Inspired by this thread
detailing the unprovoked force used by police and riot squads
in London during the G20 protests, I got thinking. Are violent means ALWAYS so wrong - from war on a global scale to small localised protest? My
motive for writing this is not to suggest that violence is good, and before any ATS mods jump the gun, I'm certainly not suggesting we all go and get
violent. I'm just interested in putting a new perspective out there. ATS seems to be universally pacifist - the sentiment of which is applaudable.
But how about this:
Violence is in our nature. Today, we praise ourselves wherever we have been able to ignore or overcome this primal urge. But I'm going to suggest
that it's not violence or war itself which is wrong, but the motivations therein. I watched the film 'Changeling' recently and in it, Angelina
Jolie's character says to her son: "Never start fights, always finish them"
. Now I'd say that's a philosophy I tend to live by. Whenever
I've fought someone, it's always been in self defense. I feel it's my right to use sufficient force against someone who's attacked me - but never
to throw the first punch. On a grander scale, I'd have gladly signed up and fought in WWI or II, but would rather go to prison than fight in Iraq or
Afghanistan. It's not the notion of war itself that I deem improper, but the justification for participating.
I suppose what I'm really getting it with this post is protest and revolution. If we're really honest with ourselves, we know that the time has come
for 'someone' to stand up against the NWO - not just a few thousand unarmed people protesting, but a sufficient civilian force. And yet, the
majority of truthers, patriots and dissenters still maintain that we should never get violent, at least not until the Establishment has cast the first
stone. Well I say they've already cast the first stone - in fact, they've been casting stones at us for decades whilst we look up wondering which
tree just dropped a nut on our head. Again, peaceful means are preferable, but if people get frustrated to the point of violent revolution, is that
really so wrong? After all, they're merely fighting for their own liberty, in self defense. Such revolutionaries surely wouldn't be evil in the same
way that - say - George Bush and Tony Blair were, despite the fact that both are using violent means to achieve their own ends.
Another interesting point to make is that soldiers in Afghanistan talk about the strange kind of addiction they have to the front line of battle. They
know the dangers, and may even disagree with the war, but deep down something makes them hungry for it. Riot squads controlling peaceful protests
demonstrate that same 'bloodlust'. So I ask - when such a thirst for battle is so deeply entrenched on our human psyche, how can we ever engage our
enslavers peacefully? I mean, even if we were determined to remain peaceful, our enemies wouldn't be. Will we just stand there, arms folded, whilst
the batons crash down upon our heads?
Ultimately, I'm a believer in information being our strongest tool. But in a Totalitarian state (which is fast on its way), is the pen really
mightier than the sword? In a Totalitarian state, it wouldn't even matter if everyone's 'awake', we'd be physically, forcibly suppressed until
the time when one pacifist decides to break line.
What are your thoughts?