nothing to add, barely could read fully; too tired for my own added discussion. What you get here is the disassociated jumble of ideas bouncing araound my head as I read the meme.
l believe if they set aside their law as and when they wish, their law no longer has rightful authority over us. All they have over us then is tyranny. And l will not live under that yoke.
is this where we play the semantic games of what "peasant" means, and conflate peasants tied to the land in a feudal system before the rise of guilds/middle class/etc with modern society?
Anyone that has served in the military, can read and write, has freedom of movement, has the ability to arm themselves, and can involve themselves in governing -if even on the local level, is not really a "peasant"
few peasants, all on their own, have changed anything.
Having said, that there have been several "peasant uprisings" throughout history to change things. Ofc, they had military leadership that were trained fighters -either nobles or some sort of warrior class who armed and trained said peasants.
Chinese dynasties were collapsed by peasant uprisings. Most European examples have elites capitulating to peasant demands, so basically stalemates resulting in elites remaining in power but changing their policies and meeting peasant demands.
If there's a race war, it's safe to say that the white supremacists will be in charge
Probably not given most “White supremacist” organizations are honey pots and everyone knows it.
There's a reason that the phrase "bread and circuses" has the negative connotation that it does.
It didn't work.
Rome had been handing out free grain to its citizens since 123 BC and it had not stopped Rome from suffering its bloodiest civil war in 49 BC and did not stop Rome from slowly destroying itself with smaller ones until the whole rotten system finally imploded and was rolled over by the Germans
It's "inevitable" that the State wins?
The jig is up, the state wins. There would have to be one singular, 9/11 tier level of overreach of one side or the other to finally make something happen, and even then I don't think it would last longer than a month before being covered up and memory-holed.
By that logic, we should have won in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Syria easily. Except we didn't. All three of those ended in disaster and now America is on the retreat in the Middle East and everyone can see it.
Who objectively comes out on top?
The Joooooooooos.
No. They have the most to lose if SHTF in a civil war.
They built their empire on bureaucracy, bread and circus, stagnation and psyops. Physical action and revolution is anathema to that, which is why the government agencies have been desperately trying to stem it from happening.
corn syrup connection
However, Sugar was gradually substituted to hfcs in most soft drinks (not just coca-cola) beginning in 1975, by the 1980s sugar was almost entirely phased out. The specific change you are complaining about occurred in 1984 a year prior to New coke's introduction.
Your "conspiracy" arises from the deceptive claims of Gay Mullins - who bitched about hfcs in the restored "coke classic". He has subsequently admitteded that his primary intention was to secure donations from sugar lobby (which was opposed to hfcs for obvious reasons). Again, hfcs is used for the same reason that corn is used for u.s. ethanol - it's absurdly plentiful domestically.
there are more important things than comfort and materialism
The men at lexington and concord knew this
and I have an angry mob that will roast and eat your "men of quality" in the ashes of the Senate House
best tv quote evah