Activism is a movement of movements, an endless process of change, which can't be separated from its very own purpose: peace. All previous assumptions about peace, are essentially flawed. Changing the way we think can change the way we act.
Repeace is a different way to do what U.S. culture calls "Activism." Repeace is not a repetition of the "Peace Movement," and the symbol of responsibility is not a desire to replace peace iconography.
It's responsible behavior that prevents conflicts, any kind of conflicts. Demanding governments or expecting our institutions to end their illegal, profit driven military interventions is just plain naive and futile. Repeace is an alternative strategy of social empowerment/unity, that challenges what is proving to be a profoundly flawed approach to "Peace." "War&Peace" has become a dogma, based on the myth, that somehow, the main condition for the presence of peace, is the "absence of wars."
"Peace movement" is almost exclusively perceived and referred to in terms of "Antiwar/Anti nuclear weapons-efforts."(here)
"Peace process," as seen in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is defined as the "steps that are taken by countries or groups trying to end a war." This simply doesn't make sense, because it doesn't allow all of us to control and impact the use of this word. Only those who have the authority to speak about it, determine the use that is made with the term "peace."
Can you honestly say that you have anything to contribute to the Middle East peace process, or to the policies of NATO? What about those who do have the ability to write, speak in the name of peace, to promote it? Are they delivering... anything? What about Democracy? Does your voice matter at all, in any decision (here)? If neither governments, medias, nor major advocating organizations can deliver any tangible progress, who on Earth is left out there to represent your grievances, your legitimate concerns about our shared future?
Repeace is based on the plain fact that all citizens, engaged in social change (of any kind, political or not) "realize peace." For lack of a more apt term, they are "Repeacers". Pipelines; GMOs; Lobbying; lack of access to affordable Healthcare, or Education, etc. ARE ALL CONFLICTS. War is NOT the only factor affecting the existence of peace. What determines people's longing for peace, is the presence of ANY conflict. Perceived by an individual, or a group, conflicts produce apprehension, fear. Human beings organize to "fight," to relieve conflicts. Activism is THE REALIZATION OF PEACE. This is just common sense, or logical deduction. The joint efforts of millions of activists worldwide are more deserving of the term "Peace process" than all the theatricals of our irresponsible, inconclusive leaders.
If, like us, you wish to do something truly different, you may begin by reclaiming the definition of peace, and shifting control of its narrative, from those who don't deliver, to those who are delivering change and solving small or big conflicts daily... You.
"Peace is the absence of fear, and the purpose of social action" is a far more productive definition.
A different definition can change the way we think about social change and the methods we use to promote it. Language, and the way we frame it, profoundly changes the way we think. This is a known fact and has been subject of much scientific research (here, here, here).
The powerful and unifying impact of a different approach to peace requires inquiry and debate, but if we look at the shape of the world and today's dire state of our institutions, we can't say that Martin Luther King's call to "those who love peace, to organize as well as those who love war" is being implemented any different than during his times. Those who love war are waging war on just about anything and every social group that challenges the powers at be, but the strategy, the methods and the forms of resistence offered by organizations and new political movements are not delivering any substantial change. If you are not open to changing the way you think about peace, you will be hard pressed to explain why so many authors keep using the term "war" in the unconventional ways linked here: ,,[2b],, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. (There are dozens more)
When Gandhi said: "The enemy is fear, not hate," he didn't just provide a nice sentence to design fancy memes for Facebook pages. Other great icons of social change (see image above) pointed out humanity's inefficient assumptions on peace. We never quite knew what to do about their words. Maybe now you will able to connect the dots.