I'm not a human right activist, and to be honest, I do not fancy human rights activists. Not that I hate them or what they do (in my defense) I do not just share a strong view in the way they air their point of view. Especially because it's all the same routine where they speak up for the masses but no one speaks up for them when the government they speak against comes after them. It's sad to see that a lot of these human rights activists fight for the right of others and try to speak up for the oppressed only to become oppressed at the end of the day. The fact that they are always speaking against evil makes them and everyone around them a target to danger and puts them at a disadvantage against the very thing they are fighting against.
Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik
I believe more in a system being able to counter a system. One person can never be strong enough to fight a system, therefore if for any reason there's a need to fight the system, it shouldn't be done by one person, it shouldn't even be done by a group of people, it should be done by a system of people where one person can not be singled out to have orchestrated the whole counter attack. The idea of Freedom of speech is just a myth in Nigeria. This has been seen in every process where the masses decided they needed to heir their views about their unsatisfied expectations from the government of the nation. In October 10 2020, the Nigerian government killed her citizens who were protesting for peace from a sector of the Nigerian armed forces (SARS)
Twice this year the Nigerian government has laid ambush on citizens who thought it right to speak their minds on the hardship going on in the nation. And this brings me to wonder if the masses do not learn a lesson that they repeat something over and over again expecting a different turn of events. It's the same government, it's the same system, we all know this system is anti democratic, if you must counter it, you must be ready to hit them where it hurts the most as a ghost. Creating a system where everyone is talking, but no one is talking is the first step to achieving this goal. I'm not an expert in strategy, but I believe we can all make a change without speaking how they expect us to speak.
I believe more in communication than just ranting, if we must make a change, we must learn to not just rant but communicate our views. When we rant, we are like mosquitoes disturbing the ear of a host that can easily kill. But when we communicate we insite fear into the hearts of the government. You do not need to understand the language of the lion when it roars because that roar sends a message of fear (communication). I can't in this post begin to say what a nation of over 200 million people should do to incite fear, but I can say this, if we continue speaking the way we do, the government will keep our mouths shut and our knees to the ground. And when they keep doing this, they keep communicating fear to as many that witness these events making another rebellion hard.
THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO HIVE LEARNER'S PROMPT FOR WEEK 133 EPISODE 3
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Wow. Brilliant! This is one of the most thought out and well-communicated posts I've read in a while. Great job, man.
I followed the SARS oppressions when they were happening on Twitter at the time. I think that was probably how I found out about Lekki. Lekki was like Palestine at the time, with shootings streamed on socials on a 24/7 surveillance. It was a wild period and I'm thankful that even though the oppression in Nigeria still remains, it's not as bad as it was then.
Yes it's not as bad as it once was because the people are living in fear of what would happen if they come out of go against the government. In reality, things have actually gone worse.
Theoretically it seems an excellent idea to create a system for countering a system. However the question is how such a system is possible to be created without people being standing against it in an atmosphere of oppression. Whenever, they will stand, they will be noticed and so the status quo will go against them.
Seeing the history of the world, I realize that revolutions come only when the masses stop fearing the powerfuls and keep on going with their struggles giving sacrifices.
The idea of using a system to tackle another system is relatable and achievable when no one can be pointed to be the pioneer of the revolution.
This is how terrorists groups strive, the book haram, the Islamic groups and all the others who have gone before them still strive to date because they have a system people believe in.
When they attack or carry out their plans you only see the results and not the main people involved. In war there will definitely be casualties, the thing is people are not afraid to die or fight, they are just afraid to die for nothing.
There's nothing as powerful as a believe system of change. If a system of good is created to fight the authorities in government, their first step will be to kill, but when the realize that the people are not afraid of dieing and the people show strength by being more clinical and tactical than they anticipated they would be forced to re strategize and start looking for whatever is fueling the people's belief. If they can't get that, they are very close to losing power.
I will always say, power is a myth, it's only where people decide it to be. The people can take power from the government, but taking power means controlling the narrative. To do that the people must first slowly take control of everything that can be used to hurt the masses. Shut out the re-enforcement power of the government and make them look like a joke with no one person coming out to say I am the one leading this revolution, no way to track what's financing the revolution, and at the end of the day no one to bring down for sponsoring such revolution.
I agree. However, once power is given to the hands of those who know well to use it, they utilize it to the extent where it becomes arduous to get that power back. A series of struggle is needed.
Hmmmmmm. Those who stood against SARS had a pioneer?? I just heard of what happened to protestors but no idea about how the campaign was launched.
Does it mean that the people should plan out things hiding themselves? Even then, if the master minds making people collect on a system are hidden, is it possible to carry out plans without the upfront warriors?
I am just trying to understand how is it possible to implement a system against another strong system without coming to the front and facing the horrible consequences in the beginning of the struggle.
Thanks for taking your time to respond.
!LUV
@kilvnrex, @amberkashif(1/4) sent you LUV. | tools | discord | community | HiveWiki | <>< daily
Yes they had pioneers, celebrities who sponsored the campaign, falz for example who was one of those at the forefront.
What made the end SARS revolution end was when the government ordered that the accounts of those celebrities be froven making it hard for them to access their funds.
The government isn't the president. The president is the man the people knows to be in power. The real cabals are not known and the president carry out their bids. These are the people who influence power in government.
So to fight people you do not know, you must first be hidden else if they know you they can hurt you in ways you can't begin to imagine.
There must always be upfront warriors, these are the people the government will tackle first, the people who will carry out the will of the new system.
But then anyone can be an upfront warrior, even a mad man. In a game of strategy there are always those we see and those we don't. For example, if knowing that the government sends funds to certain accounts for protection, an upfront warrior might be the ICT personnel in the bank whose job is to divert those funds and turn the people the government pays for protection into an enemy making those people another upfront warrior who would fight the government based on a miscommunication that was created. Again it's a game of strategy.
Hmmm. I understand your point of view now.
So you mean that protests and voices dhould not be random with a strategy backed by a mindset ?
There is a saying "you can't fight against a system without risking prosecution". This is the reality of anyone who chose to stand against an existing system. Creating a system to fight another system is possible in theory because at the long every system has a leader or somebody funding the movement. The moment they are cut of, the system also perishes. It is impossible to have a system that doesn't have an identified leader. The only advantage is at least the person won't fight alone but eventually the inevitable always happens.
Reoccurring failures has created this notion
The government are only after their interests, whosoever stands in their way against such interests becomes a threat be it whosoever. People have died in the name of speaking up and yet things continue to be they way they were. In the case of end SARs, yes SARs were taken out but the force people still oppress civilians.
Well, maybe we are not communicating but ranting like you said, probably that's the spot where we are getting it wrong but Omo, with the way things are in this country, even if I am given the opportunity to speak out in an understandable way, I don't think I'll embrace it because of what might follow.