Violent Protest is not the Answer

If a government takes away your rights to freedom, property, etc., and even removes democracy itself, how do you respond effectively?

I wish to suggest that a violent response is just what they would want: it would play right into their hands. The powers that have orchestrated/planned for such an eventuality can claim that an immediate harsh response, and ever-increasing draconian measures at a national level, are necessary to retain law and order.

For the sake of all that you hold dear, for the sake of your children who will look back at these times, keep the moral high ground. As to the specifics, there must be myriad ways of protesting. A national strike, for example, is a highly potent strategy, yet it entails nothing but a determined sit-in. I'm sure others could come up with lists of potential tactics.

They want your guns? Give them your guns.

I know it will sound feeble to some, but it ain't. It requires a deep determination to retain one's dignity in the face of oppression. It requires moral fibre in the face of abuse. It requires the ability to rise above the desire for retribution.

In the long-run you win, they lose.






[edit to correct typo]

[edit on 21/9/08 by pause4thought]

Well, on one hand Ghandi's peaceful protests made the British rethink their future so it does work. But on the other, I for one would rather go out kicking and screaming and making myself heard than simply become part ofthe herd!

A good post and nice words, but unfortunately....

If people don't fight, then they'll be herded away by our sheep dog security.

If we do fight, we'll be killed or arrested or worse.

What is the difference between self defence and being pacified and unviolent....

I rather go with the people that fight the powers that want to remain their power even if they are key figures in this fiasco than do some mindless brainwashed thing like accepting SLAVERY.

Hi There,

Pauseforthought:

Violent protest is not the answer.

Totally agree! However, I fear the American mind may not be able to see the virtue and the power in this. It has always been indoctrinated that might sorts out problems, but it never does, it just becomes the fertile breeding ground of hate and despair that surfaces later some distance down time's future unravelling.

Having already stated something regarding this subject on another thread..."What would Justify The Overthrow of the Government"...I do not intend to patronise the American mind with another plea to 'right' thinking and action, but just to say you need the rest of the world on your side, and to respond to this situation (which is more than just an American problem) with violence would belittle and negate any and all peaceful attempts, and would split world opinion. Remember, Ghandi was successful because he was dealing with the British, but that it was his own kind that killed him. Whatever you do, don't kill your own country or yourself. The world will be much bleaker without there being an American in it.

Best wishes

I think of it (life) as a game. Don't lay all your cards on the table and realize that there are some cards that have to be sacrificed for the win.

If "they" come for my guns, then "they" know which guns they are coming for and I will surrender those without opposition.

I definately don't believe in looking for trouble, but in keeping my head low and going about my personal business in my personal life. When that is imposed upon, then hopefully I will have understood this game enough to have the right "cards" to play to my (and my family's) advantage

This is one of those threads where people are really speaking their mind, so I'd like to respond to much of what's been said.


reply to post by Mintwithahole.


If the economy is shot people will inevitably have to put up with unusual measures. No government could sit back and just watch it all happen. To a certain extent compliance has to be accepted. But then you get your thinking cap on.

Shouting in protest is a human reaction. The problem is the authorities are going to be mighty jittery, and it won't take much to spark mass arrests.

If you haven't seen this already, it's worth mulling over:

Mass Arrest in St. Paul

The authorities have already lost the moral high ground if this is going to be their approach. In the medium and long term they will live to regret this. It will mean they lose not just respect, but legitimacy, and it will come to haunt them.


reply to post by mr-lizard

If people don't fight, then they'll be herded away by our sheep dog security.

I hear what you're saying, but if the masses refuse to react violently the security forces can only sit around looking rather silly in their body armour.


reply to post by Grey Magic

I rather go with the people that fight the powers that want to remain their power even if they are key figures in this fiasco than do some mindless brainwashed thing like accepting SLAVERY.

That's what they expect you to say. Confucius he say mouse have better tactic than frontal attack on elephant.


reply to post by elysiumfire

It has always been indoctrinated that might sorts out problems, but it never does, it just becomes the fertile breeding ground of hate and despair that surfaces later some distance down time's future unravelling.

You're on my wavelength man. Yugoslavia says it all. (Anyone in any doubt is invited to check out this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... - especially how blablablaxyz starts using actions by Albanians/Bosniaks in WWII (!!!) to justify ethnic cleansing in the late 20th C. Then hit p.2 to see how today's generation of Serbians is represented!)

I was fully aware of the danger the OP could be taken as patronizing, however I took the risk as I believed most responses would be mature, i.e. they would see where I'm coming from even if they didn't agree, and this has so far proved to be the case.

There was great balance to what you said. Thanks for that contribution.

I'll check out the thread you mentioned.


reply to post by justamomma


IMHO if people respond as you have they'll win the day. Great to hear your thoughts.






[edit to fix code]

[edit on 22/9/08 by pause4thought]

I agree 100%. You do not rid the evil by means of killing or committing evil. At best you merely replace the evil and become it yourself.

If you need proof, just look at the history of the US. Look at what we've become in the name of fighting evil.

Give them the guns huh? Well.. look at china. Those guys are having easy times having sit ins arent they. I think your moral high ground is suicide frankly. Its like a bear is chasing you, and you think for a moment "maybe if i put down my gun and just stop running it will leave me alone"? but then the bear eats you.

I'm afraid your words are a pipe dream. Peace, patience and the wait and see attitude has put us in the position we are in today.

The reality is, it wont be peaceful.

Reply to mastermind77 ( Were you really? I remember the TV show. )


I respect you for laying out the other way of looking at this issue. Nice illustration too.

However wild animals have never heard of post-apocalypse war crimes trials...

Originally posted by pause4thought
If a government takes away your rights to freedom, property, etc., and even removes democracy itself, how do you respond effectively?

I wish to suggest that a violent response is just what they would want: it would play right into their hands. The powers that have orchestrated/planned for such an eventuality can claim that an immediate harsh response, and ever-increasing draconian measures at a national level, are necessary to retain law and order.

For the sake of all that you hold dear, for the sake of your children who will look back at these times, keep the moral high ground. As to the specifics, there must be myriad ways of protesting. A national strike, for example, is a highly potent strategy, yet it entails nothing but a determined sit-in. I'm sure others could come up with lists of potential tactics.

They want your guns? Give them your guns.

I know it will sound feeble to some, but it ain't. It requires a deep determination to retain one's dignity in the face of oppression. It requires moral fibre in the face of abuse. It requires the ability to rise above the desire for retribution.

In the long-run you win, they lose.


[edit to correct typo]

[edit on 21/9/08 by pause4thought]

Good thing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Patrick Henry, et. al., didn't have your mindset.

They said that not only is violence sometimes necessary, it is sometimes your DUTY.

Who knows more about starting and running a country, you or them?

Reply to sir_chancealot


Hi there. I just felt the temperature rise significantly. I'm not about to leave the kitchen, though.

I'm under no illusions I or any of the other posters to date can unravel centuries of cultural history. However I do think debate can encourage thinking outside the box.

The idea that violence is sometimes a duty raises huge moral questions, and I don't pretend they are easy. However:


Question 1:

Duty to who or what?

If to the preservation of a way of life, avoidance of widespread destruction and killing serves that end more effectively than violence, I would suggest, as it does not necessitate starting from scratch at some future point in time. However it requires restraint, and great patience. (Nevertheless I do acknowledge that the strategy you advocate has a greater short-term impact on a situation.)


Question 2:

Is it not the case that 'duty' is really a euphamism for 'doing someone else's dirty work'? I don't see many politicians sending family members to war, for example (or even acting in a convincingly honourable way with respect to those wounded in the course of obeying their orders). People are waking up to the fact that war is a humungous money-spinner for many elites, and has been for centuries. I therefore view the pronouncements of even such august figures as you have quoted with a degree of skepticism. Things are no longer as black and white as when we were spoon-fed at school, no matter who was quoted as patron of given sayings/principles.

With respect to the specific situation alluded to in this discussion, it can be argued that violent resistance would inadvertently feed the power and ambitions of those who control the forces of law and order, enabling them to justify evermore extreme action. As such, perpetrators would ironically be doing the dirty work on behalf of those they seek to oppose - and therein lies the conspiracy: they've thought it through. But so should the populace.

Knee-jerk reactions are nearly always better avoided; rarely do they benefit the instigators, and regret almost always follows.

Originally posted by pause4thought
If a government takes away your rights to freedom, property, etc., and even removes democracy itself, how do you respond effectively?

I wish to suggest that a violent response is just what they would want: it would play right into their hands. The powers that have orchestrated/planned for such an eventuality can claim that an immediate harsh response, and ever-increasing draconian measures at a national level, are necessary to retain law and order.

If it is what they want then it is what they will get. They will lose the battle. They will be fighting in the people's streets. If we learned anything about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is that gorilla war tactics work perfectly. All you need is better strategies.

For the sake of all that you hold dear, for the sake of your children who will look back at these times, keep the moral high ground. As to the specifics, there must be myriad ways of protesting. A national strike, for example, is a highly potent strategy, yet it entails nothing but a determined sit-in. I'm sure others could come up with lists of potential tactics.

I would rather die and watch our children free, then be sent to jail for protesting and being useless behind bars. The police have arrested peaceful protests and they will keep doing it until the people reach their peek. You must also understand not everyone thinks with a Christian mindset. A national strike will accomplish nothing. Parents know they need to feed their kids. There is no way to take time off of work. A national riot, for example, is an even better strategy. Run to every congress home and make them sign a "Your Fired" resignation.

They want your guns? Give them your guns.

That is like telling the Catholic church to drop the pope.

I know it will sound feeble to some, but it ain't. It requires a deep determination to retain one's dignity in the face of oppression. It requires moral fibre in the face of abuse. It requires the ability to rise above the desire for retribution.

In the long-run you win, they lose.

Determination? A lot of Americans are lazy and not determined at all. The ones with ambition and determination are outnumbered by the people who will try to keep them down.

Originally posted by dgtempe
I'm afraid your words are a pipe dream. Peace, patience and the wait and see attitude has put us in the position we are in today.

My exact thoughts. How long do we, the people, keep waiting for officials to do the right thing. Just seems thing are getting worst, it's moving in the wrong direction for the common man. This is what the powers count on and hope to happen.

why do people think that there is any peaceful solution possible?

the whole situation is created to take away your last remaining freedoms.

Unless the govt was taken over by military until new fairer elections, put all the guilty on trial and the US constitution is restored I would be willing to lay down my weapons.

we humans always fought for progress, if there is none, we will fight.

Hi There,

dgtempe:

Peace, patience and the wait and see attitude has put us in the position we are in today.

Not at all...what got the people in the position they are currently in, is an abdication of their responsibility to always be mindful of what their government is doing in their name, and if necessary, to resist it...not ignore it with apathy. The longer it is ignored, the harder it is to put right.

SirChancealot:

They said that not only is violence sometimes necessary, it is sometimes your DUTY.

I believe this refered to an 'outside' enemy...not an internal one. Resistance to government is an even greater duty than that to be given to an outside enemy, because an internal enemy is more destructive. However, resistance is far easier when the people do not ignore their responsibility to maintain awareness of what the government is doing. Apathy has lead to a deeper entrenchment of the situation. There were marches, but not enough participated to make a dent in the conscience of those whom should be acting on your behalf.

Who knows more about starting and running a country, you or them?

Whom abdicated their responsibility...you or them?

Equinox99:

If it is what they want then it is what they will get. They will lose the battle. They will be fighting in the people's streets. If we learned anything about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is that gorilla war tactics work perfectly.

I doubt very much that armed resistance will get you anywhere but dead. Guerrilla tactics never beat an occupying force, all such strategy achieves is a longevity in killings to both sides...the original intention becomes lost along with the nation and the country. I can guarantee that if it went down this route, 'Ruby Ridge' will occur many times over on a scale unprecedented in US history. Try not to convince yourself of impossible schemes, or that the nation will rise up armed to the teeth ready to die for something they have yet to take a genuine interest in. When the killing starts you'll see exactly how many are in agreement to your idea...very few.

The only answer is finally pushing the button and letting it end.

That's the only tangible peace anyone can ever hope for.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I believe this refered to an 'outside' enemy...not an internal one. Resistance to government is an even greater duty than that to be given to an outside enemy, because an internal enemy is more destructive. However, resistance is far easier when the people do not ignore their responsibility to maintain awareness of what the government is doing. Apathy has lead to a deeper entrenchment of the situation. There were marches, but not enough participated to make a dent in the conscience of those whom should be acting on your behalf.

Your first sentence is incorrect. However, I do absolutely agree with the rest of the listed quote. Remember this, the British weren't an EXTERNAL enemy. They were citizens of the crown!

Here is something that people don't generally recognize. Rebellion has literally been breed into the American populace. The same for Australians. (Which may explain why people in America usually have a higher opinion of Australia over Canada, but that's just a guess on my part).

You HAVE to understand that in any internal rebellion, the police will be the first to go in. They will have no problems firing on those rebelling. THEY HAVE TRAINED THEIR WHOLE CAREER ON WHEN TO SHOOT/NOT SHOOT CIVILIANS. They have already hurdled the "mental barrier" in that particular issue. Eventually, in the case of a TRUE rebellion, they are going to have to send in the military.

FROM THAT POINT ON, THEY ARE IN A LOSE-LOSE POSITION. To put down such a rebellion, should it start, they have two choices... sit down and negotiate, or respond with overwhelming firepower. If they negotiate, the politicos KNOW they are going to lose power and face. This, they will not do. Thus, they will have to respond with overwhelming force.

Now, if it is just 5, or 10, or even 20 thousand people, the people in the military can justify shooting on them, because they are an "insurrection". What do you think would happen if that number started approaching millions? What about 10s of millions? You've got actual civil war on your hands. But not the "north/south" civil war, you've got "government against the people" civil war. In during this, some military men somewhere are going to actually read the Constitution. And some are going to be reminded that part of their duty is to protect against domestic enemies as well. How long will it take some of them to realize that the "domestic enemy" is NOT the people who are rebelling? Why do you think some government memos, pamphlets, etc., talk about ONE OF THE SIGNS OF A "TERRORIST" IS HAVING WRITINGS THAT REFER TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE CONSTITUTION? (btw, I thought that terrorists "hated our way of life", so why would they have the founding document of our way of life? )

You see, the internal POLICE FORCES of the U.S. have been trained to view the public as "the enemy". This is reinforced day to day by them having an overwhelming majority of bad interactions (i.e., "going after the bad guys").
In the last 20 years, that type of interaction hasn't been happening with the Military. In the 60s, hippies were protesting soldiers, calling them "baby killers", spitting on them, etc. This is only happening rarely today. I submit that the reason Kent State was possible was because of what the hippies were doing to soldiers. But I digress.

You see, getting Johnny the Marine, or Phil the Infantryman to fire on strange people that speak strange languages is pretty easy. It's going to be much, much more difficult to get them to fire on "those dudes from Idaho", after all, Johnny once spent a week with his cousin in Idaho, and Idahoans seemed like alright people. And Phil the Infantryman is going to have to think long and hard about shooting that militia guy from Michigan, considering he spent a week up there at a fishing lodge, and had a great time.

What happens when STATES start joining in, and not on the side of the Federal Government? What do you think is going to happen when the "national guard" of some state is sent to attack Federal troops? Not only that, but what happens in a particular state if the cities side with the Feds, and the rural areas side with the rebels?

How many slaughtered americans are going to have to die in the streets? It took 600,000 to 700,000 the last time before it finally stopped. That was back when the majority of our civilization still had, for lack of a better term, honor.

I stipulate that the only way to scare americans into going along with martial law is to have nukes go off in american cities (perhaps just dirty bombs). That's why that will be the next false flag attack. IT BUYS THEM MORE TIME AND CONFUSION.

But when (not if) rebellion, or more correctly stated a FIGHT FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE CONSTITUTION occurs, it will flare suddenly. And once started, it is going to spread like you wouldn't believe.

Remember, roughly 1/3 of "Americans" were against the Revolution. 1/3 were for it. 1/3 didn't give a crap either way. Do those ratios sound familiar today?

And finally, a humorous saying: "If violence isn't the answer, you're asking the wrong question!"

reply to post by pause4thought


Hey, P4T! This is an interesting view you put forth. I have to say I disagree, though. Especially about the gun issue. If an event transpires on a mass scale, I say, Revolt, Revolt, Revolt. Don't go like cattle.

Look at the protests in the past that were both violent and passive. A passive approach sometimes works but that is the exception and not the rule.

Acts of peaceful protest might have worked for things the civil rights movement of the 1960's but they would not have worked in the event of something like Nazi Germany hauling away Jews.

We would have to discern the scenario before figuring out which approach to take. And NEVER forfeit your guns.