All your examples is not about modern times. They build all that surveillance and other stuff everywhere to prevent or control any possible unapproved centralization. There could not be any Founders anymore. Literally. All of them would be neutralised long before they even will begin to make real steps to centralization.
Trying to project historic precedents over the modern time is a direct way to loose. The treats pattern for rebellion is completely different now. You could not publish Fokischer Beobachter, organize Boston tea party or even just save community money in Switzerland bank. You will not have international support from nearly all first-world countries. And even third-world will not support you. Times changed. You lost an option to centralize.
There is nothing new under the sun. Hitler would have learned well from Napoleon in his invasion of Russia, and so on.
And there is already a lot of centralization that is against the NWO. For starters, entire US. states where, get this, patriots mobilized, organized, and won political power.
The Soviet Union and the East Germans had a surveillance state that makes ours pale in comparison. That evaporated like water in the summer sun. Just one day, it went poof.
The Founders understood this, that's why the states had to "unite or die".
Nobody stops you from checking your theory. If you believe that you can't win without centralization - go for it. I'll be very glad if it will appear that I was wrong and you will win, and will celebrate you and your friends as new Founders. And it will be very sad if you fail because I was right.
Past history has not falsified that hypothesis that some centralization is necessary for a movement to succeed. What do you got? You're like a college professor spouting convoluted theory that has not been out in the real world.
And everything man touches in this world eventually falls into rot and decay. That centralized power corrupts and must be fought back against, and yes, the rebels soon become what they despised. Civilizations rise and fall. It's called entropy. Is this supposed to somehow undermine my thesis? In the long run, we are all dead too, ya know.
But the lone rebel, in the end is just that, a lone rebel that fails to make change. You're a Unibomber type. I get it. Keep doing what you're doing. Undermining authority that is corrupt is very useful.
However, at this point, this conversation is done. You can have the last word.
All your examples is not about modern times. They build all that surveillance and other stuff everywhere to prevent or control any possible unapproved centralization. There could not be any Founders anymore. Literally. All of them would be neutralised long before they even will begin to make real steps to centralization.
Trying to project historic precedents over the modern time is a direct way to loose. The treats pattern for rebellion is completely different now. You could not publish Fokischer Beobachter, organize Boston tea party or even just save community money in Switzerland bank. You will not have international support from nearly all first-world countries. And even third-world will not support you. Times changed. You lost an option to centralize.
There is nothing new under the sun. Hitler would have learned well from Napoleon in his invasion of Russia, and so on.
And there is already a lot of centralization that is against the NWO. For starters, entire US. states where, get this, patriots mobilized, organized, and won political power.
The Soviet Union and the East Germans had a surveillance state that makes ours pale in comparison. That evaporated like water in the summer sun. Just one day, it went poof.
The Founders understood this, that's why the states had to "unite or die".
Nobody stops you from checking your theory. If you believe that you can't win without centralization - go for it. I'll be very glad if it will appear that I was wrong and you will win, and will celebrate you and your friends as new Founders. And it will be very sad if you fail because I was right.
Past history has not falsified that hypothesis that some centralization is necessary for a movement to succeed. What do you got? You're like a college professor spouting convoluted theory that has not been out in the real world.
And everything man touches in this world eventually falls into rot and decay. That centralized power corrupts and must be fought back against, and yes, the rebels soon become what they despised. Civilizations rise and fall. It's called entropy. Is this supposed to somehow undermine my thesis? In the long run, we are all dead too, ya know.
But the lone rebel, in the end is just that, a lone rebel that fails to make change. You're a Unibomber type. I get it. Keep doing what you're doing. Undermining authority that is corrupt is very useful.
However, at this point, this conversation is done. You can have the last word.