Has a worldwide revolution started? Will it come here?

[Circe]

Turkey continues to go up like Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. did.

Now Brazil, NOT a Muslim country, has gone up bigtime this week, and a million people are expected to riot today, violently. Brazil riots: Tens of thousands of demonstrators march through city streets in widespread anger over gov?t corruption - NY Daily News

Clearly this is a contagious meme, rioting and revolution, possibly a major historical event.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd tried hard to take anarchistic rioting to several American cities, but they failed. Too early, maybe. But could that start up again?

And will this violent revolution spread to China?

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here, violent change moving across the world?

 

[KevinWestern]

Turkey continues to go up like Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. did.

Now Brazil, NOT a Muslim country, has gone up bigtime this week, and a million people are expected to riot today, violently. Brazil riots: Tens of thousands of demonstrators march through city streets in widespread anger over gov?t corruption - NY Daily News

Clearly this is a contagious meme, rioting and revolution, possibly a major historical event.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd tried hard to take anarchistic rioting to several American cities, but they failed. Too early, maybe. But could that start up again?

And will this violent revolution spread to China?

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here, violent change moving across the world?

I think Americans are waking up in mass numbers, however it will take a physical event (ie lack of food/water, economic crash, ect) to get things moving.

We're heading in the right direction, though.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a worldwide shift going on, but it would be a mistake the characterize the reasons for these protests and rebellions as being the same for everyone. In the middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. In other countries the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

 

[Circe]

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

Ummmmmmmmmm....................that's what we said about Russia.

But after 77 years, they DID have a successful revolution.

It seems to have backslid somewhat, into counterrevolution as the French Revolution did -- Putin and Napoleon -- but I am not at all sure that extreme authoritarianism stops revolution for sure. Well, the Shah of Iran tried that, failed. Romania had a very authoritarian government, but they eventually hanged Ceaucesco from a lamppost. No one can suppose the authoritarian regime in NK will last forever.

So I don't think China is out of danger if this violent revolution meme continues to spread.

My great interest is, are we likely to get caught up in it? I would think Occupy Wall Street would give our politicians serious thoughts to think.

 

[Circe]

[I think Americans are waking up in mass numbers, however it will take a physical event (ie lack of food/water, economic crash, ect) to get things moving.

We're heading in the right direction, though.

.

OOOoooooo............. You WANT a revolution here! [:-/

Are we all remembering that a revolution would stop our Social Security checks?

And might very well stop the transport of aragula to the supermarkets.......


Which do you want to win a revolution here, Kevin? The right or the left?

 

[martybegan]

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

Ummmmmmmmmm....................that's what we said about Russia.

But after 77 years, they DID have a successful revolution.

It seems to have backslid somewhat, into counterrevolution as the French Revolution did -- Putin and Napoleon -- but I am not at all sure that extreme authoritarianism stops revolution for sure. Well, the Shah of Iran tried that, failed. Romania had a very authoritarian government, but they eventually hanged Ceaucesco from a lamppost. No one can suppose the authoritarian regime in NK will last forever.

So I don't think China is out of danger if this violent revolution meme continues to spread.

My great interest is, are we likely to get caught up in it? I would think Occupy Wall Street would give our politicians serious thoughts to think.

The Russian National Psychology when it comes to government is more authoritarian, as one saw when they traded the Czars for the Party Chairmen.

One Russian says to another, "We must have a Democracy!" which the other Russian replies "Yes!, but we need to have a good Czar at the head of it!"

 

[Circe]

One Russian says to another, "We must have a Democracy!" which the other Russian replies "Yes!, but we need to have a good Czar at the head of it!"

[ I'm inclined to agree with them. I've rather given up on Democracy, since it has degenerated into what Franklin thought it would.

An alternative is dictatorship......not hereditary monarchy; they didn't get too many "good" czars. They mostly got guys with the IQ of a banana. That's the problem with hereditary monarchy, most of the kids are dumb, dumb, dumb. And some of them are frankly retarded or schizophrenic.

The only "good" monarchs tend to be conquerors from outside. Catherine the Great was one such.

 

[Katzndogz]

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

Ummmmmmmmmm....................that's what we said about Russia.

But after 77 years, they DID have a successful revolution.

It seems to have backslid somewhat, into counterrevolution as the French Revolution did -- Putin and Napoleon -- but I am not at all sure that extreme authoritarianism stops revolution for sure. Well, the Shah of Iran tried that, failed. Romania had a very authoritarian government, but they eventually hanged Ceaucesco from a lamppost. No one can suppose the authoritarian regime in NK will last forever.

So I don't think China is out of danger if this violent revolution meme continues to spread.

My great interest is, are we likely to get caught up in it? I would think Occupy Wall Street would give our politicians serious thoughts to think.

No Russia did not have a successful revolution. After 77 years they had Mikhail Gorbachev who believed in a new Russian path, he called it glasnost. We had Ronald Reagan who outspent the Russian defense and caused an economic collapse. But there was no revolution. Just like we have no revolution pushing us to communism. We have a leader pushing us into communism.

Occupy Wall Street gives no one serious thoughts to think. They were an annoyance from the very beginning. Rape, murder, drug use and unimaginable filth destroyed the OWS movement and did so before it could even begin.

 

[Katzndogz]

[I think Americans are waking up in mass numbers, however it will take a physical event (ie lack of food/water, economic crash, ect) to get things moving.

We're heading in the right direction, though.

.

OOOoooooo............. You WANT a revolution here! [:-/

Are we all remembering that a revolution would stop our Social Security checks?

And might very well stop the transport of aragula to the supermarkets.......


Which do you want to win a revolution here, Kevin? The right or the left?

That's why we aren't likely to have a revolution. A civil war perhaps, but not a revolution. The way the United States is leaning, the conflict would be citizen against citizen with the government pretty much caught in the middle.

 

[itfitzme]

There is a worldwide shift going on, but it would be a mistake the characterize the reasons for these protests and rebellions as being the same for everyone. *In the middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. * In other countries the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. * They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

The expected effect is one thing. The actual effect is another. The cause is a third. * It seems "reason" is used to mean any of these?

Cause
...the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

Intented effect
...middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state.

Effect
...Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state.

Seems that the cause, intended effect, and the actual effect can go together fine. *

i. e.*...the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.*... the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. *....authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state.

 

[Circe]

No Russia did not have a successful revolution. After 77 years they had Mikhail Gorbachev who believed in a new Russian path, he called it glasnost. We had Ronald Reagan who outspent the Russian defense and caused an economic collapse. But there was no revolution.

I can't agree with that, nor would Yeltzin on the tank who took over the revolutionary government agree with you! So much for ol' Gorbachev and glasnost. East Germans ran for the bridges to the West, Germans knocked down the Berlin Wall, all the "Soviet Socialist Republics" broke up their "Union" inside one week (when it happens, it happens FAST, we should remember that). Their economy crashed, things were quite interesting for awhile there.

I suspect you were not paying attention to all the excitement in that direction in 1989; only yesterday for me but it was a long time ago for some people.

 

[Circe]

That's why we aren't likely to have a revolution. A civil war perhaps, but not a revolution. The way the United States is leaning, the conflict would be citizen against citizen with the government pretty much caught in the middle.

There's no difference. Well ---- you can have a civil war without a revolution: we did, in 1861. But you can't really have a revolution without a civil war. Let's see: the French Revolution, yep, much of France versus Paris; the Russian Revolution with the war between the Red Russians and the White Russians, yep; the English Revolution when they killed Charles I, then the Cavaliers and Roundheads fought --- yep.

Usually the left starts a revolution and then the people (the right always has more people, everywhere, everywhen) fight back. Usually the right wins, though not always.

You make an interesting point, though. A civil war that is territory-based, or a revolution?

The ones going on now -- Egypt, Syria, Libya, soon-to-be Turkey maybe -- started as revolutions and quickly became civil wars with the right likely to win.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a worldwide shift going on, but it would be a mistake the characterize the reasons for these protests and rebellions as being the same for everyone. *In the middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. * In other countries the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. * They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

The expected effect is one thing. The actual effect is another. The cause is a third. * It seems "reason" is used to mean any of these?

Cause
...the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

Intented effect
...middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state.

Effect
...Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state.

Seems that the cause, intended effect, and the actual effect can go together fine. *

i. e.*...the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.*... the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. *....authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state.

You are not understanding. In the middle east the governments that are experiencing revolt are way too westernized. The people want less freedom and more sharia. The rebels don't want more freedom, they want less. The government permits way more than they will accept.

In Europe and the US, the state is becoming ever more authoritarian imposing on the freedoms that the people once enjoyed and what they want to preserve. The angst of the people come from very different sources and are not the same.

 

[Circe]

World War Z comes out Friday, starring Brad Pitt.

I think it's about this topic, in symbolism. Zombies take over worldwide, sort of flowing over everything. It's what we are seeing, with violent revolution jumping from country to country to country, and are we next? Of course, says the movie.

Zombies have become the Ur-symbol for terrorists, criminals, rioters, etc., without anyone having to specify the awkward topics of race, nationality, or religion. Civil defense exercises are now usually against "zombies." They are just personifications of mindless violence, which pretty much does describe revolution and civil war.

I'm going to see it. I love it when art expresses things well symbolically.

 

[martybegan]

One Russian says to another, "We must have a Democracy!" which the other Russian replies "Yes!, but we need to have a good Czar at the head of it!"

[ I'm inclined to agree with them. I've rather given up on Democracy, since it has degenerated into what Franklin thought it would.

An alternative is dictatorship......not hereditary monarchy; they didn't get too many "good" czars. They mostly got guys with the IQ of a banana. That's the problem with hereditary monarchy, most of the kids are dumb, dumb, dumb. And some of them are frankly retarded or schizophrenic.

The only "good" monarchs tend to be conquerors from outside. Catherine the Great was one such.

Another path would be democracy, but with only certain people gaining citizenship, think Starship Troopers, where you have to perform some form of service for X years before being able to vote.

Non citizens have all the rights of citizens, except the right to the ballot box.

 

[Circe]

Another path would be democracy, but with only certain people gaining citizenship, think Starship Troopers, where you have to perform some form of service for X years before being able to vote.

Non citizens have all the rights of citizens, except the right to the ballot box.

As long as we're dreaming, I have long wished democracy would clean up by going back a hundred years to only actual stakeholders and productive citizens having the franchise: property holders or persons who could show a given amount of wealth. (Including women with property: that was the thrust of the first feminist congress in 1848.)

Property-holders only voting was the case for hundreds of years, after all, wherever democracy showed up, and indeed, in Greece originally. They didn't just round up the homeless and get them to the polls! Like today, darn: that was exactly what Franklin warned against, what is currently happening. Felons, insane, illegals, homeless, get 'em to the polls to vote for the Democrats.

I suppose Diogenes, who lived in a large tub (like our cardboard refrigerator cartons today) never got to vote. Probably just as well; as he never found an honest man, he probably didn't want to.

 

[itfitzme]

There is a worldwide shift going on, but it would be a mistake the characterize the reasons for these protests and rebellions as being the same for everyone. *In the middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. * In other countries the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

It won't happen in China however because the Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state. * They simply don't live long enough to become a real threat.

The expected effect is one thing. The actual effect is another. The cause is a third. * It seems "reason" is used to mean any of these?

Cause
...the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.

Intented effect
...middle east and Africa the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state.

Effect
...Chinese authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state.

Seems that the cause, intended effect, and the actual effect can go together fine. *

i. e.*...the state has become too oppressive and authoritarian.*... the rebels intend to impose an oppressive and authoritarian state. *....authorities are merciless in crushing enemies of the state.

You are not understanding. *In the middle east the governments that are experiencing revolt are way too westernized. *The people want less freedom and more sharia. * The rebels don't want more freedom, they want less. *The government permits way more than they will accept.

In Europe and the US, the state is becoming ever more authoritarian imposing on the freedoms that the people once enjoyed and what they want to preserve. * The angst of the people come from very different sources and are not the same.

I'm understanding just fine. I was simply noting the use of the word "reason" to include "cause", "intent", and "effect". *

As you presented each, I recognized that they are in fact different reasons because they are in fact distinctly different in terms of time and the process by which they come about.

I'm not saying that the unlisted causes, intents, or effects are the same. *

I think that if you want to make your point, you might consider matching the causes, intents, and effects on a one to one basis. *Then you have a real solid presentation.

 

[itfitzme]

One Russian says to another, "We must have a Democracy!" *which the other Russian replies "Yes!, but we need to have a good Czar at the head of it!"

That's funny.

Reminds me of their old saying, "The government pretends to pay me and I pretend to work."

They are both Russian psych jokes, not*that they describe the same thing.

 

[itfitzme]

Another path would be democracy, but with only certain people gaining citizenship, think Starship Troopers, where you have to perform some form of service for X years before being able to vote.

Non citizens have all the rights of citizens, except the right to the ballot box.

As long as we're dreaming, I have long wished democracy would clean up by going back a hundred years to only actual stakeholders and productive citizens having the franchise: property holders or persons who could show a given amount of wealth. (Including women with property: that was the thrust of the first feminist congress in 1848.)

Property-holders only voting was the case for hundreds of years, after all, wherever democracy showed up, and indeed, in Greece originally. They didn't just round up the homeless and get them to the polls! Like today, darn: that was exactly what Franklin warned against, what is currently happening. Felons, insane, illegals, homeless, get 'em to the polls to vote for the Democrats.

I suppose Diogenes, who lived in a large tub (like our cardboard refrigerator cartons today) never got to vote. Probably just as well; as he never found an honest man, he probably didn't want to.

Yeah, don't you just hate it when democracy represents all the people, not just the ones that agree with you?

Personally, I feel voters, and legislators, should have to have a college degree with an economics minor. And parents/single-mothers, should have to have an AS degree in parenting and child psychology.

Thankfully, democracy and individual rights don't depend on my (or anyones) initial gut feelings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Turkey continues to go up like Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. did.

Now Brazil, NOT a Muslim country, has gone up bigtime this week, and a million people are expected to riot today, violently. Brazil riots: Tens of thousands of demonstrators march through city streets in widespread anger over gov?t corruption - NY Daily News

Clearly this is a contagious meme, rioting and revolution, possibly a major historical event.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd tried hard to take anarchistic rioting to several American cities, but they failed. Too early, maybe. But could that start up again?

And will this violent revolution spread to China?

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here, violent change moving across the world?

Has a worldwide revolution started?

No.

Will it come here?

Moot, see above.

Since the advent of the Modern Era every generation has incorrectly perceived some calamitous event, revolution, or catastrophe that will 'change everything.'