Yuyutsu

Q. Do you consider the State to be worthy of the description of terrorist?

And if the answer is yes, then why is it not legitimate to form terrorist groups under any particular flag of ideology, to counter State violence?

EG the Trains.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/17/fuqc-d17.html

I pointed out to you, their similar views to your own IE; their objections to State force for control of State dictates.

Thus was my warning.

It is safe to say, all terrorist groups consider themselves justified to counter force with force..

Obviously you will jump to self defence against this accusation of mine, and claim exemption from the description on your pacifist tendencies.
But I remember a past post here, where you described your pacifist beliefs overarched your obligation to the State, by fraternising with the enemy by blowing kisses out of the window of a military vehicle of your withdrawing platoon.

This is not a criticism as such, but an example of opposition towards your own side, being the State military machine.

So what is and what isn’t legitimate in opposing State rule?

Diver dan,
It sounds to me as if you’re entering a discussion of Just War theory. When is violence justified against an enemy aggressor?

Certainly there has been evidence of political corruption and levels of abuse of power within our major parties and governments here in Australia. But sometimes we ascribe evil intent when it’s more the case of incompetence.

However, our present political systems are still workable, or somewhat orderly. They haven’t got so morally corrupt or vicious and violent against their own people that they’re in need of being overthrown.

Diver dan,
I don't want to be seen as supporting or sympathising with the Trains, however, in their eyes, they would likely have seen their action as a self-defence.

Though the evidence at present points to their actions being more based on a disturbed paranoia.

Dear Diver Dan,

«Q. Do you consider the State to be worthy of the description of terrorist?»

It did not previously occur to me because I do not normally think in terms of terrorism.

But perhaps so: a terrorist is someone who deliberately sows terror (fear) in the hearts of some target population.

States can and do produce terrible fear due to their ability to snatch you (i.e. your body) away at any time and from any place, throw you in jail and make your worst nightmares come true - but is this fear-creating deliberate? for some States it is, but as for Australia, I don't know.

«And if the answer is yes, then why is it not legitimate to form terrorist groups under any particular flag of ideology, to counter State violence?»

No. If a State can provoke you to become a terrorist yourself, then evil has won, then you are the biggest loser, having lost your own soul!

«EG the Trains.»

Oh, I thought you meant trains that roll on rails and do "Choo Choo"... I'm not familiar with that story.

«I pointed out to you, their similar views to your own IE; their objections to State force for control of State dictates.»

The similarities are superficial.

I cannot object to States using force just as I cannot object to sharks obtaining their nourishment by biting others, or to earthquakes, tsunamis and viruses, etc. How can I ask a shark not to bite? it's in their nature!

What I do instead, is to educate others about the spiritual dangers of associating oneself with, cooperating with or supporting States: a conscientious person who wants to grow, to improve their character and develop spiritually, should beware and try to abstain from associating with the bad company of States that do as above to others who never consented to such treatment.

«Thus was my warning.»

Thank you, but nothing bad can happen to anyone who does not deserve it. The State is very powerful indeed, but God is above all and nobody, not even the State, can defy His will!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«It is safe to say, all terrorist groups consider themselves justified to counter force with force..

Obviously you will jump to self defence against this accusation of mine, and claim exemption from the description on your pacifist tendencies.»

Why? since I am not a member of a terrorist group, I need no exemption!

«So what is and what isn’t legitimate in opposing State rule?»

Violence is not legitimate (except when God called you directly otherwise, but that is extremely rare and you probably need to be a prophet for having such a calling: if in doubt then you are not).

Non-violent resistance is legitimate.
Passive resistance is also the most effective.
Mahatma Gandhi perfected it and was thus very successful in liberating India.
Jesus too in his wisdom advised his disciples to turn the other cheek - a very effective method.
Education too, exposing the truth of what States stand for, is non-violent, thus legitimate.
And yes, blowing kisses to civilians of the State's enemy is a legitimate form of non-violent resistance, and is even more effective when you actually love and care for them.

Yuyutsu

So, your answer is to set a pacifist example towards State sponsored violence.
No surprises under that stone.

In view of your dislike of State control over its citizens, inclusive of yourself, are you a law abiding citizen?

Assuming the answer is yes, then how do you reconcile your obedience with a conscience opposed to many of its institutions and demands which clash with it?

For example, there are groups that align loosely under the banner of the Sovereign citizen movement, who refuse to follow laws such as registration and fine payment as a protest against State intrusion into what they consider are their citizen rights not to comply.

Would you classify their refusals as pacifist objections?