From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won’t put them on the chopping block.
Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don’t want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.
I definitely don’t approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.
Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I’d reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they’ve cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn’t be too dastardly, but it’d be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn’t participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?
I’d argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.
Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren’t all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.
We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don’t need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I’m naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn’t require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.
Propaganda can and will villainize even the most peaceful of people if it serves the goals of the wealthy. It’s simply too powerful of a tool; a huge swath of the population will follow a narrative that’s being pushed hard enough, no matter how much it goes against their preconceived understanding of the world. Just look at how many people wholeheartedly support Israel’s ongoing genocide. Sure, there are absolutely examples of Palestine committing violence against Israel, but I have no doubt that even if they’d never raised a finger, the propaganda machine would still be convincing a huge portion of the country that Israel is right to massacre them.
I’m afraid of the government using its insane weapons technology and budget against us, but the real danger is that they won’t have to - that they’ll just tell the propaganda machine to make our own neighbors fight us, and we’ll kill ourselves to achieve nothing more than their amusement. It’s true that we might be able to appease them to prevent that outcome by promising we won’t put the wealthy on the chopping block, but at that point, we’re not people, we’re cattle. They’ll have no reason to treat us any better than North Korea treats its people. Our government would fully turn from an organization meant to serve its people, to one fully committed to using them as a resource to be exploited - capitalism’s final form.
I wholeheartedly believe that the only reason we’re not at that stage already is because they’re afraid that if they take that final step now some people might get violent and hurt some of the wealthy or their property. If they actually believed we’d sit down and allow them to enslave us, they’d be shipping in a bulk order of manacles from China right now. You’re absolutely right, I don’t believe we’d win, but I’d rather try to escape the fate of domestication than welcome it.
And what if a nonviolent movement randomly made all the wealthy explode? It’d be great, but not feasible. The reason the propaganda machine works is because it’s backed by an amount of money only the wealthy would be able to provide. For us to build one powerful enough to stand against theirs right under their noses within this surveillance state is the least likely scenario I’ve seen seriously brought up.
I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.
Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.
Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.
Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don’t have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.
Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they’ll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.
The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.
In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won’t be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren’t fighting for it.
We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can’t get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to “blow over” to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That’s really the only way through I can see, and as I’ve said, it’s a long shot even then.
I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don’t advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.
20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.
We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.
I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn’t going to turn out the way you hope.
I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won’t unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I’m not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.
I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn’t be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.
From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won’t put them on the chopping block.
Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don’t want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.
I definitely don’t approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.
Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I’d reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they’ve cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn’t be too dastardly, but it’d be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn’t participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?
I’d argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.
Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren’t all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.
We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don’t need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I’m naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn’t require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.
Propaganda can and will villainize even the most peaceful of people if it serves the goals of the wealthy. It’s simply too powerful of a tool; a huge swath of the population will follow a narrative that’s being pushed hard enough, no matter how much it goes against their preconceived understanding of the world. Just look at how many people wholeheartedly support Israel’s ongoing genocide. Sure, there are absolutely examples of Palestine committing violence against Israel, but I have no doubt that even if they’d never raised a finger, the propaganda machine would still be convincing a huge portion of the country that Israel is right to massacre them.
I’m afraid of the government using its insane weapons technology and budget against us, but the real danger is that they won’t have to - that they’ll just tell the propaganda machine to make our own neighbors fight us, and we’ll kill ourselves to achieve nothing more than their amusement. It’s true that we might be able to appease them to prevent that outcome by promising we won’t put the wealthy on the chopping block, but at that point, we’re not people, we’re cattle. They’ll have no reason to treat us any better than North Korea treats its people. Our government would fully turn from an organization meant to serve its people, to one fully committed to using them as a resource to be exploited - capitalism’s final form.
I wholeheartedly believe that the only reason we’re not at that stage already is because they’re afraid that if they take that final step now some people might get violent and hurt some of the wealthy or their property. If they actually believed we’d sit down and allow them to enslave us, they’d be shipping in a bulk order of manacles from China right now. You’re absolutely right, I don’t believe we’d win, but I’d rather try to escape the fate of domestication than welcome it.
What if a nonviolent movement included radicalizing the tools of propaganda and the people behind these apparatuses as one of its primary focuses?
And what if a nonviolent movement randomly made all the wealthy explode? It’d be great, but not feasible. The reason the propaganda machine works is because it’s backed by an amount of money only the wealthy would be able to provide. For us to build one powerful enough to stand against theirs right under their noses within this surveillance state is the least likely scenario I’ve seen seriously brought up.
I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.
Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.
Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.
Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don’t have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.
Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they’ll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.
The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.
In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won’t be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren’t fighting for it.
We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can’t get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to “blow over” to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That’s really the only way through I can see, and as I’ve said, it’s a long shot even then.
I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don’t advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.
20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.
We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.
I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn’t going to turn out the way you hope.
I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won’t unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I’m not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.
I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn’t be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.