Anti-Revolution!

Last night I was chatting with my friend and I noticed his shirt said Revolution on it. Then I read it backwards.

NO IT U LOVER
(KNOW) IT U LOVER

It screamed out to me, all these countries in the world having revolutions and suddenly the concept seemed peaceful when you read it backwards. As if the answer was so simple and it was staring me in the face. Can we have an Anti-Revolution? One that's driven by love and hopefully one that will balance out the mad, mad world we live in today?

Love is our greatest commodity, because every human has the ability to love. That's one thing everyone has in common, and something we can unite together from. Imagine if we all got together and instead of holding signs that said "REVOLUTION", they all said "NO IT U LOVER" what would be the response? Would it be the same old tear gas canister pelting us in the face? Or would it be a smile and acknowledgment that we're doing this because it's the best thing for everyone.

Not everyone feels love the same way though, some people get that love from materialistic things. Like money for instance, it's hard to feel love for your peers when you think you can just buy it. It simply doesn't work that way, money doesn't buy everything and this is a shout-out to those that think they can run the world without it. But if they truly did feel love, they wouldn't be treating the working class the way they do.

a reply to: mrdeadfolx

It screamed out to me, all these countries in the world having revolutions and suddenly the concept seemed peaceful when you read it backwards. As if the answer was so simple and it was staring me in the face. Can we have an Anti-Revolution? One that's driven by love and hopefully one that will balance out the mad, mad world we live in today?

There was a time…
They thought they could win peace with peace. And they did. They made love, not war. And they won.

I wish it were possible, but most revolutions lead to other power hungry people taking over. It is better to get people thinking better and trying to replace the ones in charge with people who are more honest and think things through better. This world could be peaceful it it weren't for desire for power and greed...but that is a pipe dream for most of us.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wish it were possible, but most revolutions lead to other power hungry people taking over. .

See that would be the difference though, an Anti-Revolution would open the eyes of the power hungry person in question and hopefully change his ways. We the working class are the lifeblood of the very corrupt CEOs who buy-out the politicians that "represent" us. If we started by uniting ourselves, then united the politicians, hopefully love would have the ultimate answer to the question that makes our freedom a burden more than a privilege.

Some want us take the 60's counter culture movement and stereotype it to dirt. Yah, the hippy, liberal, pinko, commy, faggot, drug abused counter culture.

If the main stream has its way, you'll fall into line with just what they want you to believe about them. Discredited demeaned, and oblivious.

The '68 democratic convention riots, the Chicago underground and weathermen trial, the anti war protests, the civil rights movements. Both the Kennedys, Martin Luther King and yes the goddamn hippys stopped the vietnam war, fought against political corruption, defended your civil rights and ousted "tricky dick" Nixon from office.

Try and remove your current paradigm rose colored glasses long enough to check out "Steal this Movie" about the era.

I don't see much difference between then and today as far as the government, police state and war mongers go. Except the missing or lack of a unified spirit among Americans to rise up and risk life and limb for all those tenants we claim to hold so dear.

a reply to: intrptr

That'd be the most important thing is finding a way to unify the masses like they did back in the 60's. It's tough nowadays which is ironic considering we have the internet at our disposal. If not for Love, then what can we stand for?

a reply to: mrdeadfolx

It's tough nowadays which is ironic considering we have the internet at our disposal.

Maybe thats part of the problem. Our keyboards have supplanted out vocal chords ( or feet).

If not for Love, then what can we stand for?

You are doing just fine. Your thoughts inspired me to remember the past. So, love it is. Love it will always be, even if just on a personal level. All we can do is set the example, right?

Yeah!! NO IT U LOVER! Ya know maybe that's why government was trying so hard to keep gay marriage illegal as long as they did, not because it was between man/man or woman/woman, but because it promotes Love in general.

I've never been to a rally since I live so far away from bigger cities but I imagine if there was a rally where everyone felt that energy you talked about from the 60's, well we'd have a much better time trying to get our country back on track. Get it away from Corporate Greed and corrupt politicians, Love might be the wind we need in our sails once again!

Wasn't this sort of what the Hippie movement was about? At least I thought so, but I was not around then and have not really read too much about it. In my personal opinion, speaking of political revolutions, an entirely peaceful struggle or "war" can be waged against one's own government. It has been done. It is just not that easy to accomplish, because it relies on the sentiment and character of the people you are trying to influence.

No good or love will influence certain people. And it would not surprise me if those people who sought power to begin with are the same ones who will not be influenced in many instances. Force is the only thing they understand. So let's take our rights as an example. If the government does not wish to honor our rights, a peaceful revolution may or may not succeed. A violent revolution may or may not succeed. But a violent revolution forces the issue.

Take Libya as an example. No amount of peaceful protesting would have gotten Qaddafi to relinquish his powers. What recourse did the people really have aside from violent revolution? They could either continue to live under the regime, or do something about it. So I am not saying a more peaceful movement cannot succeed, all I am saying is that there is a less chance of a peaceful revolution succeeding, simply because more is left up to those in power to start with.

All the above is just for political revolutions. I just wanted to comment on that particular brand of revolutions, as I have done more thinking on that subject that on other revolutionary aims, those of a less political nature.