It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violent Protest is not the Answer

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Hi There,

Sir_Chancealot:

...the British weren't an EXTERNAL enemy. They were citizens of the crown!


I understand the implication, but I feel we are both making moot points. The essential aspect of the war of independence is not that the colonists were fighting the British, per se, but that they were fighting a corrupt monarchy that did not represent the hopes and dreams of the British people...at that time; the ordinary British (and European) citizen had no say in any matter, he was undergoing then the self-same tribulations the ordinary American citizen is undergoing now...why do you think Englishmen with their families made for America in the first place, along with many of his European counterparts? It was around this time that the genesis of the NWO was taking root. However, there is no 'new' land to which anyone can escape to make a 'new' start, and I agree that it is time for the citizen to stand his/her ground, and incrementally escalate the action appropriately and accordingly.

The problem is and always was motivating others to support and join a cause for the general good. They are loathe to let loose from their grasp the small amount of 'hassle-free' comfort allowed to them, and thus, this reluctance creates fractures of geo-politics throughout the country, as disparate groups rationalize varied irrational excuses for not taking part. Their plea is as always...'please don't rock the boat'. Perhaps it would help if I should explain why I currently do not accept armed-resistance as the only means by which to recover one's country. Quite simply, it does not solve the core global problem. America may very well violently cure itself of its dis-eased soul, but the NWO demon will still remain, running rampant in Europe and other parts of the globe. Remember this is not just America's problem, but certainly the whole western hemisphere, and if it is not killed simultaneously wherever it be, it will arise once again. We need a global synchronized organisation and effort to prise our freedoms from the grasping clutches of the NWO.

Two very important events occurred in the same century...the French Revolution and America's War of Independence, and although they acheived something in their manner, they did not ultimately impede the NWO's progress, because it remained in the heart of the British Empire. Since then, it not only came back with a vengence and retribution, but is at the cusp of fulfilling global domination. NWO is a global attack, and requires a global solution, a global response. America is the strongest link in the global chain, and if it breaks, the smaller weaker links will snap as a matter of course.

If the people of America took to the streets with its assorted array of domestic weaponry, the on-looking world will not support it, the required global synchronization and effort would not occur. You cannot do this on your own whilst a critical world condemns the violence. You've got to give it something it can support, something it can actively and participatory mirror simultaneously in other countries. I guarantee it will change the world beyond all reckoning. When and if it comes to armed revolution, make sure it is equally happening in other countries at the same time. If things do not change in other countries, who's going to recognise the 'new' America, who's going to trade with you, help you to rebuild? If anything the world needs a counter people's NWO based on principles wholly antithetical to that of the NWO...based on principles similar to the original American Constitution...from that struggle, from that fight, the spirit of that document's ideals will truly shine, truly take root...not just in America, but the world.

Give peace a chance...because it has the harder struggle...

Best wishes

[edit on 23/9/08 by elysiumfire]




posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Tis the Malcolm X/MLKJr dance. I would like to behave as I want to see the world be...wait, yeah. I do not wish harm upon anyone; except for Don Henley, for all the horrible music he has produced.

But for the rest of youse who need it:

ru.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-9-2008 by pluckynoonez]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Comendable sentiments indeed.
Unfortunately history teaches us that direct, positive action does work at times and that non-violent confrontation, despite having a couple of notable exceptions, rarely achieves anything at all.

Looking at recent history here in the UK proves this.
Inner city riots in the early 80's brought about increased police accountability and vast improvements in community relations.

Thatcher was determined to force The Poll Tax on this country despite vehement peaceful opposition from the majority of the population.
After the Poll Tax Riot she had to radically change her policies.

If we in this country stood up for what we want more often rather than sitting back and accepting politicians enforce THEIR will on us then I suspect we wouldn't be in the #ty mess we are in now.

To quote Joe Strummer;
'Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall
How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?'



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Normally I would agree and say that violence is not the answer. That we can solve all of our problems through peaceful means, but to have this kind of view in times like these is like trying to swim up a raging river.

Nearly impossible.

There is a point where violence is the only way to change the world and we have passed that point. Unless all of the world woke up tomorrow and decided to protest peacefully against all the evils of the world then we could solve things through peace, but they wont and we cant.

The only way they will let us solve problems is through violence. I would rather be free and violent then enslaved and peaceful. I would rather stand up for my liberties than watch them be taken away and do nothing to stop it.

The greatest thing they use against us is our passive nature. They rely on us to do nothing so that they can gain control over us. So where as they also cause us to solve our problems through violence they also cause us to be passive and do nothing to stand up for ourselves.

What this really comes down to is our nature. We are natural creatures of the earth peace is impossible for us to obtain we cannot limit ourselves to an absolute, which is what peace is an absolute. Chaos is an absolute as well. Being natural creatures we cannot break away from the natural balance of the universe the balance between peace and chaos.

Utopia is a desirable concept but we will never see uptopia in our reality. We are bound to the natrual order of things, balance.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I'm not a person who would violently protest anything as far taking to the streets type of stuff. I'm the type of folk who keeps to themself and tries not to make waves. I'd never be a good candidate for public office. I'm not well spoken and not well enough versed in the minutia of politics to have a real good opinion on anything.

I will say this though,... When (If) they come for my guns, the game will be on. I won't lie down on this one.

Sorry if I made little sense here.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


I agree with Freeborn and Caballero's posts above. The ideal of Passive Resistance is a truly noble, intelligent one, but Passive Resistance only works in certain scenarios. Passive Resistance certainly didn't work against Hitler's Germany or Stalin's pogroms. Even though the images went around the world and caused an uproar earlier this year, I don't imagine for one second that the Chinese are suddenly aquiescing to the Tibetans, nor the Burmese Generals the inherently pacifistic Buddhist monks, because we've all seen them 'doing it' on CNN.

When your Domestic Government enemy is already violent towards you, when your freedoms are vanishing at the speed of greed, and when one day you suddenly realise you're living in a Police State designed to crush the already-cowering, frightened population, you eventually have to defend yourself unless you can live with yourself with a jackboot against your throat every day for the rest of your miserable, worthless life. You'd have no choice, because slavery is an offence to the Human spirit. Ask any North Korean. Most of THEM are passive, and their passivity is what maintains that hateful regime.

I truly understand the idea that as soon as you raise your own fist against your oppressor you become as bad as he is, and in general I would agree with that highly moral position, but... when you live in a culture which is already made numb to violence and the pain of others by virtue of almost a century of Empire-building militarism and the constant national diet of divisive propaganda force-fed to the population through film, print, television, computer games etc., then the window of opportunity for Passive Resistance to work effectively is ever-narrowing.

I'm not saying it's impossible, and I agree 100% that Passive Resistance must be employed first and for as long as possible out of the hope that eventually enough of the military will revolt when they see their families being brutalized at home by the black-shirts, but we're staring into an abyss, and the rules are different from any which have gone before in World history.

This isn't Ghandi going on hunger strike, protesting the British rule in 1930 because the Indian population was truly helpless against the Invaders. This is angry, frustrated, massively divided America we're talking about, largely armed to the teeth, numbed to horror by Hollywood and gorged on the blood of dead Iraqis, Afghanis and probably soon dead Iranians. Americans who are slowly, gradually realising that it's all been about the personal enrichment of psychopathic Corporations who honestly don't care if they live or die as long as it doesn't affect Profits.

Look around you. Look at the emotional violence and bitterness spewed out of the mouths of so many people (including a huge number of those claiming to be Christians) in the USA, directed at peace-makers, intellectuals, liberals, foreigners and any others who don't look, think or speak exactly the same as THEY do. Kids are increasingly indoctrinated in Nationalist and twisted Mystical cant, have been largely educated by Fox, Bechtel and Westinghouse and are hugely hooked on extremely violent mood-altering video games (which would have been unthinkable 25 years ago) from pre-pubescence whilst their immature brains are still developing... and you only need to tune into Talk Radio to experience NeoCon hatred in all its venal, institutionalised repugnance.

I'm sure that there will be many, many courageous souls who follow that passive route, and some of them will surely become highly visible, poignant martyrs whose experiences at the hands of the State will resonate hugely (which will enrage The Enemy), but I cannot make myself believe that America is ever going to be united enough to take a common stand. I fear the worst.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Personally I'd say that to date this debate/analysis is on a par with anything I've seen on ATS, which is why I've kept to the sideline for a few days. So many points have been well-argued that it would have been trite to reply before finding time to read them all through carefully. So many comments (including those that oppose my current viewpoint) stand on their own merit to such a degree that I am not inclined to attempt to address all the points made. Rather it now seems to me that what is needed is

a) to truly understand each others' perspective, and

b) agreement on what forms of protest are actually effective, if possible.

What I am saying is that I recognise the moral integrity that lies behind the arguments of several 'opponents' in the discussion.

Seeing as I am now firmly in 'listening mode' I would invite all who wish to contribute further to reply to four (3+1, as will become clear) of my main concerns (while in no way seeking to limit discussion to these areas).

1) A number have pointed out the weakness of passive resistance. However shrewd does not equal passive. I have not argued for passivity, but non-violent protest.

2) I find it necessary to quote a particular contributor here, jupiter1uk, although many other posters have made equally eloquent arguments:


I agree 100% that Passive Resistance must be employed first and for as long as possible out of the hope that eventually enough of the military will revolt when they see their families being brutalized at home by the black-shirts...

I see the logic, but cannot condone the conclusion. If I did I'd be guilty of the very thing I have argued against: getting others to do the dirty work for me! To me, violence from a military source is no solution any more than violence from a civilian source.

Non-violent protest. All or nothing.

I still maintain that this would be the more effective approach in our hypothetical scenario in the long run, while acknowledging that the time scale could require years of endurance. No need to list the details. Just pause and think: imagine a population which is unarmed. Is it really actually toothless? Or does it have at its disposal an array of tactics that could undermine tyranny without resorting to brutality?

3) I get the distinct feeling the ability of modern-day authorities to put down violent opposition is being grossly underestimated. Civilians who oppose a brutal regime do not win out because they are in the right. (That's just the realm of film-writers.)

I take on board what has been said about numbers, but there now exist technological wonders that could enable a reneged regime to suppress vast angry crowds. I therefore invite a reality check.

4) (i.e. my +1) Those who are familiar with the Christian perspective (such as AshleyD, who challenged my stance) might like to address one of my personal concerns (which I acknowledge is not uppermost in everyone's mind). Christ spent his entire life in a period of brutal occupation by what we might today call a fascist government, whose legitimacy was founded on military might, not popular consent. Those who accept his claims will perceive that he could have led the mother of all rebellions, or at least motivated his disciples to fight for freedom and justice. Instead the oppression he opposed was spiritual: slavery to the power of sin in people's lives.


"My kingdom is not of this world," said Jesus. "If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews. As it is, my kingdom does not have its origin here"

John 18:36

I'm all ears.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I've posted this elsewhere so I won't elaborate here. But we have a very convenient opportunity just around the corner. Imagine, just for a moment, seeing the voting returns as they roll in. Imagine all the political commentators and talking heads when it becomes apparent that the voting public --- all of us --- have voted out of office every incumbent on the ballot from our local towns through our state governments all the way to the feds. Every single one out.

Non-violent. Within the system. And lets them know loud-and-clear that we can organize and the jig is up.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I like your style. Some lateral thinking going on there. (Starred.)

Permit a brief critique: don't you still run the risk of the same policies, just with different representatives?

(Either way, I agree it'd send a strong message.)



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


A flag and a star. It's refreshing to see someone who "gets it".

Poland would be a great example.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


Wonderful and productive idea. That is the sort of protest I can wrap my mind around.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Wow, you're a gentleman!

I want to say this for all ATS to hear. I opposed something this guy said within the last few days very strongly (can't remember what), then he comes in here with this commendation. I'm humbled, man, truly humbled.

ATS IS GETTING BETTER FOLKS. Only a few months ago there were complaints about deterioration, but I'm seeing a steady flow of evidence to the contrary.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

4) (i.e. my +1) Those who are familiar with the Christian perspective (such as AshleyD, who challenged my stance) might like to address one of my personal concerns (which I acknowledge is not uppermost in everyone's mind). Christ spent his entire life in a period of brutal occupation by what we might today call a fascist government, whose legitimacy was founded on military might, not popular consent. Those who accept his claims will perceive that he could have led the mother of all rebellions, or at least motivated his disciples to fight for freedom and justice. Instead the oppression he opposed was spiritual: slavery to the power of sin in people's lives.


"My kingdom is not of this world," said Jesus. "If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews. As it is, my kingdom does not have its origin here"

John 18:36

I'm all ears.


I swear to you- when I made my comment on the first page, I TOTALLY knew I was going to get asked this.


Let me put it this way, P4T. I have gone on pro-life demonstrations in the past. This is because I believe life in the womb is sacred. In this case, I don't think I should simply sit back and say, 'Oh well. I need to submit to this government.' Of course in the end I do- but I will still fight for the right of the unborn or speak out against what I see occurring. In other words, I believe, for instance, it is acceptable for Christians to be involved in their governments or in politics and to fight for godly laws and oppose those that are ungodly.

However, in the end we are still to realize God is in control. We are also told in the NT to expose such things and to NOT just sit back and let corruption take it's course. We are the salt, after all, and salt prevents decay (one of the uses of salt in antiquity.

It is also crucial to remember this: The Jews of antiquity had no concept of separation of church and state. Their laws were religious laws. Their laws were their religion. However, Jesus foresaw the day and knew there would be Christians in secular governments eventually. So His other thoughts of things like 'Render unto Caesar' are very important instructions to us today who live in secular governments. Yes, submit to those authorities, render unto Caesar, our kingdom is not of this world, we are sent out like sheep among wolves, etc. However, we are also told to expose, rebuke, and resist sin. And I would definitely consider a government (Like WWII Nazi Germany- jut as an example) to be sheer evil.

So, Yes. I absolutely believe we should ultimately let God be God and know that it is all in His hands. However, let's say in the next ten years, a religion other than Christianity is the majority in the U.S., the concept of separation of church and state no longer applies and this religion is now taught in school, used in court houses, and attendance at their house of worship is mandatory. That goes against what I can do.

I'm not going to say I am right or I'm wrong. I'm just being honest and saying peaceful protest is not always effective and sometimes resistance is necessary. If some gestapo-like government took over the country (or world) over night, I would encourage my countrymen to fight for their freedom and rights and the rights of their fellow citizens who could not defend themselves. One of the instructions we are given is to defend the weak. That is simply honestly what I would do, right or wrong. I am to submit to my government but that does not mean we shouldn't be involved and in the case of seeing a loss of sacred life or the abuse of the weak, to me that would be protecting what is precious in the eyes of God and resisting the ungodly behavior of this tyrannical and corrupt government.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Why didn't Christ advocate it against the Romans? He certainly had enough opportunity, and he had it within his power to rid his fellow countrymen of their Nazi-style government.

Are you saying that the transition to the Christian era from the Jewish era, i.e. separation of church & state as you put it, is your main premise? If so, I find it weak, all of your other arguments notwithstanding.

Convince me.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Thanks, but I'd rather die fighting. The time for peaceful revolution has come and gone.

"Those who beat their plows into swords plow for those who don't."



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


You make good points, this is an issue I have no answers to and I like how you examined it.

However I would like to point out that during times in our history such as during what we now call the Holocaust people waited to fight. Many tried to handle things peaceful when their rights were being taken away and leaders of countries tried to play nice with evil that almost conquered the world.

I don’t think people will ever fathom how huge of a mistake it was to fight back at the last minute or before it was too late.

That is why I’m opposed to how America has treated non-citizens, because if you don’t speak up to the overwhelming authority your government has by expanding its powers under the guise of terrorism soon it will be your rights they will be stripping away as well. I also protest the current Patriot Act (here is my post about it: www.abovetopsecret.com...')
and the second Patriot Act some have proposed.

I do not want America to become a police state at all cost, I do not want fascism to replace democracy, I refuse to be apart of such an ugly history repeating itself, if violence is the answer to overcoming such a thing violent is what I will be.




[edit on 25-9-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
Convince me.


lol I'm not here to convince you, Silly.
I even said up above I'm not saying I'm correct- just being honest.

For example, if I saw a corrupt police officer bashing the skull of a little old lady with his baton because he was on some power kick, I WOULD interfere. Does this mean I am wrong according to Jesus' teachings of submitting to government and authority? Possibly. But that is what instinct would lead me to do, right or wrong.

If we lived under some Gestapo-like government and I saw the police come and attack my neighbors, start beating the husband, trying to rape the wife, and hurting the children, I wouldn't ignore it or sit out on my front lawn Indian style in peaceful protest. I'd grab my husband's guns (that never would have been surrendered), and protect the sanctity of my neighbor's lives.

If they came for ME then, knowing me, I would go peacefully because I don't care about my own life (and I'm a wimp). But my claws come out for other people. That's all I really know what to tell you.

I'm not trying to convince you or 'win' an argument. Just being honest about real world behavior in a real world scenario. Hope that helps.

It might be very un-Christ like but I'm not going to lie and say I would sit there chanting singing, 'Kumbaya.' lol Yes, I'd be involved in some form of resistance.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Hi. Many thanks.

Cogently argued, rapin.

I don't want fascism to replace democracy either. Perhaps some could address the issue of the effectiveness more closely. If anyone can counter my arguments on this front I'd be very interested, and will admit defeat if it seems appropriate.

On the other hand does anyone who is more inclined to more direct action feel my points on this particular issue have some validity?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I respect your brutal honesty (forgive the pun) and recognise the clarity of your thought.

I have to admit I nearly stepped in once when I saw a gang of youths taunting a man with learning disabilities. As it happens they left off just as I was about to cross the road. I was intending to remonstrate and defend him physically if necessary, but only to fend them off, not to 'teach them a lesson' as they say.

There's a lot to think about, and I'm still listening.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Thank you. I'm surprised you remembered.

If we were to all agree, all the time, we would all be liars.

I am both a hopeless optimist and a true pacifist. I know that does not qualify me to be here, but I love ATS all the same. I'm mostly here searching for information on UFO's but I get drawn into the other subjects often.

I still have hope for the US and our people and think that spark is still burning somewhere, even though it is often hidden in a dark corner. I beleive we still have some great people in government, but they are so overshadowed by the bad people we often don't notice them and what they do is never reported.

We all need to learn that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Far more can be accomplished in that way.

Don't be surprised if we end up disagreeing again on another topic, its all relative.

Back on subject - I hope many read this thread. There is far to much militant talk on here these days. I'd truly like to see the attitude from my time, the Hippie days, resurface. Our unique blend of Christianity and Pacifism did cause change, despite the violent people who stained the movement. People like the Weather Underground did not cause change, they delayed it. You can't demand peace by committing acts of violence.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join