Quote of the day—Cognitive Dissonance

Essentially the vast majority of the existing population is already suffering to one degree or another under the present day rule. And they are doing nothing to free themselves from their oppressed condition. Other than the very small minority who will join the rebellion when hope surfaces with the insurgency, the majority will remain either neutral (meaning frozen in fear glued to their propaganda mind control devices) or will rise to defend their shepherd……or at the very least their meal ticket. The ultimate enemy of a revolution is not the oppressive government it is attempting to overthrow, but the general population it is trying to ‘free’.

Cognitive Dissonance
February 8, 2015
The Paradox Inherent in Any Slave Nation Revolution — Even When the Sociopaths Lose They Win
[This post has some interesting insights for those who yearn for a rapid  revolution. A case can be made that successful revolutions (those that actually change things as opposed to merely substituting one tyrant for another) must occur in the cultural rather than at the point of a gun.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Cognitive Dissonance

  1. all true.

    most people watch life from the sidelines, and quite a few do not enter the game until they see which way the wind blows.

  2. I wonder how man revolutions were actually, honestly, aiming at freedom. The US one, obviously. The Dutch one two centuries before. Maybe the French one, but I wonder. The Russian one very obviously not, nor any other Communist revolution.
    Also, I’m not sure that the few successful revolutions (the Dutch and American ones are the only ones that come to mind) are culturally distinctive. It may be more a matter of luck, in that they happened to have leaders who were men of integrity rather than power hungry. Jefferson, Washington, William of Orange — all men of rare character.

    • Strictly speaking, the American Revolution wasn’t really a -revolution- per se (except in a philosophical sense). More like a civil war or insurrection.

      But you’re right, we did luck out with having a goodly number of very wise men trying their best to build a better government. The French lacked that, and suffered for it.

      • If you define “revolution” as replacing the government of a state while leaving the shape of the state alone, then yes, I would agree. By that definition, the Dutch war for independence wasn’t a revolution either. In both cases, a portion of a large state broke away from the central government. And in both cases they wrote a statement explaining what they did and why. The Dutch one isn’t anywhere near as well written as Jefferson’s masterpiece, but the content is surprisingly similar.

  3. The Free Shit Army will prove to be a huge obstacle to both sides. To the Government which will have to feed them after the civilian logistics system is put out of action, and the insurgents, who will find them badly in the way of urban combat.

    I think they will hinder the government more.

  4. In the event of an actual downfall of our federal overlords situation, the FSA will die horrible deaths in droves. The feds won’t be incentivized to keep them alive, nor will the rebels. And even if either side wanted to they’d be against the wall logistically. I’ve often said that the reason the shooting back hasn’t started yet is because the freedom minded element knows what kind of hell a civil war will unleash and quails at the thought.

  5. Good to see that GD is still at it. Financial advisor from somewhere in middle America. If you gentlemen really want to be taken for a ride, I would read B9K9’s Zero Hedge comments. Mako’s comments are also very instructive on how the long game is played (and how it has been played on humans for thousands of years).

Comments are closed.