6 votes

Why haven't "the people" just eliminated of the evil ones?

I know violence is always the last resort...but, is violence acceptable if it can cure a cancer?

For instance...if the Bilderberg group is so big, bad & evil...why hasn't someone just blown up the building while they were all in it during one of their yearly meetings? It's not like you can gradually eliminate a group that runs the world. They're too powerful to systematically destroy them as a whole. But, one big "kaboom" would take care of quite a chunk of them.

I'm not saying we SHOULD do something like this...I'm just basically asking WHY has this never been done? You hear of people attempting to kill individual leaders all the time for far less crimes to humanity than folks like the Bilderbergs have committed...so why has nobody resorted to violence when it comes to them?

Again...I'm not implying we need to become terrorists...so don't get the wrong idea. Simply asking the question

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Don't forget

public education

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

This can be chalked up to several things....(well, Four, .....)

off the top of my head. Most people have enough trouble keeping their current "standard of living" without trying to figure out how the PTB are making that more and more difficult, and thus are inclined to bear with what they believe is 'sufferable'.

From the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly, all experience hath shown: that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to change the forms of government to which they have become accustomed......"

People are just becoming aware of how 'insufferable' our government really is. Also, we have a higher 'tolerance level' because the increase in tyranny has been very gradual, over the course of at least 150 years, as opposed to King George the III, who tried the 'keep pouring it on when people are already agitated' approach.

Others think that trading liberty for security is no big loss. (these folks are practically hopeless, outside of a Providential event waking them up to how bad this really is,)

Others are part of the 'evil' problem because they believe the government can do no wrong, and will support it to the end. (statists) *(These are the 'hardened hopeless', a Providential 'rap on the head' or blinding light is required to wake these folks up). But when they do, they become the strongest anti-statist activists of all.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

In a word


Just to give a serious answer to a serious question. The only people with the resources to carry out such an assault would be the Builderburg group, et al, I think. Or Iron Man. ;)

I would be more in line with many other comments here though.

One school of thought says that we are all different expressions of the same universe, so to harm anyone else is to harm yourself. Sort of a karma thing, I guess. I would add "come on, karma"

Besides, to "blow up the evil ones" simply leaves a temporary vacuum. The whole system needs to be dismantled.

Just open the box and see

Watch the Xbox One reveal conference.


And Gandalf adds ...

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

"If only there were evil

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

I'll destroy a piece of my own heart to stop 10 or a 100 evil

hearts from beating.

It's not terrorism; it's a war we are in. They are killing us. When will we kill some of them? Is someone a "terrorist" if acting in self-defense? The only thing I appreciate about Dubya (or his handlers, more accurately) is that he introduced pre-emption into the fray (in modern times, at least), so by those rules I'd say we are excused / not in violation of ethics if we whack our enemies in their very beds. Hey, they have made the rules, right? Instead of going up against phalanxes of armored thugs, why not take out the leadership? Think of it like a head shot versus shooting the arm or leg of an assailant: it stops the attack more quickly, right? (What would Sun Tzu say?)

Is it not worth it for our Republic?

I hope it doesn't reach that awful point of necessity, but we are running out of time. If they continue to crack down on peaceful protests or--worse yet--amplify the scope of their violence upon peaceful citizens, then does not that mean a peaceful revolution is destined for failure? At what point do we meet force with force? Many here state to this effect: "I own guns and will defend my home with those guns against violent intruders." Well, is our country not our home? When will we defend it against violent intruders, meeting force with force?

As I say, a la broken record: the Founders killed and were killed in war. (What would They have to say about pre-emption?)


What would the Founders do?

ecorob's picture


I'm impressed!

Very appropriate quote.

Here's another from Solzhenitsyn...

“We didn't love freedom enough."

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

We could go on all day

"In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State."

I Reread "Gulag" recently and it certainly has not lost any of it's relevance. If one single book ever changed history for the better it was that one.