www.owohrod.com.

  As we can see from, for example, the history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people.  As we can see from the destruction of the lives and future of the Afghan people by their Taliban oppressors. So, what are or could be some of the reasonable and effective alternative methods or processes to effecting progressive societal and/or regime changes, to that of using that of violent revolutions? Well, there are, the non-violent mass national mobilization of the people.  There is the 'targeted elimination' of tyrannical and oppressive regime leaders and functionaries' in unrepresentative and unaccountable governments and regimes.         There is also the method of combining both the 'non-violent mass national mobilization' and the 'targeted elimination of  regime leaders and functionaries' method.  Yes, as inconsistent as this third method might seems to be, it could indeed prove to be more effective than trying to pursue either of the other m

  Are the oppressed, having been admonished or advised not to use violence and destruction their country's infrastructures as their means of improving their living conditions.  Now simply to resign themselves to seemingly perpetual despotism of those who misappropriate the privilege of becoming their rulers?  But without the desirable active legitimisation from, and appropriate level of accountability from them, the oppressed? I mean, consider what is occurring in Afghanistan and Iran, where the people are being ruled and oppressed by religious zealots.  Based on the latter's crude and outdated cultural mores and their malevolent interpretations of how 'God' wants the people to live?  Are Afghans and Iranians living their respective countries to simply bow their heads and prostrate their bodies and get on with their enforced anachronistic life of drudgery, permanently?  I mean, how would that equate with the seemingly natural, innate desire and aspiration of the evolvin

  Now, it is easy enough to argue that 'violent revolution' is patently ineffective in destroying a corrupt and decadent society, and build a better one in its place.  It is not surprising that reasonable humans should decry the mass and often discriminate killing and destruction which 'violent revolutions' probably almost invariably give rise to.  As is the case with wars, their is nothing compassionate and erudite about the mass killing and dehumanisation of people which takes place in violent conflicts.  Indeed, even when it is 'necessary' to kill people, it is rarely something which can be interpreted as admirable and compassionate.  Killing and harming fellow humans, it could be argued, are, at best, sacrifices we make to appease our anger, our hatred, and our desire for revenge.  When they occur avoidable and calculatedly, they should, at best, be done only when they are the least detrimental options we have.  At least, this is arguably what should happen

  This might well be a survival characteristic, since, although a parent might be disposed to be more protective of a favourite child, the significance of this parent/child dynamics is unlikely to be readily understood by the child at the time of its beginning.  And so it seems to me that, this rather primitive or prototype 'alliance' which a child tries to establish between his/her parent/s and the rest of the sibling group, where there is one.  It is one which the child will or can try to extend to his/her relationship with their sibling group.  By trying to become the dominant sibling and having that status recognised and acknowledged by the rest.  Of course, this runs counter to the hierarchical relationships which are prominent in patriarchal societies, where status and dominance is expected to run vertically from top to bottom. So, not surprisingly, I have learnt that, upon reaching school attendance age and entering that process.   The child has to struggle to fit into a

  For a start, if the ruling and wealth elites and Czars are forced out or partially destroyed, the tendency is for them to be replaced.  Either by their remaining families, friends and associates, or by new elites from amongst the 'revolutionaries' and their newly acquired supporters.  A further weakness of the 'violent revolution' model of societal change.  Is the fact that the incumbent regime has tended to corruptly export much of the country's wealth to their foreign bank accounts and property portfolios, while they are in power.  As well as mortgaging its future to external creditors and global businesses. This usually means that the 'revolutionaries' who replace them, find themselves in a more indebted country.  One with less or little foreign currencies, big international debts, and probably low credit rating and depleted intellectual, civic, economic, diplomatic and political leadership pools. To different degrees, we can find evidence of 'the f

   Yes, there are many people who 'love a revolution.'  They include the opportunistic jobless,  the aspiring and the idealistic young person.  The opportunistic business person, the global arms industry, the people who are hoping to move in and make loads of money 'rebuilding what has been destroyed.  The political protagonists and the media and media moguls and, yes political idealists.  But most of them/us, are more than satisfied with 'other people' fighting and dying in the revolution.  All or most of us would not want to be in the thick of such seemingly pointless and illogical destruction of lives, livelihoods and natural and manufactured resources.  After all, where is the evidence that violent revolutions increases, instead of reduces a nation's wealth? If there is any, I am not aware of it.  This is probably not surprising, as it is a nation's productive processes and its applied intellectual properties which and governance which can increase or de

   It is reasonable to argue that certain violent revolutions have, indeed, performed a  constructive role in progressing human and societal development through the ages.  However, they have not done so in a direct linear manner. It has not been a case of violent revolutions destroyed a given oppressive and exploitative social order, and then giving rise, almost magically, to a significantly less oppressive and more just and equitable one.  This, of course, is not surprising, since it takes less skills, intellectual prowess and capabilities to destroy social systems and infrastructures, than it takes to build and maintain more commendable and functional ones. With the means of terror and the will to use them against people, a person or group, enormous harm can be done to the personal and national welfare of a people or nation. However, building a nation or country requires enormous resources and time. Yes, it is the case that, with the popular mobilization of a people or nation, great