Reply #30: I have a respect for you, in the stuff you point out [View All]

But as for revolution, as in raising arms and fighting, stuff like that, I am completely against it. I know you are also so please don't take this the wrong way, like I am being critical.

Here is the deal, there are many different types of revolution and most of them that result in fighting in the streets don't work. When fighting erupts, chaos sets in and its a crap shoot about the final outcome. In most cases if fighting erupts, it works to those that are in power's benefit. Look at the Weathermen and SDS, but these groups were infiltrated with agent provocateurs, thats why they lost. They ended-up being cut loose by the public because they became violent.

Thats why I think the far better way to revolt is to just stop doing what the power wants. Not cooperate. Don't give them anything. When things grind to a halt, you can be sure the ones in power are finished. The power depends on voluntary cooperation. Without that cooperation they are done. Thats all it really takes, just say no and show-up in public to show that we say and mean no, enough is enough.

If they, the power, then resorts to violence, expose them and respond, massively, overwhelmingly with public information showing what they did. Like at Kent State. I think that was the end of Vietnam, Kent State.

Truth is, these guys in power are like piss-ants on the butt of a huge animal. They can only profit from that animal as long as the animal doesn't itch. The power knows this and hopes they can out think the animal, keep it confused and unaware of what they are doing.

It's not like I'm against violence per sey, it just that it doesn't work. The results of physically fighting are iffy. And if it ends up after trying non-violent means to force change (even Gandhi wouldn't have laid down in front of a tank to grease the tracks with his guts), well the people in this country are armed to the teeth. This scares those in DC and in the board rooms, you can bet on that.