Uniting Behind Powerful Narratives


If the establishment creates false narratives to divide it, why shouldn't the civil society use existing facts to unite, and reclaim the narrative? The option is here, it's safe, and it costs nothing.

The Establishment controls the narrative. The corporate owned media are heavily used to promote false narratives. The late Robert Perry wrote a piece about the power yielded by false narratives.


The political elites constantly use framing tactics to present policies or laws they wish to pass through the executive to disinform, and manipulate gullible people to vote against their interests. Think of the U.S. "Patriot" Act, for example, or the NDAA provision. They are either framed as "patriotic," or in the interest of "National Defense," so they must be good, right?

The practice of manipulating narratives goes on for just about every bill, every domestic or foreign policy. However, no matter how much efforts are invested in raising awareness by organized activism to stop these skewed perspectives, the establishment gets usually what it wants, while independent media and activists' groups keep repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results. 

Narratives are basically lines, stories, mostly myths, used to manipulate us. Thanks to $billions in lobbying money, these stories are promoted more efficiently for them and more damaging for us. 

However, the elites are not alone at fault in spreading myths and false narratives. In fact, the whole institution of Social Change (the Civil Society) suffers from its own myths and false narratives. These are truly paralyzing for social progress. As long as these fallacies persist, and/or unless someone offers more efficient narratives, the evolution of the collective consciousness will only limp along.

Repeace promotes logic narratives as a strategy to reclaim control over language and thought. The stark contrast with the narratives you believed in, will hopefully unleash a passionate debate and do one simple thing... empower you and create a coherent collective of activists, inspired by a different approach.

These are the narratives promoted by Repeace as part of our strategy. By identifying as a Repeacer, you support these alternative truths, and push them into receive media attention.


The old/prevailing narrative "Peace is the absence of wars" is imprecise, because:


All social, economic, environmental conflicts (and more) are wars:

All conflicts are threats to progress and peaceful coexistence. They cause just as much misery and death as bombs and guns. The old/prevailing narrative is that only armed conflicts are wars. According to this heavily promoted fallacy, peace can only exist when wars end! Plenty of evidence underscore how this is flawed logic, because dozens of prestigious authors and academics, call the spade a spade by naming all existing conflicts... "wars": [1],[2],[2b],[3], [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]. (There are dozens more).


Inciting responsibility is more efficient than urging to "stop wars."

The demand for "peace" has brought a lot of money to vendors who sell "everything peace," from shirts to necklaces, shoes, stickers, songs. Peace and its well known "Holton peace sign" have been used to raise money for thousands of organizations, allegedly "committed to peace." We believe that It's not by demanding peace ad nauseam that brings peace, but by inciting responsibility. The old/prevailing narratives are that only "diplomacy," an attitude of "nonviolence" (vague) prevents conflicts, wars, and that people should keep asking for "peace" for 60+ years, specially in the US. It's clearly not working.  


Sustainability prevents local, national, global conflicts impacting earth, nature, oceans, climate.

The old/prevailing narrative is that Sustainability is a concept, a category, subordinated to environmental action. It wasn’t part of the narrative of peace because climate change and irresponsible farming practices were not seen as threats to peace. This has clearly changed. Sustainability, responsible relationships to Nature has to become inherent part of any progress towards the invisible target of "peace."


The Peace Movement is ALL Activism, made by all movements aimed at resolving conflicts, and promoting justice, equality, progress for all life.

Similar as the previous narrative: The very purpose of all social engagement is peace, because all individuals experiencing distress for percieved injustices, feel fear. The goal of engaging in action is to relieve those fears, hence... bring about peace. The old/prevailing myth is that peace is mainly the purpose of antiwar/anti nuclear efforts of organized action, aimed at reducing wars (inefficient).


The old/prevailing narrative is that the "Peace Movement" is glued to the idea of War&Peace, which is a very narrow minded vision of peace (here), a dogma that has to be dispelled.


The Peace process is made of the evolution of all social change efforts.

The old/prevailing narrative is that a "Peace Process" was defined as "the steps that are taken by countries or groups that are trying to end a war." However, compassionate, responsible, engaged human beings have been preventing all kinds of conflicts, in much larger and real ways than governments and presidents' summits.


The prevailing designation of engaged citizens is "Activists." Very few, if ever, dare to question the problems, the negative connotations, tied to this narrative, this name. In main stream language, Activists are framed and perceived as radicals, resisting the law, organizing disorderly actions to disrupt, and keep protesting (negative, here).