Political Activists Targeted as Terrorists-Zeitgeist Movement Response

[venusinpisces]

in some instances, threats against the existence of a single figure have led not to resignation but quite the contrary, a more concentrated effort at the destruction of the population.

The fact that democratic nations do not have any single leader, and the resignation of one will lead only to the imminent replacement by another, does not make this task any easier.

I cannot see the transition from this society to the next being anything less than horrifically violent, whether we preach pacifism or not. The question stands whether we will inflict any violence upon them, or whether we are to be their pacifistic punching bag.

Pacifism is the opposition to war but not necessarily violence. Personally, the version of pacifism I find most useful is that of refusing to fight for the state, since the sincere motivations of individuals can so easily be manipulated by the state-media apparatus, given how it most often serves the interests of big business and not the people. I would also add to that the judicious examination of which forms of revolt are the most pragmatic in any given situation since, as you mentioned, insurrection can so often justify reactionary totalitarianism that leaves the populace in circumstances far more dire than if a different method of revolt had been chosen. For example, the slaughter of hereditary rulers during the French Revolution immediately lead to the massacre of thousands of French peasants by revolutionary forces. Ironically, many of those peasants were entirely supportive of the revolutionary goal of replacing the monarchy with a representative government, yet the paranoia and power-grabbing so typical during revolutionary movements prevented a truly unified resistance from ever taking shape.

And here we are today, with huge numbers of political representatives who can trace their heritage back to the same blue blood families who ruled over Europe during the Middle Ages. Are the long working hours in the US, coupled with the reality of so many living paycheck-to-paycheck, really all that different from feudalism? We do have a greater degree of freedom when it comes to censorship but in terms of quality of life, the needs of upper classes are still considered more valuable than those of everyone else. I don't mean to sound so pessimistic but I don't think that examining history will reveal a successful utopia that was created by revolutionary factions. The only way out is forward, and the incredibly harmful capabilities of state-owned technologies alone will block any violent resistance the second it gets off the ground.

 

[venusinpisces]

Just to clarify: I am not including damage to property, specifically GMO crops, nor the forcible occupation of government buildings, as examples of "violence" since these acts don't cause harm to actual people. Whatever personal and ideological differences I may have with US military personnel, I do think that a large number of them will hesitate before shutting down the political expression of US citizens, as long as that expression can reasonably be judged as not having harmed another person. Unfortunately, not everyone in law enforcement or the military is reasonable so some will be easily swayed by over-exaggerated reports about domestic "terrorists" who have been encouraged and allowed to exist as a way to further escalate the police state which is currently one of the only profitable industries in this country. That's why it's hard for me to take all the hysterical calls to violent revolution too seriously, because they seem to be the direct products of COINTELPRO efforts to glamorize violence while infiltrating social justice movements.