Current US Military

[clubgop]

That's just a few steps away from Heinlein, though. You are thinking like these are two completely different directions. Universal enfranchisement always leads to military rule, and this time around I strongly suspect military rule is just going to be something along the lines of what Heinlein described.

So letting everyone votes leads to Denise Richard's in a movie and I dont see her tits? Dude, pass.

The fuck?

That dumbass movie has fuck all to do with what I said.

Remember Buenos Aires!

[Speaker to Animals]

Fact is, every democracy in history eventually burned out as enfranchisement expanded, resulting in either total ruin (e.g. Athens) or a military takeover (E.g. the Roman Principate and the new medieval order five centuries later).

The questions that matter here are (1) how long do we have left, and (2) what form does the new order take?

Question 1 we can only speculate about. This neoliberal clown car may have quite a lot of gas in the tank, or it might be nearing its end now. I don't really know for sure. I suspect the actual date is connected to peak oil, but really lots of things could bring it about.

Question 2 is a bit more easily answered. The form of military rule depends upon the nature of the civilization before actual or near collapse as a result of democracy, and the form and culture of the military going into that event.

The end of the Roman republic was characterized by an urban society that depended upon what we call a welfare state, and their military was organized around semi-private legions. The general with the winning legions becomes emperor in such a system, and he attempts to keep the peace by providing enough gibs to the masses and keeping his legions satisfied. To keep the masses placid, he also maintained some democracy in the form of a greatly muzzled Senate.

The nature of medieval Europe was rule by a rural military elite (aristocracy) as opposed to an urban military elite (emperor and legions). Because of the rural nature of this society we ended up with feudalism coupled with manorialism. Feudalism was in many ways built off the pre-existing diocletian reforms. It was different from the urbanite military rule, but its character was derived from the society it developed from.

The nature of the neoliberal west is one of individualism and a sense freedom of thought, freedom of pursuit of happiness in the form of new ideas, businesses, etc. We tend towards freer markets and relatively unfettered intellectual inquiry. The armed forces are mostly volunteer and extremely high investment. Instead of inheriting rank (or purchasing it as the British did until not long ago), we in theory though not always in practice award rank according to merit. With warfare becoming incredibly technological, the minimum requirements to serve in the more complex roles (Air Force, cyper warfare, and now Space Forces) are extremely high. I suspect only a small percentage of the American population will meet requirements for an actual Space Force, with troops and ships in space, even if only orbital.

Thus, in my opinion, military rule is based on very high qualifications going forward, and advancement based at least partially upon merit. This type of government is most likely a sort of volunteer aristocracy that is open to the public, but the minimum requirements very high. It allows anybody to attempt enfranchisement, but those who do not attempt or achieve it live very free lives (just no political power outside of free speech and persausion).

[Ex-California]

Fact is, every democracy in history eventually burned out as enfranchisement expanded, resulting in either total ruin (e.g. Athens) or a military takeover (E.g. the Roman Principate and the new medieval order five centuries later).

The questions that matter here are (1) how long do we have left, and (2) what form does the new order take?

Question 1 we can only speculate about. This neoliberal clown car may have quite a lot of gas in the tank, or it might be nearing its end now. I don't really know for sure. I suspect the actual date is connected to peak oil, but really lots of things could bring it about.

Question 2 is a bit more easily answered. The form of military rule depends upon the nature of the civilization before actual or near collapse as a result of democracy, and the form and culture of the military going into that event.

The end of the Roman republic was characterized by an urban society that depended upon what we call a welfare state, and their military was organized around semi-private legions. The general with the winning legions becomes emperor in such a system, and he attempts to keep the peace by providing enough gibs to the masses and keeping his legions satisfied. To keep the masses placid, he also maintained some democracy in the form of a greatly muzzled Senate.

The nature of medieval Europe was rule by a rural military elite (aristocracy) as opposed to an urban military elite (emperor and legions). Because of the rural nature of this society we ended up with feudalism coupled with manorialism. Feudalism was in many ways built off the pre-existing diocletian reforms. It was different from the urbanite military rule, but its character was derived from the society it developed from.

The nature of the neoliberal west is one of individualism and a sense freedom of thought, freedom of pursuit of happiness in the form of new ideas, businesses, etc. We tend towards freer markets and relatively unfettered intellectual inquiry. The armed forces are mostly volunteer and extremely high investment. Instead of inheriting rank (or purchasing it as the British did until not long ago), we in theory though not always in practice award rank according to merit. With warfare becoming incredibly technological, the minimum requirements to serve in the more complex roles (Air Force, cyper warfare, and now Space Forces) are extremely high. I suspect only a small percentage of the American population will meet requirements for an actual Space Force, with troops and ships in space, even if only orbital.

Thus, in my opinion, military rule is based on very high qualifications going forward, and advancement based at least partially upon merit. This type of government is most likely a sort of volunteer aristocracy that is open to the public, but the minimum requirements very high. It allows anybody to attempt enfranchisement, but those who do not attempt or achieve it live very free lives (just no political power outside of free speech and persausion).

So basically a technocracy like the Silicon Valleyfags are proposing?

[Speaker to Animals]

Fact is, every democracy in history eventually burned out as enfranchisement expanded, resulting in either total ruin (e.g. Athens) or a military takeover (E.g. the Roman Principate and the new medieval order five centuries later).

The questions that matter here are (1) how long do we have left, and (2) what form does the new order take?

Question 1 we can only speculate about. This neoliberal clown car may have quite a lot of gas in the tank, or it might be nearing its end now. I don't really know for sure. I suspect the actual date is connected to peak oil, but really lots of things could bring it about.

Question 2 is a bit more easily answered. The form of military rule depends upon the nature of the civilization before actual or near collapse as a result of democracy, and the form and culture of the military going into that event.

The end of the Roman republic was characterized by an urban society that depended upon what we call a welfare state, and their military was organized around semi-private legions. The general with the winning legions becomes emperor in such a system, and he attempts to keep the peace by providing enough gibs to the masses and keeping his legions satisfied. To keep the masses placid, he also maintained some democracy in the form of a greatly muzzled Senate.

The nature of medieval Europe was rule by a rural military elite (aristocracy) as opposed to an urban military elite (emperor and legions). Because of the rural nature of this society we ended up with feudalism coupled with manorialism. Feudalism was in many ways built off the pre-existing diocletian reforms. It was different from the urbanite military rule, but its character was derived from the society it developed from.

The nature of the neoliberal west is one of individualism and a sense freedom of thought, freedom of pursuit of happiness in the form of new ideas, businesses, etc. We tend towards freer markets and relatively unfettered intellectual inquiry. The armed forces are mostly volunteer and extremely high investment. Instead of inheriting rank (or purchasing it as the British did until not long ago), we in theory though not always in practice award rank according to merit. With warfare becoming incredibly technological, the minimum requirements to serve in the more complex roles (Air Force, cyper warfare, and now Space Forces) are extremely high. I suspect only a small percentage of the American population will meet requirements for an actual Space Force, with troops and ships in space, even if only orbital.

Thus, in my opinion, military rule is based on very high qualifications going forward, and advancement based at least partially upon merit. This type of government is most likely a sort of volunteer aristocracy that is open to the public, but the minimum requirements very high. It allows anybody to attempt enfranchisement, but those who do not attempt or achieve it live very free lives (just no political power outside of free speech and persausion).

So basically a technocracy like the Silicon Valleyfags are proposing?

LOL, no.

Silicon Valley Fags are not warriors.

[C-Mag]

That's just a few steps away from Heinlein, though. You are thinking like these are two completely different directions. Universal enfranchisement always leads to military rule, and this time around I strongly suspect military rule is just going to be something along the lines of what Heinlein described.

So letting everyone votes leads to Denise Richard's in a movie and I dont see her tits? Dude, pass.

The fuck?

That dumbass movie has fuck all to do with what I said.

The key point is Denise Richard's Tits

[Hastur]

The military never truly took over. They were always the servants to the people with the true power. The owners of the means of production.
Marx had it mostly right. Just not the socialist part. The original tribe wasn't socialist and if we ever get to a point in history without wanting for material things that won't lead to socialism either.
Hierarchies are here to stay. You just need to figure out which hierarchies will matter in the future and which one you can climb.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The military never truly took over. They were always the servants to the people with the true power. The owners of the means of production.
Marx had it mostly right. Just not the socialist part. The original tribe wasn't socialist and if we ever get to a point in history without wanting for material things that won't lead to socialism either.
Hierarchies are here to stay. You just need to figure out which hierarchies will matter in the future and which one you can climb.

Wisdom.

[Speaker to Animals]

Air Force ordering a stand down to grapple with the spike in suicides.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/air-for ... Ym-gg1fh00

Flight line guys are already predicting every maintenance unit in the USAF will use it as a maintenance day, not even giving a shit that this is part of the problem.

[C-Mag]

Air Force ordering a stand down to grapple with the spike in suicides.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/air-for ... Ym-gg1fh00

Flight line guys are already predicting every maintenance unit in the USAF will use it as a maintenance day, not even giving a shit that this is part of the problem.

Now weigh that against this week old article
US Troops Want to Keep Deploying to Afghanistan, Enlisted Leaders Say
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... s-say.html

Sr enlisted leaders have been politicized along with officers.

[Speaker to Animals]