The Revolution Of Darkness
by John SkieSwanne
Armed revolution. That is a word that many in the World cherish. I've seen and met many people, on ATS or elsewhere, who fantasize about violence.
There was a time when I would agree with armed revolution. But years ago I've turned from hawkish to dovish. And let me tell you, it takes alot more
courage for a hawk to turn to a dove than for a dove to turn to a hawk. Blinding oneself into the belief that violence will resolve everything is
easy. That's because peace is like art, and it's much harder to achieve. So at the end, many lazy people find it easier to shoot than to work peace
out. War gives these people a way to express their anger. Some of them will drive on that anger and cherish it as a force. Others will hide this anger
under the wing of anarchy philosophy.
I'll go to the point now: Armed Revolution is, currently, being considered by many as an alternative to solve problems from current government. To
justify armed revolution, many of such people would argue that in certain time and in certain space, armed revolution did worked out. Cited examples
would probably include the US Civil War, Russian revolution, the French Revolution.
But in modern times, in a modern country such as the United States of America, this beloved armed revolution and violence will NOT RESOLVE ANYTHING.
Why am I so confident into believing so? Because of many logical and important points:
1): First of all, it's actually been tried! and really not so long ago. I would like to direct your attention to a armed revolution which attempted to
break out in the 1970s. The clandestine movement was given a name, the Weathermen.
Feeding on might makes right philosophy, this revolution movement focused on the promotion of violence against authorities. Weathermen got guns,
gained possession of bombs, and even learned karate, for that end. During repeated occasions, this revolution tried to break. What they came to learn,
the hard way of course, is that most attempts by the armed revolution were met by reaction from the authorities. In most cases the authorities and the
military had far more superior tech, weapons, and skill than the people. Members of the revolution were even killed, with no little to effect on the
authorities, except even stronger vigilance. If anything, armed revolution damaged far more members of the revolution than the authorities.
2): Considering point 1, let's assume that somehow a violence-based revolution does work out. The authorities are not stupid. Many of them in modern
countries know Strategy 101. They'll associate with the revolution movement, sometimes even up to the direction and decision making level. In other
words the revolution will be corrupted, most likely infiltrated and maybe agents will even get high enough to access the head. As a matter of fact,
that actually happened in past revolutions. The Weathermen were eventually infiltrated by COINTELPRO agents. The French revolution was infiltrated, if
not directed, by a head who had for emblem the all-seeing eye...
...which happens to be the emblem behind the United States of America's one-dollar bill:
3): Violence. What purpose does it serve? To overthrow an enemy. Just like in Nature, right? "Might makes Right". The thing, though, is that in
Nature, animals will physically adapt after hundred, if not million of years. Coleoptera specie is considered very recent (it evolved hard wings to
shield their body) yet it's still millions of years old. Humans evolved from horses to cars a hundred years ago. The jet fighter was introduced about
50 years ago. The IR-laser directed lightning bolt and the force field were introduced about a year ago. Physical combat like karate, and even guns,
are obsolete when your enemy are flying jet drones instead of soldiers, and force fields around their tanks vaporizes projectiles through Joules
effect. We live amongst media who promote anarcho-primitivist, or the rejection of technology and human evolution, yet these same people who reject
technology and evolution want to try and overthrow a superpower which has since long embraced both.
To which I must come to this conclusion: if armed revolution based on a might makes right mindset is bound to get wrong in a modern world class
country, why does media, in this very country, still promotes it (see movies "Hunger Game", "Revolution", "the Purge")? Anarcho-primitivism, satanism,
eugenics, etc, all share this common mindset and are all heavily promoted through media. What if the next revolution in such countries was actually
already planned out by the cryptocracy, the next cryptocratic leader already selected, and with the straightforward goal of replacing current
independent governments in our world by their idea of a government? Maybe this cryptocracy wants people to be their dispensable army? And thus these
people's revolutions will bring not a dawn of light and independent equality; but a mafia-like power, ushering an era of complete globalist darkness
A friend of mine once told me, talking about satanism but it applies to revolution also:
"But you see, the thing about 'eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth', is that in the end it leaves everyone blind and toothless! "
Those of you who are warmongers are no better than the warmongers you criticize. At the end, the true revolution is in the minds... in the concepts
you let take hold of you.
Thanks for your attention,
edit on 19-6-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)