Violent Protest is not the Answer

reply to post by pause4thought


Yes I do think it is possible, but its a Hail Mary shot. I hoped I had already given my opinion in my first post, but I agree that violence should be the last resort. To wait until you have exhausted all other avenues, although tactically not a good idea, it does allow one to keep the moral high ground. Just because government may have lost morality, does not mean an individual should give up theirs.

I believe even the hardest criminal can be changed through stubborn benevolence.

And on this we will just have to disagree.

reply to post by mystiq


I find your input interesting in that it has broadened the debate to include thoughts on a more equitable and sustainable system. The strength of what you are saying is that there would be no point in restarting the entire system that produced the current state of affairs (and a possible meltdown) in the first place. The fact that it would be less centralized also makes your proposals thought-provoking.

Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by mystiq

 

Your getting off topic, but I would be happy to continue if you create another thread on the matter. The world is not an equal place, nor is the work people do. Money is earned commensurate with work performed. To suggest everyone is deserving of the same amount of money, despite their profession, trade or effort is socialism.

Treating people as equals is not the same as being equal. As you say, you can't force equality as socialism says. The only fair system that will treat everyone equally is a free market. And not free market like they talk about now, actual free market. Combined with an economy that is not a debt based system, without inflation and deflation other than natural and real growth.

Also, back to the original topic. Violence as in doing harm to others is not going to solve anything. You will merely be insuring that the earth continues the status quo we have been in for centuries. It's been tried, it never works. The people really in charge will simply fund and be a part of both sides and mold in with the winner of their choice.

By doing violent things, you just become the evil for the other side. No different than how we become the evil for muslims, and muslims play the evil for christians.

It's all divide and conquer. And that is all thats really going to happen here. Because you have also taken to evil, they will point the fingers at you as being the evil, which diverts the attention away from the evil they do. You justify the evil in their opinion, just as they have justified the evil in your opinion.

By not becoming the evil, you keep the moral highground. And from that you can show people the evil, and the only choice they will have is to try and marginalize and ignore you. At that point, you make them play the cards. As their entire power depends on people who are manipulated, everytime you show they are wrong the people being manipulated slowly wake up.

Ron Paul was a clear cut example of this in the past year. I tried telling people about that stuff for a long time. I tried to tell people how things were manipulated and censored. And Ron Paul kept the moral highground and never resorted to the cheap tactics. SOOOO many people woke up. It was absolutely amazing at the number of people that I had argued with for years just suddenly said - woah, whats going on here.

One thing to add that must be understood here, is that even a violent overthrow of the government will eventually lead to another rouge government. America overthrew the British. If Americans overthrow and re institute a constitutional government, it will eventually become corrupt and require overthrow. Freedom and oppression are cyclical. This is why it occurs so often in history. The objective is not to try to break the cycle, but delay the progression between the free and oppressive states.

Socialism is a monetary system, in the end. Though it is far superior to our unchecked capitalism, and the proof is in their standard of living and economies, I no longer support any system based on money, therefore interest built in (that is not circulating and therefore can't be paid off and means instantly winners and losers), I only support a resource based economy. And my children will be educated as well, and theres. So with enough people waking up from this madness, it will end sooner or later. But if its not sooner, this planet probably won't survive.
Edit to add: people really have no choice but to protest or fight in some way against whats happening, because as its going, life on this planet will cease to be possible with current abuses, but reinstating the same unjust system would mean that many of those who fight in any capacity to overcome, will have suffered great losses for no reason, no gain, no change.
Within a short while, the financial takeover of the wolves would be business as usual.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mystiq]

Originally posted by mystiq
Socialism is a monetary system, in the end. Though it is far superior to our unchecked capitalism, and the proof is in their standard of living and economies, I no longer support any system based on money, therefore interest built in (that is not circulating and therefore can't be paid off and means instantly winners and losers), I only support a resource based economy. And my children will be educated as well, and theres. So with enough people waking up from this madness, it will end sooner or later. But if its not sooner, this planet probably won't survive.
Edit to add: people really have no choice but to protest or fight in some way against whats happening, because as its going, life on this planet will cease to be possible with current abuses, but reinstating the same unjust system would mean that many of those who fight in any capacity to overcome, will have suffered great losses for no reason, no gain, no change.
Within a short while, the financial takeover of the wolves would be business as usual.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mystiq]

Socialism is merely a form of control where the majority is allowed to rule over the minority. Where the ignorant majority is manipulated and kept entertained and the leaders use symbolism and such to direct the masses.

Where the individual is given the illusion of choice in the vote, when in reality to make a choice requires getting a majority of people to vote. And those who support the system generally think it will be great, because they can only ever imagine it as being exactly as they see it. All the while never realizing the ignorant majority and leading them will be the ones who give the leaders the power.

America has been moving to socialism for years. A socialist society is what the NWO is all about.

You can't even compare capitalism because we do not have free markets. We haven't had them in 100 years. Because a system of debt is not what the free market is about.

Of course, it's been called capitalism, and the truth of the matter sure doesn't stop people with socialist agendas from trying to pass on that falsehood. All the while claiming anyone who is against Socialism and universal "free" services just wants people to suffer.

No thanks. If your idea was so great, you wouldn't need to force people to do it. Nobody is stopping you from forming socialist type programs that run on donations. But that doesn't seem to be enough. We must force everyone to follow the view.

And that is the difference. I don't stop you from doing the good things yourself. I would probably even donate to the programs. But under your system, I am give NO choice in the matter.

Originally posted by mystiq
Socialism is a monetary system, in the end. Though it is far superior to our unchecked capitalism, and the proof is in their standard of living and economies, I no longer support any system based on money, therefore interest built in (that is not circulating and therefore can't be paid off and means instantly winners and losers), I only support a resource based economy. And my children will be educated as well, and theres. So with enough people waking up from this madness, it will end sooner or later. But if its not sooner, this planet probably won't survive.
Edit to add: people really have no choice but to protest or fight in some way against whats happening, because as its going, life on this planet will cease to be possible with current abuses, but reinstating the same unjust system would mean that many of those who fight in any capacity to overcome, will have suffered great losses for no reason, no gain, no change.
Within a short while, the financial takeover of the wolves would be business as usual.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mystiq]

Furthermore, to say it is far superior is simply a matter of opinion.

If you would actually try to study and understand the constitution, then you would quickly understand that it does not represent the country we have today. There is a difference in corporatism, where the big corporations push regulations that runs out competition and give themselves fat government contracts at the expense of the taxpayers.

If you would study, then you would realize that the general welfare loophole clause is against the constitution, and is what is used to give us all these special programs. It's opened up in the name of healthcare and welfare, but in reality anything which can be spun or claimed to be in the best interest of the people is allowed, just like a socialist country. Which is in direct violation of the 10th amendment. The general welfare clause is the part of the constitution which gives congress permission to congress to uphold the amendments. As the preamble to the constitution lays out that part of the constitution is to promote the general welfare. That would be the amendments, which is where they can add new amendments.

And as an example of how that system is supposed to work, and how it's not. Because of the general welfare clause loophole, they use it as a way of granting special rights. If they added healthcare as an amendment as intended, it would by default be given to people equally. But you'll never see socialists talking about this.

Originally posted by Wolf321
One thing to add that must be understood here, is that even a violent overthrow of the government will eventually lead to another rouge government. America overthrew the British. If Americans overthrow and re institute a constitutional government, it will eventually become corrupt and require overthrow. Freedom and oppression are cyclical. This is why it occurs so often in history. The objective is not to try to break the cycle, but delay the progression between the free and oppressive states.

The cycle happens because people forget what it means and takes to be free. The people start to try and force social crimes and other judgments and in the process put having control over other peoples lives in front of being free themselves. Thus why issues like gay marriage pop up in the political arena, and some people will vote solely on that. They care more about taking away someone else's freedom than their own freedom. And for that reason they lose it.

Eventually people start waking up to this, and the trend is reversed. The people who have lost their freedom start to understand the value of it.

So the way to extend it is to keep people educated and understanding of freedom. I'd just like to find a way to extend that indefinitely.

I tend to view non-violent protests as working only in very specific circumstances. They work when you can get a majority of a group of people motivated.

In India, non-violent protest worked because the native Indians outnumbered the British and once rallied they had the power to force change.

During US segregation protests, the African American community had the power of the recent memory of the holocaust behind them. The powers that be knew they couldn't just allow a whole racial group of people to be arrested or disappeared (especially with the rise of TV.) So they had to capitulate.

---

During a hypothetical revolution, it will necessarily be a minority group (revolutionaries) against a minority group (international organizers). It is foolish to believe that you can get more than 20% of the population to truly believe in, much less become soldiers for, the core ideals of the revolution.

The goal shouldn't be to take majority power but to destroy the power base of the "top 10%." The revolution needs to unequivocally show the people that the elites' power is ultimately illegitimate and then the fight becomes 20% vs 10%. I'll take those odds.

The average citizen, the 70% of the population remaining, would be waiting to see who offered the right ideas along with the right levels of community organization and involvement.

Jon

[edit on 12.28.2008 by Voxel]

Was thinking of this older thread recently. If not for violence I realized my country would not exist, the revolutionary war that gave us this freedom seeking country with high hopes it still has yet to live up to would not have been possible if a war was not waged. Violence is not always a great answer, but sometimes it is certainly a necessary one.

When the goal is to "thin the heard" I will be a well armed sheep.

There's no reason to roll over and die.

The great writer Michael Riggs said,

"All life is a race, a hide, or a fight. You are predator or prey. One or the other. Only man alone gets to make a choice. Most of the time"

It is always better when dealing with other rational, sane, prudent people to elect to engage in dialogue to resolve differences and grievances first.

The problem is, often enough, either you are not dealing with sane, rational, prudent people, you are left no choice, or a fight is thrust upon you.

There is no reasoning with some people. Their personal desire for excessive power, control, possessions, or just plain evil precluded them from considering any element of any other person for any reason.

What they want - should be theirs. They will steal, lie, and even kill to further their own desires. It is these that a bullet between the eyes is called for. Morally, one has an obligation to remove this sand particle from the butt crack of humanity.

Other times, a fight is thrust upon you, where you have done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or base elements of your being is at odds with theirs.

So they attempt by force to compel you to their control - even by using deadly force.

This type is another sand particle in the butt-crack of humanity that should be sent to another plane of existence for two reasons: to stop their aggression, and to enable a face-to-face with their Creator for the purpose of judgment.

In my violent, misspent youth, I fought in our military with some elements of enthusiasm. I never killed anyone that didn't need it. I never judged my enemy. I killed them and then I forgave them.

I guarantee you this: Those with guns get heard, and those without guns get herded.

Armed, you can get the other side to see your side of the argument - even if you have to kill every single one.

Idealism quickly vanishes when firearms are brought out. And no use in leaving all that advantage to the other side.

Nonviolence sounds really nice and it would be the answer in an ideal world, but the problem is the world is not an ideal place. Non violence gets you killed just look what happened to Jesus, JFK, MLK, Gahndi all non violent and all assassinated and the list goes on ... It seems to me non violence doesn't get things accomplished it only makes martyrs and leaves the evil in place just with even bloodier hands.

Sadly I think it will come to the point where we will have to remove the cancerous corruption by force, and it will easily be considered self defense with all they has been done anyway. I wish it was not that way, but nonviolence is what has allowed us to get where we are. The problems just keep getting worse and worse, sadly sometimes to clean up a mess you have to get your hands dirty.