rebel, (adj.)
c.1300, from old french rebelle "stubborn, obstinate, rebellious" (12c.) and directly from latin rebellis "insurgent, rebellious," from rebellare "to rebel, revo lt," from re-"opposit, against," or perhaps "again" (see re-)+ bellare "wage war," from belum "war."

rebel,(verb)
mid-14c., from old french rebeller(14c.). from latin rebellare "to revolt" (see rebel (adj.)). related: rebelled; rebelling.

almost as soon as an infant of every species begins an attempt to make an independent move , the infant experiences a resistance, and the seeds of rebellion are planted in its psyche. the infant cries in protest against something being taken away, or to demand something. among all known specie the human species is the latest to come into existence, so there is more of the common senses to form regarding the nature of things to understand and acknowledge. along with the cognition of the nature of things in relation with one's own ability to interact or to protest, the nature and form of resistance to things change. in some one flows with the flow, and some new things are seen to rebel against. the core element of resistance is the attraction to the unknown, finding the known to be limiting. the unknown is the step into the evolutionary nature of existence. since the existence is not static, one's very sense of being feels restless in confining situations.

it becomes even more confusing and contradictory among the humans of the urban dwellings than that among the rural or primitive surroundings. other than the physical surroundings like the structures of the dwellings and the regulated ways of life, there are also differing codes of requirements and conducts among the dwellers of the same dwelling depending upon the attached designation of the human person. for instance, there are a few persons in that dwelling called the white house, whose sole function is to protect the person called president. it is assumed, that unless this person thus called is protected with many lives of his bodyguards, the nation would be in danger. but whether or not a physical person acting as president is killed or dies of natural causes, or loses in election, the life of the living beings of the nation goes on, as it did despite the assassination of the u.s .president kennedy.

the assassin was a recruit in the rebellion for the cause unknown, but assumed to have something to do with either retaining or changing the way things are seen and done politically in the u.s. he was not really rebelling against the way he himself lived or would have lived given the favourable chances.

so, even in the u.s democratic form there is a future form of rebellion laid dormant with the so called founding fathers' notion of democracy. it is functioning as lullaby to put to sleep, or even retard the awakening senses that will demand the cognizance of the element of life in all beings that exists outside of the (u.s. or any) manmade classifications. by being dressed up in protocol, the physical body of the modern urban person cannot escape one's very nature of being. all other creatures and organisms do not experience the manmade follies of existence.

in the sequentially necessary coordinated motions of elements, the right combination for the human evolution as a species is found among the persons who exist outside of the norms of any given culture. the jains, taoist and buddhist perceptions of existence were, and are even now, more rebellious to the given norms of the prevailing notions of life; and yet, neither lao-tsu, nor buddha or mahavir were assassinated. what they rebelled against was not to set into motion a lifestyle formed of a habitual way of life. jesus' and gandhi's rebellions were more like prisoners' uprising, asking for better treatments of prisoners, but did not at all question the very base of the way of life. jesus did not reject the bible of old testament, and gandhi did not reject the kingdom of rama. consequently both were killed by people who were comfortable with the culture based ways of life.

the seeds of the islam were sown in the jewish, catholic, and hindu ways of life that surrounded the arabian peninsula. all three had the earthly god-like kings to subjugate the populace. mohammed rebelled against the king-like god by proposing that god has no form. feeling threatened with the effects of the implications the christians began an endless holy war against islam. for if god's very form -- "god created man in his own image" -- is denied, it also denies the divinity of jesus. christianity does not exist without the divinity of jesus. but mohammed was not against the prevailing socio-economic way of life, not he was against fighting.

as it is observed, the "holy war" between the christians and islam, as well as all other wars, battles, and feuds between two groups or individuals have no natural cause, nor does it change anything but the actors playing the same old roles. so all their fighting men are hirelings, whether salaried or mercenaries. all their commanders in chief even play golf when others kill and get killed for their comforts.

the recent statement of pope francis, that "anyone who makes weapons or invests in weapons industries is a hypocrite if they call themselves christian," would make him an unwelcome guest in the u.s., which is not only the current super power, but it also makes and sells more weapons than anybody else. this "one nation under god" has actually been a nation under gun from the time of the arrival of collumbus. but fancis, the pope himself lives king-like with the generous contributions from the very people who make weapons and invest in weapons industries. the pope has not seen the world of the deprived from close as did mother teresa, or else, he, too, would have experienced serious doubts about the very notion of god. but steeped as she was into the believing in the authority, her rebellion existed only in her diary. and pope's rebellous words are more like an actor playing a holy man. actors playing rebellious roles do nothing of the sort off the stage.

the modern metropolis populations numbering in millions, when seen from space look similar to the herds of the wildebeest of africa, or the buffalos before the arrivals of the europeans in the new world. what is similar between the two is their going where their feed is. grasses for the wildebeests and the employments for the urban humans. what is different about the two is that the formers' way of life is natural, the latter's it is manmade. in the animal world there is no class system. even the chest thumping lead gorilla picks berries for himself. animal specie have no fight within a given species except the mating rituals, and that, too, is not to kill. man's manmade existence is itself divided into two, the physical and mental. and both of these forms are the sources of exploitation by the dwellers of the same towns besides being targeted by other human groups. an urban dweller's relationship with one's unseen employer is one sided, as one is working for the benefit of the unseen other. there is no cognizance that, both the employer and the employed are the members of the same species. in all interactions between two, and among all are formed of two one sided usage; and hence, rarely based on the mutuality of concern for one another. it is so even in what is known as the relationship of love.

since the human species is a group dwelling kind, and alone cannot exist, the search is for finding the like-minded person and persons. the mind is itself is divided into two, the thinking and the memory, the thought about retaining what is gone. in the group dwelling there is the age related biological functions forming relationships. the adults becoming protectors and minors the dependents. then the biology related motions of these relationships become the habits of still treating those as minors who are no more minors. some of the new adults resent this, and the friction develops.

the relationships in the urban metropolis get more complicated as people have gathered there in want of employment. they may work side by side in factories and cubicles, but once returning to their apartments, they shut their doors to the outside, and revert to their habits that are not yet denied. but the natural urge to seek companion drives them out to bars, pubs, laundromats, clubs, libraries and church, where they can meet the like-minded people. upon finding ones that are similar thinking the relationships are formed as friends, or as spouses, depending upon one's needs and how much one can modify one's thinking to match that of the other. but habits of biological forms are stronger than one's new perceptions. so the conflicts arise and the power struggle to subdue the other person or people take place.

those people who are run over by the outside groups are physically subjugated into an existence no better than the domesticated animals like cows and horses. but even these animals, when feeling the heat of the oppression, turn on their captors, or just escape. so do the slaves. the working for pay is an improvised form of slavery designed for the convenience of the slave owner turned employer. kings have always been like the shadow play images moved by the unseen powers of the rich. the u.s. democracy itself was the creation of the wealthy subjects of the british king, and they rebelled against the kingdom to establish their own domain. but the u.s. founders were not unhappy with way they had lived. they were only a handful people who formed the government. and the voting rights were reserved for the land owning white males. the women and slaves had no say.

in the following two centuries since the formation of the nation, very little has changed in the ways of life of both the rich and the poor regulated by the compulsory education and the advertizing industry. conditioned thus, the new generation is raised to live like gladiators to fight to survive in every walk of life. just as in gladiator's eyes everybody in the arena is a competitor, and competitors cannot cooperate, the governing body of the rich is safe from being run over by the rebellion for now.