ratbastage
06-06-2008, 05:06 PM
I made a suggestion in here last week that people should begin to stand up for our rights with a series of simple boycotts, and I received a number of
responses that instantly dismissed the possibility as impossible. It will never work, a few people told me.
Really?
Well, I can't blame those of you who so readily dismissed the possibility since nobody was briefed about the actual purpose of firing the American
government. So let's see if we can clear that up right now, shall we.
First of all, firing the government isn't supposed to be a reaction to anything specific. Nor is it a vindictive move against the establishment. It's
merely a demonstration of what's possible, and it's supposed to lead to more of the same.
Peacefully removing the government by voting our representatives out of office once we've imposed term limits on them will serve two immediate purposes.
First, there is the national purpose, which is to eliminate politics as a career choice and reduce corporate America's ability to impose corruption on the
democratic process with its preferred methods of coercion and bribery. It's supposed to demonstrate how, when used properly, democracy can inspire a more
efficient society wherein all people accept responsibility for their actions, which will allow everyone to build esteem through responsible decision making.
Esteem being the psychological opposite of hatred.
Secondly, there is the international purpose. Everyone on Earth faces a few mutual challenges at the moment, mostly because of our own neglect and
avarice. Chief among them is global warming and the global flooding that can be logically expected to follow because over four billion people live along
shorelines that are going to change fairly soon and if we don't prepare to move them rationally we'll face numerous land wars all over the planet. I'm
positive we don't need any more of those. So it would stand to reason that a maturing species that's willing to take its fate in its own hands would be best
served by identifying problems that we'll all undoubtedly face, debating what could be done to improve our species' survivability (which starts with
minimizing the impact of existing worldwide deficiencies), and taking action to prevent unnecessary human misery in the process. We obviously can not do
this individually or even as nations with rivalries. We need to cooperate to take on species oriented goals. And firing the American government peacefully
will show other democratically inclined countries how to take their governments back without massive upheaval or civil wars.
Now that you know that, I'd appreciate it if the nay sayers would reassess their position.
responses that instantly dismissed the possibility as impossible. It will never work, a few people told me.
Really?
Well, I can't blame those of you who so readily dismissed the possibility since nobody was briefed about the actual purpose of firing the American
government. So let's see if we can clear that up right now, shall we.
First of all, firing the government isn't supposed to be a reaction to anything specific. Nor is it a vindictive move against the establishment. It's
merely a demonstration of what's possible, and it's supposed to lead to more of the same.
Peacefully removing the government by voting our representatives out of office once we've imposed term limits on them will serve two immediate purposes.
First, there is the national purpose, which is to eliminate politics as a career choice and reduce corporate America's ability to impose corruption on the
democratic process with its preferred methods of coercion and bribery. It's supposed to demonstrate how, when used properly, democracy can inspire a more
efficient society wherein all people accept responsibility for their actions, which will allow everyone to build esteem through responsible decision making.
Esteem being the psychological opposite of hatred.
Secondly, there is the international purpose. Everyone on Earth faces a few mutual challenges at the moment, mostly because of our own neglect and
avarice. Chief among them is global warming and the global flooding that can be logically expected to follow because over four billion people live along
shorelines that are going to change fairly soon and if we don't prepare to move them rationally we'll face numerous land wars all over the planet. I'm
positive we don't need any more of those. So it would stand to reason that a maturing species that's willing to take its fate in its own hands would be best
served by identifying problems that we'll all undoubtedly face, debating what could be done to improve our species' survivability (which starts with
minimizing the impact of existing worldwide deficiencies), and taking action to prevent unnecessary human misery in the process. We obviously can not do
this individually or even as nations with rivalries. We need to cooperate to take on species oriented goals. And firing the American government peacefully
will show other democratically inclined countries how to take their governments back without massive upheaval or civil wars.
Now that you know that, I'd appreciate it if the nay sayers would reassess their position.