Banks Helped FBI to Crush Occupy: New Doc Trove
- Thread starter Type Username Here
- Start date
dudes been browsing ATS..
Type Username Here
Not a new member
He's the only one known tohis gun.
If something would ever go down, the movement would need as much hackers as anything else.
shyt, a hacker or person on the inside can do more damage than a thousand soldiers.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
yeah lmao at every wannabe revolutionary on here. I'm always laughing at the people who make it seem like they'dthe government at the drop of a hat if it looked like their rights were up for battle. This is coming from the same people who don't vote and 'avoid' the political process. The same dudes who don't participate in the most basic level are chomping at the bit to pick up their muskets?
The only one i'll believe talking that tough talk is TUH.
For real.
If you ain't trying to push a political movement at the polls first of all, I don't even want to hear it. If you have money in these big banks, I'm not trying to hear it. We try to do things the civilized way, using our wallets and votes. If that ends up failing, and it looks like it might, then you know.
I got 17 people to vote this year who were not voting. 17. They didn't even know about third party candidates or were disillusioned. I told the ones voting third party straight up their candidate was going to lose, but that isn't the point.
Sand dunes start as nothing but grains of sand, and sometimes you have to try to be that little gust of wind that gets that motherfukker started.
Sand dunes start as nothing but grains of sand, and sometimes you have to try to be that little gust of wind that gets that motherfukker started.
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
For real.
If you ain't trying to push a political movement at the polls first of all, I don't even want to hear it. If you have money in these big banks, I'm not trying to hear it. We try to do things the civilized way, using our wallets and votes. If that ends up failing, and it looks like it might, then you know.
I got 17 people to vote this year who were not voting. 17. They didn't even know about third party candidates or were disillusioned. I told the ones voting third party straight up their candidate was going to lose, but that isn't the point.
Sand dunes start as nothing but grains of sand, and sometimes you have to try to be that little gust of wind that gets that motherfukker started.
I get sick of repeating myself from time to time, so instead I'll pose a question for you to answer:
What change in societal structure has ever, EVER started from an organized, governmental vote?
Type Username Here
Not a new member
The Soviet Bloc countries mainly came down by voting and democracy, aside from Romania and Afghanistan (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong).
I'd argue that the Civil Rights movement main victories came through voting organization, boycotts, and legal challenges.
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
The Civil Rights Movement didn't actually change governmental structures, nor did its victories come through voting, but through organization outside of the vote.
As for the first point, let's see:
-Poland isn't a cut and dry case, since the vote didn't actually displace the Polish United Worker's Party (After the 1989 elections, they could've realistically forced the issue if they would've liked, they just didn't) and instead was a negotiated transfer of power to Solidarity. I'd say this had more to do with the resistance that occurred in the years beforehand and in Gorbachev's Perestroika policy, without which any of this would've been possible.
-By the time Hungary had elections that installed the Democratic Forum into power, most of the reforms that signaled a transition from the Soviet organization to a Western Democratic one had already taken place, instilled by the Communists themselves when they became a Social Democratic party.
-East Germany's changeover was going to happen whether there was an election or not, since sentiment was going toward reunification quite a bit before there were elections, due to a clause that was in West Germany's Basic Law, as well as the migrations that were occurring at that point.
-Bulgaria's situation was pretty much the same as Hungary's: Most of the structural change had already happened before there ever was an election.
-Czechoslovakia: The Communist party collapsed, which was followed by a coalition government which ensured transition to a Western-style liberal democracy as a structure before the vote in 1990 and its dissolution. Again, most of the change happened before there ever was a vote.
-Armenia barely needs explanation: Their separation was both violent and explicitly flew in the face of a referendum that voted for the retention of Soviet Rule, along with Georgia, Moldova, and the Soviet Baltic States (However one feels about that). They DECLARED themselves independent a year before there was a vote.
-Moldova's structural changes were, again, mostly initiated before an election as Perestroika allowed it.
-An attempt at the type of change through a vote you talk about in Belarus actually failed outright- it's Popular Front only got 10% of the vote and died out. Change was spurred by the party itself after the attempted coup of Gorbachev's government and a mess of issues before its presidential election in 1994.
-Again in Estonia, many reforms to the governmental structure and referendums regarding Estonian independence occurred before an election took place. Hell, the USSR even basically divested themselves of Estonia and the other Baltic states before there was any election.
I could go on and on, but I need to make this point: Voting (in majoritarian democracies or facsimiles of) doesn't change anything. All a majoritarian vote is is a legal divestment and alienation of political will to a governmental structure (material or potential) to do whatever with. In this, voting is nothing more than an endorsement of and an accession to the existing structure of social organization. There may be changes within it, or changes made to expand the sphere of influence and exceptionalist power that a given state has, but nothing will be changed for the people through a vote. A vote is a way to ensure power (And when I say this, I mean power not just within the stated societal structure, but to do whatever as defined the confines of the law and state they formulate as they see fit, both within and without. This is the very nature and origin of the state, in fact) through the silencing of a segment of the populace.
Changes in the societal makeup, especially those that totally reject all elements of the society as it is, cannot possibly be done within an element of it that serves as a guarantor of its unlimited power (My problems with Occupy and the Arab Spring boils down to them not recognizing this, and Egypt is experiencing the consequences of such with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood).
Don't get it twisted...they are getting just as bad.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Forming a cohesive voting bloc was very important to the movement.
Friend, a lot of those pre-voting changes due to referendums are a direct result of an unhappy voting populace. In a lot of ways, its the government trying to appease before the inevitable happens either through voting or violence.
I think it can be possible in the United States, but it most likely will not be.
The key difference in America is that a large chunk of the population are in favor of a system where greed is power and the wealthy can do as they wish. It would be a a civil war type of event before a traditional revolution.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Obviously. If you don't have your money in a credit union, I don't even know what the fukk to tell you. I fukk with my university credit union and USAA Bank. USAA might as well be a damn credit union of sorts. They don't operate like these other banks, especially if you're a veteran.
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
You're side-stepping the point of what I'm writing here.
With the Civil Rights Movement, the voting rights drives are completely separate from whatever results did and did not come from voting. The very act of them attempting to create voting blocs was an outside in thing, not done through the vote.
And formulating that response to my rebuttal in the way that you did, that it was a "voting populace," that a man in society votes and that man is a "voting man" the way that short-sighted economists formulate man as "economic man," is reductive. They were changes done without the need for a vote, the vote itself reinforces the right to ensure those changes, along with the right to power within and outside of the law as they see fit. It doesn't change anything.
You're formulating voting as eschatological, the end point to which decision-making in an organized society, with a binary being created with the extrasocietal violent revolution, as if society simply trends toward these two states of being. When you look at the vote as a simple tool of a certain type of society and nothing more, you see it not being used until power needs to be ensured and extended, not when decisions about the organization of society are being made and formulated. That's all I showed.
Squirtle
Supreme Chancellor
My mom was telling me this but I couldnt understand, just why are Credit Unions better then banks?