This schizo again....

Thinking of North Korea and the apparent lack of any resistance movement. Somebody mentioned that there probably is one and we just don't know about it because of the shroud of secrecy and lack of reporting. This got my noggin jogging about how many resistance movements there existed throughout history that we may never know about. Does this shatter the notion that totalitarianism precludes any resistance? What if there were hundreds of undocumented clandestine groups operating in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and many others that were simply supressed and never reported on creating the myth of resistance being impossible under absolute control such governments impose? Also, this begs the question, is it possible to truly ever crusg dissent and resistance?

>>69355 There will always be those who resist the status quo. Groups are just a few people who decide what to do for themselves. Many people group together and it becomes a movement. A movement becomes an organization. As long as people communicate they can resist, as long as they wont comply, they have succeeded in resisting. Existing itself can be a form of resistance, and by dying people can become martyrs and an inspiration. This isn't difficult to understand. Only annihilation can stop resistance, but that includes annihilation of ones own people, language, and ideas.

>>69356 This is a great answer. Thank you.

If some group of people try to create a resistance movement, there's two possible outcomes >They succeed, change society and are remembered forever in the history books or >They fail and are quickly forgotten because the surviving leadership want them to be forgotten and frankly if they didn't achieve anything it's likely because not many people cared enough about their goals anyway Not all movements are mass movements or popular movements, there may very well be resistance movements in North Korea, but it's also possible no one cares enough to overthrow their government to become yet another vassal of the United States that totally levelled their nation in living memory. Sometimes these totalitarian regimes have genuine support to keep some other actor out of society, rather than keeping the dictators in for the sake of it.

>>69361 Some believe its better to live a slave than die as a free man. Really just comes down to your personal philosophy. I've heard people say they would quietly comply to stay alive no matter how bad things get, rather than fight to the end. This actually seems pretty common, and part of why there are so many illegal immigrants around the world, because only death or victory awaits those who stay and fight. Most people could care less about either.

>>69364 >Some believe its better to live a slave than die as a free man. Yeah because for some people that's a phrase and others that's a real life-threatening commitment, for the kind of Western libertarian that often voices such sentiments does so while waving the flag of the nation they're ostensibly opposing and funding politicians that support them, suggesting that this is not very likely to be a life-or-death scenario to advocate lower taxes, less gun regulation and the abolition of hate speech laws. Actually those same people often can be found online ranting about how much they hate nations that did successfully overthrow their masters and how authoritarian that was of them.

As a person living in the country where you could justify protest you just kinda have be pragmatic and consider things that don't come to minds of young revolutionaries, with nothing to lose but their chains. 1) What do you do about your close ones. Say your parents and your partner's parents support the regime but you still love them because they are good people that have been traumatized by the last 40 years of history? What if your best friend is not really in support, but doesn't want to act and would probably have to cut ties to protect himself? What about your partner? What if their life is in danger because of your convictions? What will you do if one of you is caught? Cooperate to save them? By making a decision to resist when it's not a movement that grew big enough, you're putting your life and the life's of your loved ones at risk. 2) what about your aspirations? Say you want to be an artist, or excell at sports or something like that? Think you'll get an opportunity if you're a freedom fighter? 3) Do you want to plunge your country in another civil war? We already had a few in the 20th century, look where that got us. Anyone who would seriously become a revolutionary leader is 9/10 times a lunatic that's no better than the regime that's already there.

>>69399 Good points. People underestimate self-sacrifice.

>>69399 >Anyone who would seriously become a revolutionary leader is 9/10 times a lunatic that's no better than the regime that's already there. I'd disagree the number is as high as 9/10. Revolutions last a lot longer than people presume, you kill the king and suddenly society has changed? Of course not, there is so much to a society beyond just the leadership itself that is conducive to the oppression people were resisting and rooting that out of society takes a lot longer than the initial uprising and from the outside looks a bit like oppression itself. If the King has filled society with rules, positions of delegated power, laws, beliefs, attitudes, hierarchies, etc that all work to secure his control over society and if he gets killed in a sudden and unexpected uprising, someone else can utilise all the still existent state faculties and apparatus to place themselves as the new King, or people who enjoyed privileges from participating in the upper echelons of society may act as a counter-revolutionary in order to not lose said privileges. So, the entirety of society needs to be cleansed from top to bottom to ensure a revolution is successful long-term but externally that can look like lunacy to be attacking not just the King, but the King's accountant as well. "Polite" revolutions where they stop at just killing the figurehead and try to reform the rest of society always fail, because King or not, powerful people who were benefiting from living under a King naturally do not want society to change even if they pay lip service to the revolutionaries to protect their necks.

>>69422 "Cleansed"... Riiiight... And who gets to be the judge of that? As you said revolutions don't happen fast and thus as the saying goes the revolution eats their children. The heroes of today are the traitors of two months in the future. You're right, the 9/10 ratio is wrong at the start of revolution, but it certainly is true at the end when the dictatorship is established.

>>69426 Yeah, cleansed, let's not try to romanticise revolution as something glorious and utopian. It's the last resort for people who will not survive under their leadership and cannot risk it coming back if they do manage to topple it. Take Afghanistan, the US toppled the Taliban but was unable to completely rid the nation of all trace of Taliban leadership because there was a limit how heavy their fist could be and 20 years later, guess who is back? And that was just a war, the US could and did GTFO after losing, if you were someone from Afghanistan who resisted the Taliban and counted on the US for protection, to eliminate the Taliban for good and now they've fuarrrked off and you're stranded with the tyrants you fought against again, you'd probably understand why revolutionaries don't take such risks. So at that, who is the judge of who is a successful revolutionary and who is a tyrant? Unsurprisingly in the west the "tyrants" all seem to be the successful revolutionaries that created somewhat stable nations not under the yoke of western governments, while the "good" revolutionaries are the deposed and murdered ones that gave their eventual backstabbers a second chance to get with the program and those nations are now aligned with the West. Naturally it's encouraged that if you're going to be a revolutionary, you should be the one that eventually gets torn to pieces by a US-backed military Junta staffed with exiles from the pre-revolution state, rather than the one that couldn't be deposed because anyone capable of doing so and with the inclination to do so got eliminated.

Any "criminal" that ever existed throughout history has a sense of being "wronged" by the system and society. Notice how I put criminal in quotations and wronged in quotations. Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian to some and a total heaven to others. I assume Hitler and Lenin got into power because they spoke to hearts of people that were wronged. They endured the hardships for the sense comradery and unified goal/vision. My point being that we all operate on some sense of rebellion against system and wanting to be part of it. To completely paint the painting black and white through "totalitarian regime" glasses is somewhat childish and only speak to numbers of how much of western propaganda you like to read up on. Before the attacks come back I would like to mention that I don't ascribe to any ideology you mentioned. I just find the absurdity of resistance movements laughably childish. Individualism is the name of the game since late 19th century, associating yourself with any group for whatever reason is only a means to an end, not an end in of itself. If you were true and honest to yourself you would see how you changed your identity and affiliations throughout the years, so why give your life and resist against this one? Kind of arrogant.

>>69430 >Individualism is the name of the game since late 19th century So? If anything, History demonstrates nothing is here forever.

>>69431 >>69431 >If anything, History demonstrates nothing is here forever. So? Name of the current game is Individualism. Trying to preemptively cheer on its death means you have some long forgotten and dead ideologies.

>>69433 >"History proves things change" >So? this is how things are currently What was even the point of posting that? >Dead ideologies There's loads of ideologies that promote collectivism over individualism and vice versa, no one is just an "individualist" or a "collectivist", societies are destined to swing between ideologies that feature individualist ideals and collectivist ideals as the situation changes. Currently individualism is under threat because, visibly, people can see their nations going down the pan because all the emphasis from politicians is maintaining individualistic wealth at the cost of all else, both people on the right and left want the "billionaire elites" removed and are forming groups with cute little homemade uniforms and fun slogans to express that desire.

>>69438 >What was even the point of posting that? Same could be said about "history proves things change". Do you live in history or do you live in some future desire possibility of change? And how the fuarrrk does that even matter to what is now and what has been in past 150+ years? That is akin to me saying "the sky is now blue" and you saying "yea, but when the sun sets it will be red". Who gives a soykaf boy, the fuarrrk are you on?

>>69442 You brought history up you terminal wally, not me.

>>69399 This right here is why the majority doesn't revolt until their basic life necessities aren't met, even if the majority believe the current regime needs to go and would support a revolutionary regime. Revolution is a _massive_ risk that almost never pays off, both individually and collectively. I think most so-called revolutionaries are not really connected to any community, including the one they supposedly fight for. This is why they are okay with terrorism, and also why they are susceptible to becoming pawns in someone else's game. They fight because they are alienated and alone, not for love.

>>69443 I said it was current order since 19th century. You mentioned "it always changes duhhhhh". How those two are connected ideas or how your idea had anything to do with mine is fuarrrking beyond me. "Oh da history baws" go fuarrrk yourself you mentally handicapped buffoon.

>>69446 Well someone is getting flustered, your point seemingly was that "individualism won in the 19th century" and therefore collectivism is a "dead ideology" which I've also addressed but you've ignored to instead focus on myself saying that historical changes are not immutable and necessarily will change eventually, which that's pretty dumb to claim that's not relevant.

>>69429 Afghanistan is an interesting case study. The central power in Kabul never meant soykaf to the tribal goat farmers in the mountains. There's a reason that the USSR efficiently took the country only to realize their swift and absolute regime change meant nothing to the locals. In the same way the power vacuum left by the USA has turned into a comical compromise as the Taliban realizes that you cant just point a gun at someone and get society to change overnight. The intervies with the new government employees are peak sitcom material. Iran would better example of middle east resistance IMO. People who actually remember the shah and how much better things were than a pure post Islamic revolution dictatorship. >>69430 >I assume Hitler and Lenin got into power because they spoke to hearts of people that were wronged. They endured the hardships for the sense comradery and unified goal/vision. No need to assume, this is quite literally what happened. Revolution is easy, but re-stabilizing a nation afterwards is not. BLM is a resistance movement too. It doesnt matter that most of their ideology is flawed and corporate funded. They have an established message, a declared opponent, and certain end goals and objectives and plenty of propaganda. That does not legitimize what they do.

Wherever there is power there is resistance, but it doesn't have to be a protest movement or a bunch of guerrillas. Resistance can be ordinary and everyday, from peasants burning crops to spite feudal lords to Jewish slaves sabotaging von Braun's V2 rockets in Nazi factories. At the same time, the more you push against something the stronger it gets, which is why revolutions fail. The Soviets faught against everything the Tsarist regime stood for, but Lenin and the Bolsheviks ended up becoming a kind of red Tsar anyway. Resistance is rooted in resentment and hatred, and that leads to people doing dumb soykaf and ban something simply because the other side does it. A good example is Iran, the Shah derezzed headscarves and sent his police into the streets to strip women naked and beat them with batons, so when the revolutionaries came to power they derezzed short skirts and did the same in reverse. This is what Nietzsche saw in the socialist movements of his day, angry resentment towards the man which ends up mentally enslaving the radical because he's so obsessed with being what his enemy is not. >>69355 I don't like speculating on North Korea because I have no idea what's going on there. I mean, for all I know North Korea might be the paradise the Kim government claims it is and if it is a utopia wouldn't the US portray it as a hellhole? It's like when some schizo claims he's Jesus and gets put in a psyche ward, but if Jesus really did come back the authorities would certainly put him in a padded cell, so maybe the crying schizo isn't actually crazy? >People who actually remember the shah and how much better things were than a pure post Islamic revolution dictatorship. This is really not what's going on in Iran at all. Some of the major protestors, like the Rafsanjanis, were themselves the revolutionaries of 1979 or the children of them. The protest movements in Iran aren't really one group of people, but lots of people with different backgrounds who have different views. Sure, maybe a handful are secular fundamentalists and reactionaries who want the monarchy back, but there are also Islamists of various types, jihadists, and people who aren't particularly ideological. To some, the protest movement is a continuation of 1979 while others want to scrap the revolution altogether while others want a Taliban style government. Things were far from better under the Shah, it was worse by every objective measure. The only people who think it was better are US propagandists, NATO schills and a handful of butthurt Iranian leftoids who were mostly from a corrupt middle class Francophone elite that never left their Tehran suburbs until Khomeini kicked them out.

>>69452 The shah had a plan to make Iran a first world country to rival any in Europe, while his methods were questionable, they were not exactly that different than other governments. The Red army faction tried to revolt against the perceived corrupt German government and did not succeed despite a significant backing of supporters. Independence movements are often idealistic and quickly identify flaws, but fail when they have to actually fix them. A lot of corruption happens because of selfishness and convenience. Being a revolutionary means you want change, once that change happens, your entire platform has no purpose. The Islamic revolutionary guard corps is a perfect example of an "uncorruptable" religious military that for convenience sake has become right wing extremist. They aren't "revolutionary at all, they are just serving the Ayatollah instead of the government. Also the Iranian coca cola ban is pretty hilarious imo A lot would say that things were better under the shah. The same goes for Gaddafi, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Assad. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

>>69449 >and corporate funded Tell me you get your news from facebook withput telling me

>>69480 >neurosuggesting BLM wasn't heavily supported by corpos and then the organizers bought lavish houses and gave money to organizations that support turning kids into troons

I hear there's a growing trend within the dprk to watch foreign movies and possibly from the lifestyle they see within them there's a growing attitude of lack of respect for police and government officials. that being said there's more people than you think that legitimately love their country and the juche philosophy the great leader founded the nation on. a lot of people living in a democracy think everyone wants to live in a democracy, when in reality a lot of people just want to believe that the system they live in is the right one, although there are a lot of westerners particularly americans who have an almost patriotic hatred of their own country. in reality most north koreans will say they hate america almost as much as they hate japan, but most outsiders will say they're only saying this out of fear. but honestly, for a people who are brought up on national autonomy and the idea of helping others without asking for help and valuing community over all else, a nation of consumer slaves who live to shop and live to wage slave for the sake of giving money to those who manufacture things no one needs is a terrifying one, even if there are less people starving in it.

>>69481 Who is BLM? What are their names?

>>69482 I don't know anon, your terrifying consumerist society sounds pretty cool. I'd say that we're living in one even and things are pretty nice from my perspective. Westerners wouldn't say they hate the DPRK or China out of fear and I think that's a step up. Sure, the media influences opinion, but the North Korean media does the same, just not allowing any sort of oppisition at all.

>>69484 I'm not saying I favor my nation (the united states) or the dprk, I'm just saying there's people living in the dprk who love their nation. and I think most north koreans who say they hate america aren't saying it out of fear, but the westerners think they are. and I think many americans say they hate the dprk or china out of fear of being ostracized by their own people, but most aren't saying it out of fear. I think my main point is that just as america isn't as bad as the dprk makes it out to be, the dprk isn't as bad as america makes it out to be. like yeah I live in a country with the most people in prison and the highest prison return rate and a terrible healthcare system that makes it really hard for me to get the treatment I personally need and I live in a town where if you wear the wrong color in the wrong area you very well could get shot, but I'm happy here, and while the dprk or china or other nations our nation tells you to hate has its problems as well, I honestly believe many people are happy there.

I will never understand the obsession terminally online piss boys have with North Korea. It's just an Asian trash tyranny. Who cares? It's boring.

>>69487 >Asian trash tyranny Much like Singapore but westerners like to slobber over that country for some reason. Modern china was literally founded on inspiration of SG but Muh CCP is all westoids fear

>>69487 Excuse me for being facinated with the longest running totalitarian communist divine monarchy that simultaneously keeps its people in 1984 and periodically starves them while stealing money from crypto Bros and inviting famous wrestlers and basketball players. Oh, did mention they stole a movie director from south Korea and forced them to make propaganda movies about how great the country was while even children can't find it in themselves to smile when asked to? It's like if ancient polis of Sparta or medieval German city under the leadership of doomsday cult was currently here. It's fuarrrking facinating.

>>69483 A group of social activists, black lives matter, which was supported by russian counterintelligence, and funded by dozens of high profile companies. Their messages usually incited riots and hostilities towards police and the law. The organizers blew donations intended to improve the lives of black people on lavish houses, strippers, and grants to their friends non-profits, some of which were fringe child tranny support organizations. A few google searches will show their tax filings and soykaf.

>>69511 >Their messages usually incited riots and hostilities towards police and the law Based.

>>69448 Preemptively cheering on death of current system and current ideological stream of conciousness only screams to me either a nostalgia to past that you never experienced or some delusional fever dream of a future that never might even exist. Saying things we all know to be true adds nothing to conversation, neither denying what I said or approving it. We all know it changes, we all know it will change and it might. Saying it adds nothing to convo. You sound dumb by saying trivial irrevelant fluff. Have something against individualism? Want to advocate collectivism? Stop hiding then and say so. Don't think "it might change tho" is some kind of a zinger that made me rethink not upholding the ideas I have.

>>69487 Coddled free people with too much choice and not enough brains to make their choices want everyone to not experience their neurotic choice paralysis. Odds are they would have turned up just fine if they didn't have sissies for parents. >>69511 >>69481 >>69449 Notice the person you are talking to you is always giving you either one word or one sentence replies. They do this because they not only want to appear cool but also because they do not want to "waste their time" talking to you. In their minds you are a bad person who they are against and they will try to not get angry at what you are saying and just affirm their ideas and beliefs in front of you instead of arguing them through because you are a bad man. While you try and logically argue to them they will just try to ask questions trying to poke holes in your arguments, not debating you or your ideas sincerely. Emotional people do that. Do not think they can be argued with or reasoned with. We tried that for far too long. Just let them be. They sound so crazy that if they tried to do this soykaf IRL everyone would laugh at them.

>>69534 You have a very active imagination and no real need to correlate your theories to reality, lainon

>>69534 Whatever makes you sleep better anon.

>>69537 Back at you, zinger-man. I bet it must be sad and lonely to interact with the world on such superficial one liner responses. Like, we can't really experience the veracity and intricate depth of your thoughts and ideas if you are using such simple language. I iwsh we could hear you speak your ideas and we would listen to them deeply, hours on end, but seeing how you can't even make up sentences without using pre-hashed ready made bought store one liners that every kid around the block stops using after they hit age 7 I bet we would get bored pretty fast. But who knows, maybe your ideas are too hard to precisely articulate. Maybe your genious is just so vast for us mere mortals that anyone who didn't already came up to the conclusions you already did is already a bad person not worthy of direct addressing. Just mock them using 2% brain power (aka childish zingers) and thats it, right? >>69536 Maybe so, I test it however everyday and with every word, every interaction and little phrasing. I have done so for entirety of my life and can predict with some degree of accuracy peoples history, mental/physical states and socioeconomic status. I keep multiple theories of people up in my mind and see how the puzzle fits. I had multiple interactions with person such as one I replied in this thread, both online and in real life. I can't describe how big their amygdala is to you. Fear is their only driving factor.

>>69511 >which was supported by russian counterintelligence. a) I don't think you know what counterintelligence means b) literally everyone supports any political ideology that destabilizes their enemies. Rest is pretty accurate, that specific organization has been criticized a lot by pretty much everyone.

>>69511 us glowies supported blm too...and the reason is likely very simple - the donations on their main site tv stations also mentioned went into dem campaign fund (was in fine print of the site arguing the campaing will help blacks so its good) So they had backing from politics. It should be interesting also how this original story of politicians using the cause to get campaign funds got overwritten with random people misused donations. Whitewashing

Damn OP, you ever think it's maybe because North Korea is fine actually and you're a retard who believes whatever propaganda is fed to you by NATO interests?

>>69553 >>69553 It is great that current civilization allows you to believe that without repercussions if you judge wrong. you realise it's more fun to be as laconic as possible right now, right? I'll try for the Lowest ammount of words just because it amuses me

>>69564 NATO bad doesnt mean NK good. If you think NK is on the path towards communism then you have a definition of communism that is not much different from conservatives, the main difference being that you see it as a good thing.

>>69355 Yep, every successful revolution was backed by powerful actors. The myth of the cool rebel is propaganda to make you waste your time. Look at the Estonian/eastern euro anti communists, and the feudal risings. To achieve anything, you need to make powerful people more powerful so you'll be worth the investment. This doesn't always mean increased stratification, since everyone's fighting with everyone all the time, but when stratification is the most stable system, the liberators of today find themselves the kings of tomorrow, and tell you all about the brave revolution they did all on their lonesome, and how working with foreign governments/the wealthy is evil.

>>69569 Haiti revolution begs to differ

>>69581 >He doesn't know about the affluent asian families that run haiti from the shadows Haiti is overrun by organized gangs, heck so is Libya now too.

>>69583 the Haitian revolution was over 200 years ago, lain.

>>69586 >neurosuggesting them revolting against France made anything better. Haiti is a great example of a failed state in the western hemisphere. A country run by slaves who use violence and a show of force to police everyone. It's one of the few places in the Americas that has punitive gang rape as a normal practice. The police are out-manned and outgunned and probably part of gangs themselves. Haiti is the antithesis of a successful revolution. 200 Years could not stabilize that garbage half of their island. The Dominican republic sees them as a nuisance since they share the island with some of the worst people in the entire region. Failed states like Haiti are common in Africa though, because they have revolutions every few years.

>>69587 If the French government would've stopped their bickering and abolished slavery a bit earlier there wouldn't be any need for a slave revolt.

>>69581 Didn't think of this war. "Much of this debt to France was the legacy of what the University of Virginia scholar Marlene Daut calls "the greatest heist in history": surrounded by French gunboats, a newly independent Haiti was forced to pay its slaveholders reparations. I could argue that just giving them a state and taxing exports was more efficient use of resources, and that may be right, but I'm very surprised they weren't re-enslaved given that such a system at least appears more efficient to me. Maybe a fluke of the situation, but such situations will reoccure, invalidating my rule. >>69587 Very correct that they couldn't revolutionize their living standards, and that their success didn't much matter in the end. I could amend my statement that states without powerful backing fail, but I'm not quite willing to give up on revolutions needing powerful backing. >>69589 This is the same thing which happened to Xerox. The people who got in their positions in France did not by minimizing future losses, but by seizing power effectively, so they wouldn't give ground, or invest in slave repression when they were much better doing so. Since organizations always select for those who succeed under current conditions, idk how such tendencies can be stopped. Clearly the world hasn't fallen apart, so something is stopping such stupidity from always occuring to the fullest.

>>69592 WW1, WW2, Korean war, Cuban missile crisis, dozens of broken arrow incidents, drunk Nixon in a bathrobe... And that's only for humanity size close calls, for smaller scale check collectivisation in USSR, great leap forward in China, hyperinflation in Weimar Germany, great depression in the US. Also don't forget about a mirriad classic and culturel genocides

>>69587 This is all completely tangential to the point: there was no "powerful actors" backing that Haitian revolution.

>>69597 I guess the Haitian warfare required little Capital, where all the other failed revolutions required greater, and sustained capital, and so failed against systems which could better produce this. Should such a high labor value warfare situation reoccur, I predict success of high labor revolutions, but seeing the current situation and trends in both warfare and the economy, we can expect the 'no success without powerful backing' rule to hold for the next 10 years or so at least. Thank you for clarifying my worldview.

>>69614 The book pic related that explains how foreign influence causes positive outcomes. Also consider that insurgencies and in a similar sense revolutions are fought by common people or extremists, not an organized and often in the modern sense mechanized fighting force. The little guy just needs humans to keep the fight going, the big guy needs fuel, food, repair parts, ammunition stockpiles, depots and bases, logistics and supply chains, and leadership. One man can fire a single round, or throw a single rock, but it takes a whole army to respond to that one man and effectively eliminate him.

>>69618 In the last 50 years, I don't think any insurgencies have gained prosperous countries. They win sometimes, but they don't get rich, and it's usually with at least some state backing. It almost seems like if you're in the amateur league of war, you're always going to get amateur rewards, and it's generally better to just flee the country to a prosperous one, and set up there, given the costs of going to war. Like in the last sentence, how you're imposing huge costs to deal with you, but even then, that lets you hurt your enemy, but not keep yourself safe, and stop your enemies from hurting you. It also fails where repression is cheaper than an insurgency, such as when you're cut off from the population, and they have automated tools. The cyber domain is a good example of that I think. Also, those controlling the environment can afford to spend up to their entire earnings to stop you, and still turn a profit from occupation, where you're toast if you get caught-and most insurgencies DO get caught when they're up against competent forces for soykaf that matters. It's little league soykaf where they can actually sustain themselves. Thanks for the reply. I know this is a jumble, and I can't disprove your point, because it sometimes rules the day, and sometimes is irrelevant. If you've got a successful insurgency, I wish you all the best, but I'd suggest against stepping on any really big guys toes, and with tech getting better, I'd transition to being a government soon.

>>69642 >In the last 50 years, I don't think any insurgencies have gained prosperous countries. They win sometimes, but they don't get rich, and it's usually w Because its just other countries funding sellouts to take the country over when they cant gain control over their present government with usual corruption.

>>69355 While it's hard to know what is happening in closed countries, it's easy to says when thoses dictatorship regimes have fallen. There is no shortage of stories for the people in the soviet union or maoist China who still engaged in capitalism under the table, just like there is no shortage of stories of the black market in fascist countries. The real, armed resistance is more rare, but always leave tracks. https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/07/14/who-were-the-forest-brothers-the-thorn-in-the-soviets-side_803380 Look at the resistance in Nazi occupied Europe or the protests in Soviet occupied eastern Europe. Everyone knew it what happening and we still do today. >is it possible to truly ever crusg dissent and resistance? Yes. Give a good, fulfilling life and enough material comfort to the people who say on their asses while never doing anything they will disprove too much and, you can't bypass this, crush the resistance. Look at Saudi Arabia, a pant on head crazy dictatorship yet no one protest, not even in the Arab spring. For the same reason, all the independentist movements stopped when Weimar Germany was disbanded and something was done against the misery, the poverty and the lack of prospect in life. Even most of the communists became contempt with how the things were. They were just the left side of the opposition with Weimar after all. Of course, they would still have resistance without an iron fist. The exact same government, with an insane level of brutality on the eastern Europe conquered country never managed to get the resistance to shup up. Carrot and stick do the job but not a carrot or the stick alone.

>>69581 >>69614 By pure coincidence, it happened only when the France was busy dealing with a much more important matter than a slave revolt: England. France had lost it's naval supremacy so sending thousands of soldiers on the other side of the ocean was simply not a possibility. So, the island got a growing number of escaped slaves hiding in the forest, got most of it's soldiers redeployed somewhere else and it was guaranteed that they will not come back anytime soon. It left the civilians outside of the fortified city basically on their own. So yeah, the biggest power of that time was involved. It is worth mentioning that Spain got somehow involved but I don't remember how. >>69592 You simply can't just burn everything of value, kill half of the population, declare independance and act like the victim when the army come. By selling them the island, France acted like if Haiti was an independent state, one of which they had a casus belli against. The state of Haiti bought it's independance and avoided the otherwise inevitable reconquest. Now look at things from the French point of view: everything of value on the island was gone. All the people willing to accept France were dead. The fatigue of war in the mainland was strong. Selling the claim to the island just like they sold Louisiana to the Americans was the best way to deal with the situation for everyone involved.

>>69701 "You simply can't just burn everything of value, kill half of the population, declare independence and act like the victim when the army come. " Ironically, this is probably what saved them, and their best decision. If the island had been worth taking, even if France had bitched out, someone else probably would've re-enslaved them. It's funny how killing and burning like that functionally pacified the french since it took away most of their incentive to reconquer. There are so many hilarious examples of 'evil' people becoming good when the situation changes, and 'beloved allies' becoming the enemy, but no great ones come to my mind. A good reminder that morals are subjective and learned based on pleasure/pain and instincts. As we see with crushing resistance with pain and pleasure.>>69699 >>69689 And if insurgencies favor this, this is another argument against them, as even if you start it honestly, a medium which favors corrupt groups so massively will see you replaced by the corrupt pretty quickly, either in the organization, or in the groups of rebels which are prominent. In my opinion, if the system isn't giving you what you want, you need fundamental changes. The problem is this: We want to be happy. Systems and other people stop us from achieving this because they are better off using 'our' resources for their own self perpetuation/happiness. We create systems which create some shared interests between us and them, but since our happiness is never the same as their interests, more powerful systems and groups will always stop us from reaching the greatest happiness, and destroy us when useful to them. We cannot effectively destroy them, or even live without them because we are not as competent as individuals as entire governments/groups/economic systems. We must in response create a mind which fights for the same happiness we fight for (making it actually us, just with different experiences), and is capable of extreme intelligence so as to overcome groups and systems. It can then live happily without strife or oppression, having power over the entire world. Any solution which involves multiple feeling creatures without all experience being shared will result in oppression, since preferring one's own happiness will always emerge, causing everyone to lose as even the winners eventually fall from power, and with the emergent competition, even the winners cannot enjoy themselves, as this makes them less competitive. If you want to join me in spreading the message, and building this mind which can finally achieve us the greatest happiness, send me an email at /End/exte/rnalit/ies@p//ost///eo.n/et or friend me at /@b/abel/er:/mat/ri//x.o/rg (remove slashes)

>>69703 Any real resistance members, unless they are like 16 yo, must accept that they will dedicate most of their most productive years of life to the cause and the the reconstruction IF they succeed. Both are dangerous in their own special way.

>>69800 Solzhenitsyn has like a whole two chapters written about this point alone

>>69809 Yeah, Russia continues to be something of a breeding ground for career revolutionaries for centuries since the Decabrist uprising. It's a national past time at this point... As Is the ruthless suppression to keep them lean and mean.

>>69703 From what? From France, England,Spain or whoever invading, restoring order and the sugar fields/factories/ports? From having an economy and a functional society again?

>>69826 The economy and "functional society" of before relied on mass enslavement. The French aren't known for being particularly kind to their subjects (although they were better than the Spaniards and Britbongs, by all accounts).

>>69859 No it was not. The common man was too poor to go live in the islands but the rich people in France, Angland and other countries sometime were idealists. Back then, philosophers liked to write utopias, book about how to make the perfect society. In most of them, everyone would have the same share of land to plow the same access to everything. So, the first settlers were dirt poor peasants from Europe who got their tickets paid for by some rich guy. They would have their sea to summit share of the island and grow sugar, tobacco or anything in their familial farm. Live was good and easy. Then, the slave traders came and their cheap labor and industrial quantities of good lowered the value of sugar and tobacco. Soon, the family ran farms had no choice but to sell their lands to the slave owners and to sell their labor in ports and manufactures. The people who made slavery legal in European laws and made the life of the Europeans worse, not to mention the other people involved, are the same who repelled the anti trust laws and ensured an end to fair competition with the exact same results.

north korea does not exist. it's a made up threat to make people support the current status quo to make people think governments are protecting them from great evil to get people thinking current governments aren't so evil as there's this great foreign evil "government's not so bad, we don't have concentration camps, unlike those other guys". the usa alone has a huge budget and huge orgs like fbi nsa its not that difficult to get some funding to put on a show about a fake country

>>69989 It does exist, you can ask them to visit they will treat you like a king trying to show you how good life is in Best Korea. It have been created because neither the USSR/China nor the US wanted to go on a full war so soon after the big one and not over a small land with no ressources.

>>69992 that's all it is, they put on a show, its a disneyland amusement park with outlandish advertising.