www.owohrod.com.

  The quintessential element or aspect of similarity of comparability, is in the fact that neither of their forces or community, will ever achieve their perceived 'end state.' Their nirvana or eurica state or moment. This is not a philosophical position I have come to suddenly or by way of any proverbial 'Saulist conversion.' It is, I believe, the result of time, events, study and analysis.  What has led me to put the proverbial 'pen to paper with this post, is hearing the veteran United States Senator, Bernie Sanders, extolling on his most recent 'anti-capitalist' project, in which he argues that "It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism." Upon having heard that this is BS' most recent offering on what I know to have been a life long campaign of his, and the radical role he has performed in election campaigns in the United State in presidential elections since, say 2000.  I found myself asking me questions I do not have the opportunity to ask

  So, is there any comparasion between the centuries old struggle of progressive people, especially those in their late teens and late 30s, to defeat 'Capitalism.'   And the more apparently conservative and traditionalists followers of, say the Abrahamic religions who are pursuing the promise of 'a heavenly paradise' after 'the world ends' or their 'Saviour Returns'? The initial, and most probably prejudicial conclusion, is likely to suggest that there is no essentially common ideological similarity or comparability between these apparently 'chalk and cheese' historical protagonists.  That religious people, committed as they are to obeying 'the will of their 'God'' who, according to Christians, are not of this terrestrial world or domain.  Are inherently different from the anti-Capitalist forces who have committed themselves to the probably insurmountable challenge or vocation of 'destroying Capitalism', are inherently dif

  It was clear that he had in mind occupying an apartment probably higher than his present one, and probably even more sumptuous.  As he had undoubtedly thought that he would be earning a great deal of money.  As it transpired, Kazaliwa, at this stage of his life, was still not blessed with the realisation of the wealth he had and still aspire to be making.  Consequently, he had to call on the Bank of Mum and Dad, BOMD. A destination has been reached, albeit not by the planned or aspired means. Be that as it may, if it is one attribute Kazaliwa is not or has ever seemed short of, it is his motivation. His apparently inexhaustible  commitment and self-belief in being able to achieve his objectives in life.  So blessed is he, Kazaliwa, with self-confidence and positivity, that, at times it can annoy and even antagonise his parents.  As they sometimes perceive their son's indubitable spirit and optimism as an expression of 'wishful thinking'. Of him being unrealistic.  Now, no

   As well as the regime's willingness ot discount or ignore whatever pressures its external friends, enemies and allies attempt to exert upon it. We have, for example, seen the extent to which the military regime in Myanmar went to use the state's security apparatuses as a weapon  of brutality, with which to defeat non-violent mass mobilisation of citizens opposed to it. With regards to the 'targeted elimination' method of effecting progressive societal and/or regime changes, there is the need to address the morality of this option.  This is understandable, when we consider the political landscape on which colonised and formerly colonised peoples and movements have fought for decades to free themselves from the clutches of imperialist nations.  How the latter have gone about assassinating and murdering their progressive leaders.  So, some people might ask; how can it be moral or politically prudent to argue that it would be right to return to this method of ridding soc

  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