Would the regime be willing to use the military against a large enough militia tho? I would very much like some group to be retarded enough to find out.
If they don't use the army on the citizens, that means an armed milita has a chance and renders your entire point void. If the US gov massacred its own population, your point would be correct, but it would completely delegitimize the whole regime's grip on power.
And you can say "oh the civil war was such an example" however i don't think it applies, as it was a formal kind of war.
Props for using Elite Theory, i'm glad to see it more widespread in the Dissendent Right.
First of all, without some kind of organized elite leadership structure, a militia large enough cannot exist. Secondly, governments lose a lot more legitimacy when they fire upon unarmed civilians because they are seen as the aggressor. However, if it's an armed anti-government militia, it's very easy for them to obliterate them and suffer almost zero cost. Just look at Waco.
Very well, i was not aware of the Waco incident. The whole wikipedia page reads like complete insanity. I wonder how much of the allegations brought up against the rebels are completely fabricated to justify what happened later. I do wonder how would the US government respond to one hundred "wacos" happening at the same time, each led by a command structure.
Of course that is extremely hypotethical, because like you i do not believe much in the power of the "mob". 1848 happened and countless mobsters died and not a single monarchy in Europe was overthrown. It did however happen on a different time, under different pretexts, but it was nonetheless a massacre of the "mob" by the ruling elites. Maybe it did provide a pretext for some circulation of elites later on, as with the Bolshevik takeover of Russia or the american intervention in ww1 that saw the collapse of the German and Austrian Monarchies.
My point is the 1848 revolutions completely nuked the popularity of monarchy as form of government, and by 1918 communism and republicanism were all the rage. So again i say, maybe the government cannot be directly defeated by the mob, but massacrers on a huge scale can surely destroy legitimacy. Of course i do not think this is desirable. I would very much prefer a bloodless circulation of elites. Doomers who wish for the collapse are just larping. China is a good example of a civilization that suffered countless civil wars and none of them brought anything good.
Would the regime be willing to use the military against a large enough militia tho? I would very much like some group to be retarded enough to find out.
If they don't use the army on the citizens, that means an armed milita has a chance and renders your entire point void. If the US gov massacred its own population, your point would be correct, but it would completely delegitimize the whole regime's grip on power.
And you can say "oh the civil war was such an example" however i don't think it applies, as it was a formal kind of war.
Props for using Elite Theory, i'm glad to see it more widespread in the Dissendent Right.
First of all, without some kind of organized elite leadership structure, a militia large enough cannot exist. Secondly, governments lose a lot more legitimacy when they fire upon unarmed civilians because they are seen as the aggressor. However, if it's an armed anti-government militia, it's very easy for them to obliterate them and suffer almost zero cost. Just look at Waco.
Very well, i was not aware of the Waco incident. The whole wikipedia page reads like complete insanity. I wonder how much of the allegations brought up against the rebels are completely fabricated to justify what happened later. I do wonder how would the US government respond to one hundred "wacos" happening at the same time, each led by a command structure.
Of course that is extremely hypotethical, because like you i do not believe much in the power of the "mob". 1848 happened and countless mobsters died and not a single monarchy in Europe was overthrown. It did however happen on a different time, under different pretexts, but it was nonetheless a massacre of the "mob" by the ruling elites. Maybe it did provide a pretext for some circulation of elites later on, as with the Bolshevik takeover of Russia or the american intervention in ww1 that saw the collapse of the German and Austrian Monarchies.
My point is the 1848 revolutions completely nuked the popularity of monarchy as form of government, and by 1918 communism and republicanism were all the rage. So again i say, maybe the government cannot be directly defeated by the mob, but massacrers on a huge scale can surely destroy legitimacy. Of course i do not think this is desirable. I would very much prefer a bloodless circulation of elites. Doomers who wish for the collapse are just larping. China is a good example of a civilization that suffered countless civil wars and none of them brought anything good.