[Peter O]

ashvin post=2324 wrote: [quote=Peter O post=2315][quote=ashvin post=2163]
Being a newbie here I may cover some ground that has already been covered. Forgive me if that is the case.

There is a third alternative to flight/hide or fight that rarely gets mentioned which I find most attractive. It may now be too late to implement it for the current situation but it is worth considering.

Fight or flight supposes direct confrontation is the only way to resolve the dispute with our current leaders (TPTB) if we don’t desire the future they are attempting to implement.

The third option is to provide an attractive alternative to the TPTB’s planned future that attracts enough people to participate that it breaks TPTB’s powerbase. Historically it only takes 5 to 10% of the population to accomplish this.

Peter, this third option you mention is a very tricky one. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it may take us in the opposite direction of where we want to go. We can be sure that the NWO elites would like nothing more than to co-opt resistance movements (i.e. the “truthers”) and get from here to Hell without too much bloody confrontation. The best way for them to do that is to make the current resistance believe that they have defeated the NWO agenda, and that this “attractive alternative” society will be something completely different. In reality, though, it will end up being exactly what the elites need to justify a one world government, maintain advanced control of the masses, and perhaps even to systematically depopulate the globe. Some people would call this “the new, new world order”.

I take it you support a bloody revolution?

Isn’t bloody resistance exactly what the elite need to justify taking us to hell?

Is defining and implementing a new paradigm co-opting the truther movement if it proves to be effective? If it creates a more effective resistance isn’t it taking the truther movement into a stronger position?

Nothing is without risk.

How risky is initiating a bloody confrontation? Especially with no plan for if you actually manage to pull it off and win? Without a plan isn’t the result anarchy?

How risky is it to just checkout and look after your own needs while leaving it up to others to deal with the problem of the NWO?

How risky is it to just accept the fate the NWO has planned for us?

I suggest the third option of proactively stopping your support of the status quo while defining and building a new alternative to the NWO is the least risky of the lot with the greatest potential for success as a bonus.

Most people have the misconception that the only alternative to entering a fight is doing nothing. That’s exactly the thinking the NWO wants from us because they know they can win a fight. The hero legend is promoted in much of our entertainment to make it more difficult for us to walk away, ignore the instigator of a fight, and get on with our business of creating a life where the instigator has no place.

Granted creating an alternative is a tall order but it is guaranteed to be effective if the attempt is successful. The NWO cannot follow and hound millions or billions of people, all at the same time, that simply walk away from their demands and do their own thing instead.

If the elite just attack some people peacefully working on an alternative they will soon have the whole population coming after them because they can no longer hide their intent.

Once the majority realizes the danger they are in the elite better watch out.

[Peter O]

ashvin post=2163 wrote: If the history of active resistance movements in the 20th century have taught us anything, it is that they will not be remotely successful unless they find ways to remain clandestine (obviously) and to prevent others who are not actively resisting from informing on them. The only way to achieve the latter is to make sure that any potential informers fear you more than they fear TPTSB. You must let it be known that anyone who informs on the resistance or aids the rulers in any way will be punished by death, and then you will have to make good on that threat many times before it sinks in.

Being a newbie here I may cover some ground that has already been covered. Forgive me if that is the case.

There is a third alternative to flight/hide or fight that rarely gets mentioned which I find most attractive. It may now be too late to implement it for the current situation but it is worth considering.

Fight or flight supposes direct confrontation is the only way to resolve the dispute with our current leaders (TPTB) if we don’t desire the future they are attempting to implement.

The third option is to provide an attractive alternative to the TPTB’s planned future that attracts enough people to participate that it breaks TPTB’s powerbase. Historically it only takes 5 to 10% of the population to accomplish this.

TPTB probably won’t just go away quietly so confrontation is likely inevitable at some point but if it occurs after a viable alternative is defined, even if it is still in its infancy, the advantage is with the insurgency. With no viable alternative in view the masses of the population will automatically back the status quo because they fear the unknown. If there is an attractive alternative to choose from greater participation in change will occur.

Say what you will about TPTB, they did get us to this point which on many levels is better than living in caves. My opinion is TPTB are stuck in the past and need to be superceeded but hopefully not by physically defeating them by force. Making their past and present behavior irrelevant would suffice.

Rather than concentrating on personal survival we should be considering ways that all humans could interact more constructively than under the status quo. If everyone has a viable place within the new society then conflict will be greatly lessened.

In my opinion defining and attempting to create a new type of society should be our highest priority.

Making a list of the undesireable traits of our current society and another of the traits desired in a new society is a likely starting point. Getting a large participation in building those lists and attempting to find compromises that everyone can accept will give us a description of what is possible.

Kirkpatrick Sale wrote a book, “Human Scale”, that suggests that an alternative to a large hierachical, top down driven, heavily industrialized society, could provide the vast majority of the benefits of our current society within a much healthier, and less resource consuming civilization. I’m not suggesting this as the most attractive option but it does clearly demonstrate that alternatives are possible.

Exploring such options, implementing them to see if they work, and then presenting them to others as a possible alternative could change the future.

[Author]

Posts