General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I am not advocating Violence [View all]Sirveri
(4,517 posts)His primary argument is to use non-violence, however he's coming from a position of dealing with dictatorships. His primary thought was that in a dictatorship the governing apparatus will be able to respond with force in such a way as to successfully squash any violent uprising. But in a democratic nation, that isn't the case, there are limits to the level of violence that they can employ. If they employ them it simply grants strength to the opposition. He has a very insightful view of conflict, while he says non-violence, he doesn't say non-force.
http://www.aeinstein.org/
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD-2.pdf
In reality, the real thing that will scare them is organisation. A disparate rabble is easily dispersed. A disparate rabble that moves and pulses towards a common goal, that is a threat. If Occupy was not the threat of organisation that they feared, then why the obviously over the top and brutal crack downs?
Another concept going through my mind relates to peak oil physics. Basically the decline starts at the half way point, however technology can extend this peak point but with the drawback that the production collapse is much more severe on the other side. Is it possible that social engineering and propaganda techniques have gotten so good, that the blinders have been placed onto enough of the populace to demolish any attempt at popular movement? If such it can only last so long until real triggers outweigh the constant media bombardment, but at that point so many of the population will be radicalized that the only resulting option is a chaotic snap back to equilibrium.
Just stuff in this vein I've been thinking about.