>>9255679that would depend on the definition of "tyranny"
i don't count on "winning" any plausible civil war scenario because there is no plausible thing i would call victory if that were to happen. regardless of outcome, there'd be a destroyed country and a world order that would hazard the future and prosperity of western civilization
society is a fire that requires constant current action to keep burning, and when it goes out it goes out for good. it is why there are greeks and roman descendants around but those societies are dead, nothing but a memory and pages of the history books. the reduction of our nation to ashes does not ensure any future rise or greatness. there are romans who probably thought the same thing
i endorse political solutions. it's the only thing i see that preserves our culture (in the high, best sense of western height, not modernity). if war erupts among ourselves, i'm not fighting, because i don't have a reason to at that point. i will either remain a neutral party, die, or run away
>>9255682so no, you weren't. but my motivations aren't cowardice or nihilism (i can quote nietzsche without endorsing all his worldviews - i've quoted kierkegaard, schopenhauer, and voltaire too). i'm just not gonna participate in what is the self-destruction of my people and their dying culture
luckily, civil war won't happen. we got to where we are because of people like most of /pol/ who will constantly get stepped on while threatening some retaliation that they don't actually have the will to accomplish. if people were actually going to rise up and fight against some red line of tyranny, it would have happened the last several times the government overstepped its boundaries. i don't see how another arbitrary red line is somehow more meaningful than the last several
i'll push for subtlety of action by the rare few that can make a difference as long as they remain intelligent and civilized to work the long game
