Rebellion, Government and Real Offenders
The situation facing people who are in dissent is paradoxical. In places where they have the most reason to rebel, they have the least freedom to rebel; whereas in places where they have the most freedom to rebel there is least reason to rebel. In Muslim, right-wing Christian and Communist societies there is most reason for rebellion, and in those societies it is least tolerated. Whereas in New York or San Francisco people have freedom to rebel as much as they want to, but in free societies such as New York and San Francisco there is least reason to rebel.
The rebellion sentiment, in one or another form, will always take place. And one thing that the right-wingers succeeded at doing has been directing this sentiment at the more liberal-minded people: People, that is, who are most tolerant of rebellion. The dissident minds have been duped into attacking their natural allies and supporting their worst enemies. Similarly, Taliban had success in infiltrating places that have a problem with the West and subverting them to a much more oppressive order than what they had previously.
Rebellion where there actually is need for rebellion is a dangerous and difficult enterprise. It is also frequently deadly. Whereas in places where rebellion is easy, there is least need for it; and people who rebel against places where rebellion is easy are typically doing more harm than they do good. We can consider for example the anti-Obama crowd. If Obama really was a communist or a totalitarian or anything else they accuse him of being, then they would be all in labor camps or they would be dead. Instead they are free to shout as much as they want to. And that proves that Obama is nothing like a totalitarian and nothing like a Communist that they accuse him of being.
Similarly with the anti-government people. If the American government really had been tyrannical, these people would not have been allowed to say such a thing. The real difficulties take place when one is confronting real abusers: Such as the communities that perpetrate tyranny and corruption, men who oppress and batter their wives and children, or corrupt elements in courts. And in dealing with government itself, it is when one is challenging real abusers such as ones who kill whistle-blowers that real difficulties take place.
Another example is the anti-Jew people. If Jews really had been running the world, then these people would not be allowed to militate against them. Same would have been the case if intellectuals, scientists or artists had been running the world. Real totalitarianism does not allow itself to be attacked; and what allows itself to be attacked is not real totalitarianism.
Then there are Christian conspiracy theorists. If there was such a thing as a global Satanic New World Order Conspiracy - or a "Kike-Masonic Conspiracy" to destroy Russia - then the people claiming such things would not be allowed to make such claims. That they are instead allowed to spread their garbage shows how far from reality their claims are. A real totalitarian would wipe those people clear out. And if instead they are not only allowed to live, but allowed to spread their rubbish, shows that there is no such thing as the conspiracies that they claim to exist.
Here's one real power that needs to be challenged: Iranian Guardian Council. In Iran, there is real reason for rebellion; and - surprise surprise - the people who do get tortured. There is real need for rebellion in Syria, and the people on both sides are getting killed. There is a real need for rebellion in North Korea, and those who do go to prison. A real totalitarian will make it exceedingly difficult for people to rebel against him or challenge his power; and this is what we see in all of the above situations.
A more down-to-home power that needs to be challenged is the Christian Right. The Christian communities that they run are a hornet's nest of incest, brutality, lies and corruption; and these are very difficult entities to challenge. They know how to play the courts. They know how to play the social services. They know how to play politics. And yes they also know how to position themselves as the definition of virtue and righteousness while in fact creating and maintaining orders that are exceptionally brutal, tyrannical and corrupt.
Where it's easy to rebel, therefore, there is least need for rebellion. Benevolent powers allow freedom, and that means that there is least need for rebellion in places run by benevolent powers. It is where it is difficult to rebel that there is a real need, as oppressors do everything in their power to suppress challenge. This is something that should put things into perspective as relating to any given rebels and any given order against which they rebel.