Contrary to Popular Belief

In the political world, there exists only one axiom: governments fall. It matters not whether the ruling body is large, small, influential, or meaningless; one day, its end comes in either a blaze of glory, or the far more common wisp of smoke. To topple a regime, all there need be is a strategy and a leader smart and well equipped enough to execute it. As a result of one person’s drive and vision, many people may change their views. Does it always go that way? Obviously not; in fact, ninety-nine times out of one-hundred, the opposition is caught and condemned for treason. The quandary of the matter tends to be: which one should prevail?
In the eyes of the contrarian, the terrorist, the world is not what it should be. The knife of justice must cut the throat of cruelty in which pulses the blood of government. The knife, however, is too dull to do more than make a scratch without the aid of a stone to sharpen it. The larger the stone, the easier it becomes to sharpen the blade. Therein lays the true quest of the contrarian. He cannot hope to achieve his goal without a lethal weapon, and the predicament in which he finds himself forces him to extend his hand to others. Without a stone, the knife will remain dull and meaningless. Without persons to believe in its ultimate morality, the idea affects no one. If his hope is to win the affection and belief of his potential followers, he must offer them something they do not already have.
Liberty is the best form of control, in the hands of the contrarian. The masses flock to the idea of freedom like so many sheep to water. All the sheep need to find the water is the direction of a shepherd. The contrarian offers that direction. Instead of following in the footsteps laid down for them by their government, the masses take up the cause of freedom. The dilemma: is freedom justice? No. Freedom is freedom.
So often, people mistake the idea of a truly just world as a world without boundaries. In reality, the best justice is an absolute justice, only achievable through a bounded system. The contrarians to contrarianism, most often referred to as the legitimate government, would argue that justice is far more valuable than freedom. The forfeiture of certain autonomies insures the protection of the people, and in so doing, the stability of the authority. Without a steady system of power, even in the name of liberty, justice would be compromised.
To be contrarian is to be unjust, and to be unjust is criminal. Nay, criminality is left to the petty lawbreakers who do nothing to society but defy its norms and morays. It is the terrorist who acts not to defy norms, but to redefine them in his own image. Such an act of contrary value is dangerous to the justice and stability that is meant to exist in the government-led, legitimate world.
In conclusion, there is no legitimacy amongst the corrupt. What divides the righteous terrorist from the evil? On the other hand, what separates a virtuous government from a devious one? Are both not, in fact, in the eyes of the beholder? Is a terrorist ever a terrorist but to those which he terrorizes? Is a government respectable but to the people under its direction? Does any of it matter in the end? Governments collapse, the victorious oppositions erect new administrations in their own images, and the cycle begins anew. That, in fact, is all that matters in the end; the rest is commentary.