There has never been civilization without a ruling elite class. Contrary to Howard Zinn, the elites are the ones who define a society and the People are barely more than cattle, completely irrelevant. The Fabians aren't evil because they recognize this perennial truth; they are evil because their morals are evil.
This. There will always gonna be the elite and rich and a lot are assholes. We can do some commie revolution and remove all of them, but new ones will line up and instantly become the new elites.
These commie losers will be glad to be rich and be elite. Difference is... you have mentally, deranged people.
I've never seen Anarchy as anything more than as some kind of very temporary state in-between different kinds of social order.
I suspect the dichotomy/spectrum isn't even between Totalitarianism and something else, it's between large-scale Empire and small-scale tribalism/bandism. Because the more, and more diverse. peoples you try to shove under one umbrella, the more totalitiarianist you naturally have to become. Families need fewer rules (laws) than mixed-race, multicultural, multi-religion (ie, diverse) empires do. Monocultural but multitribal kingdoms/nation-states would fall in-between.
It's all a matter of being too big being as bad as being too small. The globalists need their totalitarianism. Just like the Romans did.
The French Revolution employed an army of peasants but was orchestrated by the republican elites.
Anyone promoting a "revolution of the people" or the proletariat is pushing it for the benefit of some elites, or naively misunderstanding the language.
Daily reminder that Marxists aren't human beings.
There has never been civilization without a ruling elite class. Contrary to Howard Zinn, the elites are the ones who define a society and the People are barely more than cattle, completely irrelevant. The Fabians aren't evil because they recognize this perennial truth; they are evil because their morals are evil.
This. There will always gonna be the elite and rich and a lot are assholes. We can do some commie revolution and remove all of them, but new ones will line up and instantly become the new elites.
These commie losers will be glad to be rich and be elite. Difference is... you have mentally, deranged people.
I've never seen Anarchy as anything more than as some kind of very temporary state in-between different kinds of social order.
I suspect the dichotomy/spectrum isn't even between Totalitarianism and something else, it's between large-scale Empire and small-scale tribalism/bandism. Because the more, and more diverse. peoples you try to shove under one umbrella, the more totalitiarianist you naturally have to become. Families need fewer rules (laws) than mixed-race, multicultural, multi-religion (ie, diverse) empires do. Monocultural but multitribal kingdoms/nation-states would fall in-between.
It's all a matter of being too big being as bad as being too small. The globalists need their totalitarianism. Just like the Romans did.
The founding fathers were the elites.
The French Revolution employed an army of peasants but was orchestrated by the republican elites.
Anyone promoting a "revolution of the people" or the proletariat is pushing it for the benefit of some elites, or naively misunderstanding the language.
Here's a picture of one.
I’ve got one that can see
Best documentary I've ever watched.
Comment Reported for: Oft shills violence
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech