against the president in 2004. Both senators are cool to the GOP's prevailing policies on taxation, particularly, and trend to the left on social issues.

The trouble with choosing an easier (incumbent) re-election in cases such as these is the unreliability of the candidate once he arrives on Capitol Hill, which does suggest that affiliation is valued over ideological discipline and interests of a regional party base; whereas on the other side, Joe Lieberman's seniority and conformity (very consistently left) was only worth his primary prospects. With Ned Lamont's win most Democrats who have spoken on the subject have thrown in with the challenger, whose ability to win -- against, ironically enough, Joe Lieberman -- is and has been uncertain.

[Claverhouse]

Some posts previous moved to:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14768


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Samuraizdeath82]

. Governments that take from citizens deserve no pity when the people come bearing their weapons, it should not be called violence but patriotism

[Anonymous]

. Governments that take from citizens deserve no pity when the people come bearing their weapons, it should not be called violence but patriotism

Are you just going around quoting from low budget video games or something? How about an original idea.

[Madrigal]

the communist mass-murderer who published Man and Socialism in Cuba.


He can mass-murder me anyday with that gorgeous smile.

ROFL I'm so funnyyy! :nerd:



What's with all the socialism threads now.

[Samuraizdeath82]

Freedom is just another way to say that my gun is but an extension of my will to fight for my liberties against a
The day the seeds planted are allowed to grow that would dissolve our constitution is the day a man becomes deaf and fails his country FREEDOM IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR.
18. Fear all men who sacrifice all for his own glory, but envy the man who sacrifices himself for his country.
19. Liberty should never fail us in any endeavor but uplift us when we fail ourselves.
ny form of tyranny.

[Madrigal]

Freedom is just another way to say that my gun is but an extension of my will to fight for my liberties against a
The day the seeds planted are allowed to grow that would dissolve our constitution is the day a man becomes deaf and fails his country FREEDOM IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR.
18. Fear all men who sacrifice all for his own glory, but envy the man who sacrifices himself for his country.
19. Liberty should never fail us in any endeavor but uplift us when we fail ourselves.
ny form of tyranny.

*red pen* Do not copy and paste from the internet! FAIL.

[Samuraizdeath82]

actually they are all mine i have a list of them

[Samuraizdeath82]

actually they are all mine i have a list of them
Michael’s thoughts on a Liberty and Tyranny

1. Men ought not to fear the tyrants that destroy his freedoms from within, he should only fear the cowards that will not stand up for their freedoms.
2. Liberties are the dreams that men have the conviction to hold, be it by force or talk, stay true to the spirit of freedom and protect what we have.
3. Freedom is just another way to say that my gun is but an extension of my will to fight for my liberties against any form of tyranny.
4. Men who would allow government to take his freedom deserve slow death; men who stand up for their freedom deserve long life.
5. Governments that take from citizens deserve no pity when the people come bearing their weapons, it should not be called violence but patriotism.
6. The people who run the government should always be held accountable for their action and in contempt for their abridging of our rights.
7. Death of liberties falls on death ears, for the tyrants have prevailed on this day and we should all grab on our arms, for freedom is on the horizons.
8. Let not the idea of liberty fail, for the thought of that is a weary silence of the people who do nothing about it.
9. Men/women know liberty is freedom some fight others remain silent, and in the wake of their death they smile in the reapers face for they knows that liberty has prevailed.
10. Cherish all men and women who understand some may die for their beliefs but the unjust will kill to take away our lives and liberties for their own greed.
11. Men bring forth the unjust and call it treason they bring suspicion amongst its people and tyranny to the land only a free man could conceive of his plans and strike him down.
12. Let no tyrant in office let no sheep in congress let no citizen fail to recognize them and persecute them.
13. When our rights are in question we must rebel when our families in trouble we must defend them, when our words are taken and used to strike us we must bring forth our liberty be it in blood or in faith stand as firm as the tree that this country was founded on.
14. Freedoms are not to be taken lightly but held firm with all of your conviction and stand straight with all those who seek the same.
15. Let not the citizens fear what the constitution stands for but those in office fear the people willing to die for what it stands for.
16. Tyrants are those who would feed on the people take of our liberties and destroy are freedoms; if you spot one then he must have friends. We must take them apart for our liberties will die the day people no longer have the will to fight for what is our freedom.
17. The day the seeds planted are allowed to grow that would dissolve our constitution is the day a man becomes deaf and fails his country FREEDOM IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR.
18. Fear all men who sacrifice all for his own glory, but envy the man who sacrifices himself for his country.
19. Liberty should never fail us in any endeavor but uplift us when we fail ourselves.
20. Let all free men speak of our great civilization, let all men who toil with our freedoms have examples made of them.
21. Government is the object of the people and he who doesn’t question his government is destined for tyrants to rule.
22. let not one man die for his freedom, for his liberties are his salvation his faith and his reason should guide him in all of his works his freedom protect him and his salvation bring him happiness.
23. Let no government strike down the will of the people, for our governments should protect us from the tyrants hastening the speed of dictators and banish the fruits of communism.
24. Let our freedoms be our motive our liberties be our mind set and our reason the judgment that we pass to our children.
25. Let all governments fear their people; let no people fear their government and the republic shall be just.
26. Government's were instituted to protect our liberties favor our advancements and the protection should be no more just than a gun with no patron.
27. Blind is the man who does not question his government.
28. Let only righteous men have faith simple men mercy and liberties reign free.
29. The man who gave up his freedom is deaf, while he who fights for it stays true to the cause of freedom.
30. Let no government toil in the rights of the citizen let no citizen fail to question his government rights.
31. A society that allows its government to commit crimes is an unjust society that needs to be disbanded government shall have no more rights than that of a free man.
32. Let no man fail his freedoms let no people fear their government and liberties are upheld.
33. Let no question a citizen has be not answered by his government the question you don’t ask is the one that you should.
34. Let no child of this country sacrifice his life for an unjust war only if it land on our soils should we partake in it.
35. Let no government official attack a citizen abusing his powers of government for no official can be elected without the will of the people.
36. Let no government control any will of the people not by capital; Nor by fear of reprieves from his government and their minions.
37. Let no freedom be taken that cannot be taken back.
38. Silent men fall righteous men talk and patriots bring back our liberties.
39. If justice is blind then wisdom and reason should guide us.
40. Government is instituted solely to protect the rights that are god given to these United States.
41. Ignorance and conformity is the greatest calamity befallen men and women in America.
42. Our rights are our haven our liberty our prosperity and our faith our choice, we rejoice in our freedoms we create ourselves in this country let no man take our dignity.
43. Reason is a man with a clear conscious understanding the medleys of government and all of its problems, let no man fear his rights nor transgress toward any other form of government; our prosperity is only seen when we all reap our own fortunes, non shall appreciate anything given to them.
44. The enemy’s of our country are any who wish to take away the words of the people to silence his call in the night.
45. All society has been through has shown us that freedom is the course that we took and liberty is what we defend whether by death or jurisprudence.
46. Liberty shall never fail man but tyranny is the weeds that trample its existence.
47. Men have not forgotten freedom only remained silent when it called to them.
48. Let no office hold the people in contempt; let no citizen fail to question his governments duties to the people.
49. The constitution was ratified by the original thirteen states of the union in order to preserve certain rights. These rights shall never sway, nor will any government take away these rights from its citizen.
50. America will fall when the people no longer hold these rights and they are worth dying for, make no mistake if you are a citizen of this country these truths are our rights and we shall gladly die for them if need be.
51. The right to bear arms merely delegates the power to uphold our liberties in death and in life.
52. Policy should only be delegated by our people let no other foreign government have a say but the people should have all the say.
53. Citizens should never fear our freedom only those who wish to destroy it, be it a call to arms or a silent strike, death to any man whom chooses to take our freedom.
54. All who live on this land understand that violence should be the last resort but freedom our only resolve let no politician contest our resolve or rebellion will destroy any government put in place to hinder our thoughts and control our minds.
55. Let no man/women fear an uprising of government but strike down all the weeds in the garden that wish to blot out the sons of liberty.
56. An unjust government is the one who takes away the rights of the people, while a just government does no more than uphold them.
57. Were men have reason good government stands with resolve, were we have tyranny fear rules the land, let no footing hold up a tyrant let no fear rule the populace that is what the constitution means.
58. The Government has abused its powers struck down any who would oppose them they have tried to break the will of the people and shown no mercy to the weak. In every instance we ask for redress to no avail then as god is our witness we should dissolve this government and form a new.
59. Any who follow the government blindly do so of their own accord, the greatest parts of the constitution is our right to question those in power, to make known that we hold them in content and to persecute any who would take away our liberty.
60. Let no body of power hold more power than the citizens this constitution states that all those in office should answer to the people and any who would deny that do so under treason.
61. The declaration outlines the tyranny of their time the last three presidents have taken away more of our liberties than many in the past. They give the government the right to commit crimes and not be persecuted; they now have more rights than the citizens showing their contempt of the founding documents.
62. let no government break our laws nor any official take them away.

1. Liberty= 1. Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government. 2. Freedom from external or foreign rule. 3. Freedom from confinement etc. 5. Impertinent freedom in action or speech; to take liberties a. Free to partake in any action deemed correct by jurisprudence.
(Webster dictionary) Pg414-415
2. Tyranny- 1. Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power. 2. The government of a tyrant. 3. Oppressive unjust government. 4. A tyrannical act.
(Webster dictionary) Pg 771
I would like to close my document by pointing out that America is under attack by those who would abuse the power they have been given. Narcissism will be the destroyer of our great country and they will come from those whom we put in office. Unless the people wake up and realize what is happening it will be too late for us to change this. Open your eyes for men show no mercy to the silent, for tyrants only understand action peace comes from submission or bloodshed history has shown that governments become haughty and take away our rights when we stay silent.
“They want compromise, conformity, assimilations, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, and the elite all of which are their American dream”. (Zach De La Rocha)
All that I believe is liberty all that is liberty is America

[teleforce]

^wtf?

[Samuraizdeath82]

that is my manifesto against any other form of government but the republic the founding fathers wanted

[Etherealsage]

that is my manifesto against any other form of government but the republic the founding fathers wanted
I'm curious what you'd have to say about this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=35886).

[Chunes]

You talk big. But now's the time to grab your gun and head to your statehouse. I'll be watching. :popcorn:

[Lurker]

Hah! Funny stuff.

[Anonymous]

Protip: If you want to have your manifesto taken seriously, write things that make sense.

[Technical]

You talk big. But now's the time to grab your gun and head to your statehouse. I'll be watching. :popcorn:

Such a sideways attack.

[Chunes]

I hate the system as much as the next guy, but them's fightin' words. I wouldn't say those things until I'm willing to kill for them.