Violent Protest is not the Answer

reply to post by pause4thought

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

I think your points are very valid, well thought out and logical. The thing is history has shown us what happens when people do not take violent action. History has also shown us what happens when people do become violent. We can never assume our actions will bring about the same results, but non-violence has overwhelming worked in some peoples favor while with others it was a colossal mistake. It all comes down to individual circumstance. Do I have the right to violently attack my government for every decision it makes that I am not in grievance with? No. Do I have the right to form a militia and over throw said government if it tries to over throw my constitutional rights or declare my democracy a police state? I do, and I will if that is what is necessary to secure my freedom. I’d rather be locked away or dead than compliantly allow the government to abuse its power in a way that constricts the aspects of all our rights and lives.

I've been mulling over what has been said & I've also reread many of the posts.

Those who have argued that delayed action & inaction can make things worse seem to have a strong case. In fact I think those on both sides of the fence can agree on this point. There is widespread agreement among those who think for themselves (i.e. who don't swallow everything in the MSM or rely on them for information) that a combination of ignorance and apathy have actually facilitated the growth of the nanny state, the surveillance of decent, law-abiding citizens and the passing of legislation that eats away at or potentially destroys basic freedoms.

This still begs the question: what could be done that would be effective were everything to come to a head and a government become an oppressor rather than a governor?


reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I get the feeling you share my uncertainty as to what would be effective in bringing about change. In note your very last comment with interest (which echoes what several people have said):

I’d rather be locked away or dead than compliantly allow the government to abuse its power in a way that constricts the aspects of all our rights and lives.

Are you absolutely sure about that? If so, I respect the strength of your convictions. However does it actually constitute effective opposition? Not being facetious, just posing the question. My point is that by patiently enduring a loss of rights you can potentially find more efficacious strategies than inviting self-destruction. Secondly, incarceration/execution is probably not a likely option for those with family responsibilities.

Nazi Germany has been mentioned. But the population was unmistakably behind the government. They willingly worked in the munitions factories to arm their forces and seemingly gave whatever it took to advance the the government agenda. Had the population opposed Hitler and said 'No way!' to his dictatorship and militarism history would have been very different. No holocaust, no WWII.





[edit to correct a word]

[edit on 4/10/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by pause4thought


However does it actually constitute effective opposition?

I think it does. I'd rather history remember me as someone like Nelson Mandela, who fought the establishment even to the point of imprisonment than be compliant with a corrupt government.

This thread www.abovetopsecret.com... is the part of the answer, not violence.. Zeigeist's new movie, which won't be available for download until the 10th is available for viewing and its a step above the others. This one offers solutions. The Venus Project, a resource based solution, a way to end the slavery of our current system is highly promoted. Its funny, its the same as the author of Alien Minds, and his thread: abovetopsecret.com... which of course was immediately misunderstood by those believing that merely reinstating the constitution would be enough and our capitalism which makes haves and have nots, and slaves was okay.
This time zieiteist points to the venus project: www.thevenusproject.com... and at the conclusion of the movie says:

Paraphrased :
1. Expose the Banking Fraud, the Fed Cartel. Boycott Citibank, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America.Move your accounts and cretit cards and mortgages to other places. If you work for them, quit.

2.Turn off the tv news. Boycott the news networks.

Use and protect the internet. corporations own all media outlets

3. Boycott the military..Don't ever allow your family or anyone you know to join the military.

US soldiers in Iraq work for US corporations.

4. Boycott the Energy Companies

Get off the grid. Investigate every means for making your home self sustainable and car. Solar, wind, wave. Get the smallest car you can and use the conversion kits to be a hybrid electric, or run on anything other than establishment fuels (alchohol)

5. Reject the Political System. Focus on working to dissolve the outdated system of Politics, in favor of technological redesign.

6. Join the movement. Create Critical Mass

Which is the same as non-violent, non-participation. In effect it will lead to a mass shut down, or perpetual strike of the country. And it means only operating in new ways with those willing to employ resource, moneyless society where not a single person, rich or poor, land-owning, or homeless, well-behaved pawns, or traumatized prisoners, or criminals, no one is excluded from land, homes, sharing of resources, which belong to everyone, nor from the benefits of the technologies that will free us from the slavery. The solution is to shut down the system by absolutely under no circumstances contributing and by starting to operate in an advanced equality and sharing of technology and necessary goods.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Very interesting that you bring up Mr Mandela. His whole life story would seem to illustrate the internal struggle between the inclination to fight back (literally) or to rise above the oppressor by refusing to resort to violence.

As you know, his imprisonment came as a result of heavy involvement in an organisation that advocated armed resistance. However following many many years in prison it was his advocacy of non-violent resistance that became his swan song. And it was the latter that spectacularly won the day, both in terms of the removal of an evil regime and in terms of gaining the respect and support of people home and abroad.

reply to post by mystiq


Hi. What you say in the quote makes a lot of sense, and lays out some shrewd concrete steps that people can take. The following summary also strikes a chord:

The solution is to shut down the system by absolutely under no circumstances contributing and by starting to operate in an advanced equality and sharing of technology and necessary goods.

Unfortunately I have to admit I don't quite follow how the following would look in reality:

And it means only operating in new ways with those willing to employ resource, moneyless society where not a single person, rich or poor, land-owning, or homeless, well-behaved pawns, or traumatized prisoners, or criminals, no one is excluded from land, homes, sharing of resources, which belong to everyone, nor from the benefits of the technologies that will free us from the slavery.

Are we talking regionalised government and a cooperative approach to business? Interesting, but that has the eerie ring of of the bolshevik slogan "All power to the soviets!" (-i.e. the local town councils). Forgive me if I've misunderstood. Are you perhaps advocating some new concept of an economy?

The video you linked to is 2 hours long! OK, I'll give it a go: your ideas sound constructive, so I'd like to try and get to grips with them.

As for the 'Alien-Like Economy' thread I noticed it when it first appeared, but I have to admit the more I read it, the more it weirded me out. I'll give it another go though, for the sake of trying to appreciate a novel perspective.

I was the originator of the thread on justifications for government overthrow. I must say, I am very pleased with the discussion occurring in this thread. Oddly, I feel you had more input on justification for violence than I was able to garnish.

Let me first start by answering your original question. Actually, let me correct your topic. I do not consider violent protest and violence against the government in an effort to reclaim constitutional rights the same thing. This may be the cause of you disagreement with people on the matter. I agree that people should and are even obligated to protest peacefully while the American government is functional, and the constitution still has some semblance of being acknowledged. It is when they try to ignore or remove constitutional rights, ignore the will of the people, try to oppress the citizens, and when peaceful protest is ineffective or acts to their benefit, that violence becomes the only means of removal of their positions. It is fight or flight. If you have no where else to go, as mentioned in this thread already, you can only stand your ground.

I read over many of the post here and had a list of responses growing in my mind, enough that I thought would warrant multiple posts. Then the current of discussion started to change. It made me examine new ideas I had not yet considered. Thank God for threads and contributors like this! It all came to a head at this post comment you made.

Originally posted by pause4thought
This still begs the question: what could be done that would be effective were everything to come to a head and a government become an oppressor rather than a governor?

The key word being effective. There are too many variables to consider in such a scenario. Before this thread and the mentioned quote, I believed that it could be effective. I then started to compare the American Revolution to a similar event today. We live in a world with instant communication, quick travel, less compassion and honor, vastly effective weapons and the possibility of a NWO undercurrent. At this time, I no longer think that any violence in an attempt to restore a United States as intended in its founding is extremely improbable. More likely, and at best, a local, state or regional based government under such principles is possible. That is, if violence were effective and there were minimal to no foreign attacks or influence.

However, therein lies the dilemma. Do you enjoy oppression and the loss of human rights and freedom and stay alive, or do you fight (for lack of a better term) evil and risk almost certain peril? As an American, I feel it is encoded in my soul to die fighting to be free rather than live as a slave. When the time comes for me to stand with perverse government or the constitution, I will always stand with We the People.

From a Christian perspective, peace and passive aggression may keep you a place in heaven, but it does not stop evil from reigning here on Earth.

Half the people here couldn't even give a concrete reason for violent protest anyway- just abstract notions about 'freedom' while never being able to point anything they can't do that they used to be able to. I wouldn't worry about it.

reply to post by pause4thought


What is needed is establishing a new community, a new economy that is based on everyone owning all the resources, everyone having land, and everyone using advanced technology to
do the tough jobs. The thread about a more alien economy and the venus project have links above. Zeigeist's new movie currently on google, explains the differences between our slave based economy and what could be created. It even explains, as I already know, that there are only 2 types of criminals, the greedy psychos running this system, and they make our worst psycopaths look like mosquitos, and those that are our own, those ultimately traumatized by this system, and broken by it. In systems that are more decent with a base but somewhat comfortable level of support, and civilized programs for people, such as Norway, there is barely a murder rate that shows as a percentage. In a world where we cooporate and share, and operate with advanced technology, there would be very little if no crime. This is why our movement must not be based on the same principals of division they divide us with already. It must be inclusive of every single person. Also, the movement to me involves non-violent, non-particiapation and simply acting in new ways. But it also is the same as the survival movement. So far everyone talks about that as if its a few well prepared (and by that they mean awake and well-to-do) families that must possess countless weapons to kill others. It sounds horrendous. But if you think about it, traditional native (ie. the four corners area in the states is a good example because many live according to their traditional ways) communities are already resource based. And every child belonged and was a part of the community with a place to live, before birth, and it took a village to raise a child. But we don't wish to lose our technology, but to advance into the future with clean techno solutions. As the natives are the keepers of the knowledge from the past cataclysmic era, we must also become keepers of the knowledge and keep our technology as it frees us. So we must meet up in communities and awaken people. They don't all need to agree, but there may come a time when it is critical for them that they heard this. So we must start to teach our local people, and gather and share the tools we have. So we can rebuild from nothing with our pooled tools and start again if needed, but not the way it was ever. In a sense we're talking about a clean technology upgrade to the native way.

reply to post by mystiq


Community based living may be survival based, but in no way should it be a form of American Government. In hard times, living, working and depending on each member of a community can be easy, pleasant, and beneficial for individual development. That requires individual cooperation. That should be given, never mandated.

Anything that is not based on resource and technology as in project venus is based on debt and interest and a fraudulent money scheme concocted by a few powerful individuals, so I would definitely have to disagree with you. I will work hard to ensure my future grandchildren escape the monetary system.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply to post by Wolf321


This thread really feels like sitting round a table with a host of serious-minded thinkers, and the fact it has remained level-headed means I hope it keeps going. I for one feel I've never been forced to face these issues so thoroughly.

From a Christian perspective, peace and passive aggression may keep you a place in heaven, but it does not stop evil from reigning here on Earth.

I'll just touch on this briefly, as I feel the need for the discussion to remain as inclusive as possible. My basic position is that I try to follow the principle of overcoming evil with good. As such I believe it is possible to face up to oppression in a dignified, self-controlled manner that forces an oppressor to see there is another way, thus shaming them. It is possible to maintain this attitude when you believe that someone doing evil to you is doing themselves immeasurable harm.

As an American, I feel it is encoded in my soul to die fighting to be free rather than live as a slave. When the time comes for me to stand with perverse government or the constitution, I will always stand with We the People.

But would an oppressive government count on that so they could mow you down? Is it, perhaps time to begin thinking outside the box? If overcoming oppression were the goal, surely the effectiveness of the measures should take priority over inculcated "universals".

I know full well I am asking a great deal. Yet at the same time I have been saying to those with the 'stand and fight' mindset: persuade me that your proposals might be effective, and I'll focus entirely on the (cohesive) moral arguments that have been offered from your side of the bench.








[edit on 4/10/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by mystiq


I think that people can live without debt and interest without communal living. I have known people who do this.

No one does that. Every dollar you have is owed to somebody by somebody, even if you haven't gone into debt for anything. And all monetary systems amount to the same thing, with unequal distribution.

reply to post by mystiq


Your suggestions are fascinating, and I feel the need to reread what you have said more than once. Nevertheless you seem to be addressing the aftermath of a world that has been cleansed of oppression. How do you think that could happen following any ostensible coup from above (for want of a better phrase)?


reply to post by SuperViking


What we are seeking to do is play through a scenario that has not taken place, but that many people say is possible. We are not making statements about the current state of play as such.

Originally posted by pause4thought
As such I believe it is possible to face up to oppression in a dignified, self-controlled manner that forces an oppressor to see there is another way, thus shaming them. It is possible to maintain this attitude when you believe that someone doing evil to you is doing themselves immeasurable harm.

This is where I feel you are wrong. You give evil a sense of remorse. I don't. If government gets to the point that human rights and freedoms mean nothing to them, killing are harming innocent people will not matter one bit to them. Perhaps you think that 'immeasurable harm' is from a global community sense. I don't think that they would let the world see them in any bad light. They control the media, have a vastly superior military than most, and support to many countries defensively and economically.

...persuade me that your proposals might be effective...

Are you simply asking for one example of how violence could bring America back to constitutional state? I can come up with am ideal scenario if it is that simple.

If they want my freedom, my guns, to torture me and those I care for, to enslave me, to pacify me into compliance they will be met with a fight. If I die, I die free.

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.

reply to post by Wolf321


I'll not ask you to necessarily spell it out. I'm impressed that you've come up with something you really believe is realistic, though. Offer a hint if you think it would be circumspect, otherwise I'll take it on trust that there are such courses of action.

OK, let's say violent protest can be effective. Is it preferable? At least one contributor suggested it should be a last resort.

(Incidentally, the immeasurable harm I was referring to was to their moral state, which to me equates to what defines a person. I believe even the hardest criminal can be changed through stubborn benevolence.)

I don't think its completely off topic, because in order to protest anything its because you intend to head a different direction. The ones we wish to replace are immersed in an entire monetary system that is the root of the evil, whereas Bush and numerous others are merely puppets. Also, I do believe in physical resistance at one point and one point only, that is if they are attacking your children or planning and taking you out and enslaving your children.
You must not allow your children, who may live through it and be enslaved, to have their last memory of you simply handing them over. There is a time to fight, but that is a defensive battle, not offensive.
Non-violent, non-participation is the very heart of civil disobedience. And this is what it has to be. Along with forging alternatives and boycotting their institutions, and at least the most connected of their banks. Other ideas involve a general strike that doesn't end. For a massive non-violent non-participation event to endure, or a long standing general strike, for many this would mean cooperation in the beginning so that much like I was saying, people would pool their resources and support each other. Protesting fascism and making changes can often mean having to survive off the grid for a while in groups.