We all know things are broken. It's no secret things are almost maximally corrupt, like a sponge completely soaked with water that cannot hold any more.

Things cannot go on like this forever, we are on a path that the psyches of the masses cannot sustain because it is increasingly abusive. We're being abused by our media, by our government, by our police, by our schools, by our judges, by our legal system, our prisons, our lobbying system, our elected officials, our election systems, our work culture, our financial system, our student loan crisis, our endless wars and bombings of other countries including the support of ISIS while lying to the domestic public and saying the opposite... it's all abuse. I'm done with it. You're probably getting close to being done with it, if you're not there already, given the fact you're reading this.

So let's talk about revolutions.

There's a few different paths I see the US and many other countries going down over the next 40 years. To be clear, I am not advocating any specific action in this post, I am simply evaluating the possible paths the US could go down to try and guess where things might go, and how each outcome might look.

The most blatant option is an armed revolution. Where some group of armed people actively opposes the national government in some way. There are a few ways this can go, and they are all bad because the state has a near-monopoly on violence and will thus almost always win if things are escalated to the level of violence, especially in the United States. Here are some things that could happen:

• Armed insurrection - The insurrectionists get branded as terrorists, like a domestic ISIS. They are hated by the public because they introduce instability. They are blamed for all the ills of society. The government arrests or kills them all, and the public cheers. Fail.

• Civil war - The anti-government side grows in support and there is a prolonged civil war, similar to the 1860s US civil war. The most devastating war in US history, claiming 800k American lives. Fail.

• Military coup - If a faction of the military was coordinated enough against the government, a military coup could happen, but this is extremely unlikely because the US military has a fantastic indoctrination system. Any civil war would probably have factionalizing the existing military as a prerequisite. Civil war. Fail.

None of these results are desirable. Any violent action that makes progress toward overthrow will be infiltrated by the CIA. They are the experts at violent overthrow. They have overthrown 53 governments since WW2! After doing something fifty-three times, you can imagine they're pretty good at it. You can imagine they would be equally good at it here, their home. This means any of the above options would be very likely to result in further consolidation of CIA power after the war is over. They would be "driving the car" when it comes to the war, because they have the funds, arms, means, and experience to be able to do this easily. They may not want a US civil war, but you can guarantee if it happens they will be the ones guiding the actions of the major players.

So now it's clear a violent option is not a good idea because it does not resolve the underlying issues and actually creates conditions that can easily wind up giving more power to those people who are skilled at waging war, which is the opposite of what is wanted.

So let's look at the meat of this discussion, the options of non-violent revolution that are before us.

1. We vote our way out of this. Unfortunately one company owns closed-source code to our paperless voting machines, and there's all sorts of other rigging like gerrymandering and our two party system designed to consolidate things down to an unavoidable duopoly, both sides of which are largely controlled by the same people. Avenue for change, closed. Fail.

2. Revolution through the legal system, by rewriting law through lobbying efforts and courtroom precedent by lawyers. Unfortunately the best lawyers are the most expensive, those with the most money to spare for lobbying are those with the most money in the first place. Both the lawyer and lobbying route get taken over by big money. Fail.

3. Work stoppages and labor union action. Thanks to outsourcing and insourcing of jobs, the job market is flooded with laborers. Workers are easily replaceable. Unions are weak and sparse after 4 decades of propaganda. It's hard to organize people because everyone is barely making enough to live, and it's very hard to find a job. People don't want to risk being fired, and turnover is so high that people don't band together to fix problems. Route for change, closed. Fail.

4. Large-scale long-lasting protests. Protests in certain locations can clog up key streets and buildings for TPTB, effectively clogging their business machinery, which hits them in their pocketbook which makes them pay attention. OWS was very close to this, but it lacked the numbers to truly break through. They never actually occupied Wall Street. I think this is the reason it failed. And the reason that didn't happen is because there weren't enough people. They were able to box people in (kettling, which is illegal) on the Brooklyn bridge and arrested 1200 people in one of the key days of OWS. Had it been 50x more people, the police would not have been able to pull off such a thing, and Wall Street itself might've been occupied, and the protest could've gone a completely different direction.

   Read about the "Pots and pans revolution" of Iceland in 2009, this wiki article is fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Icelandic_financial_crisis_protests

   The people of Iceland went to the capital, clogged up the streets with tons of people, and they all brought pots and pans from home and banged them together to create so much noise that congress had to end their session because people couldn't hear. They did this for WEEKS. Non-stop, without break. And as a result, they actually dissolved the existing government and got to write a new constitution from scratch, which they crowd-sourced to the public! Yes Iceland is smaller than most countries, but there is no reason this sort of activity can't be scaled up. And it doesn't matter how homogeneous a country is as long as they are homogeneous about this idea, that's all it takes for this to happen. Only 3-10% of the public has to participate for it to work.

   Another problem with sit-in revolutions like this is the agent provocateur. If confronted with large-scale protests that are uncontrollable, the police and military will sometimes put plants in the crowd, people who act as violent protesters to create violent situations, which then gives police justification to step in an start arresting/beating people "for public safety, because the riot is clearly out of control" which the news media and thus public believes. This is a way to break up the protest, and everyone protesting must be aware of this possibility and maintain a situation of staunch anti-violence, perhaps the crowd working together to hold back anyone who begins inciting violence.

These are the options as I see them, going by what history has shown us. Again I'm not advocating anything here, just wondering if the US is going to have a smart revolution or a dumb revolution. Or maybe both at the same time. If I missed a big option, please post about it. It's a complex subject that is discussed much less than it should be. I see some sort of revolution as inevitable given the way things are going, and it'd be nice if an informed public were guiding that, instead of the CIA.