If politics has psychologically militarized most people on Earth (and it did) and if people find out about it (in the end a most of them?), what will be the result? An (-n mass) awakening, but not the demilitarisation of the minds of all those billions of people. This is why the end of politics (can end in chaos) will be the path to a revolution, and at the same time politics was the path to (political) revolution. So politics (the current way it works/goes) is not the solution, but the problem. Free and open communication and diplomacy is the solution to prevent political dilemmas, revolutions and wars, but some groups, leaders, even governments use terror and tyranny to keep that political or revolutionary 'war' going on forever, or until a political 'war' ends in a revolution(ary process in the population) The only way to stop this process is to stay at home whatever happens. Nobody can end a revolutionary war, except when all people would stay at home, but (info from) television is the thing that keeps your mind in fear, emotional, and working, so in a defense or fight mode all the time.
Aristotle wrote a good little story about this topic. There was an evil ruler (paraphrasing of course) who pushed his people so far that they revolted. In their mad rush to storm the castle one man in the mob noticed an old lady sitting, watching the people go by. "Don't you want to help us overthrow this evil man", he asked her? She looked at him and responded, "When I was younger we had an evil ruler also, and we stormed the castle and overthrew him just as sure as you are going to do today. We replaced him with another ruler who became even more tyrannical then the previous and we suffered even more under this new ruler so once again, we stormed the castle and overthrew him. He was replaced with the most evil of rulers who treated us even more harshly, in fact, he is the very man you are rushing to overthrow now. I think I will not go to the castle with you for I fear what the next ruler will be like."
I don't know if free and open communication will be the panacea you claim. Study after study indicate that people generally consume media that confirms their biases. China has done a pretty good job restricting information flow and if you believe Noam Chomsky the US has also done a pretty good job of it. Also I think it is problematic to talk about politics as a monolithic entity. Even in the US there are city, state, and federal politics all of which are quite different. You get even larger differences when you look at other countries. Anyway I prefer slow change to violent revolution. Usually that way fewer people die.
I see it in the opposite way. Centuries of peace enforced by the stable rule of the all-knowing state has left us far removed from our lives and soft like sheep. In the past hundred years, revolution has become impractical. All we're left with is the joke of a vote we get every 4 years to elect the same tyrants. They might have different parties from time to time, but they all have roughly identical policies. They differ over the most trivial of issues, but agree on the most important. All parties in all developed nations support the regulatory state, 20%+ of the society's production going directly to the state, etc. Low tech has its advantages. In the past you could (*)(*)(*)(*) off into some forest somewhere and probably live forever with near complete sovereignty, and nobody would give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*). These days if you try that you'll be in prison by the end of the week, maybe the month. [hr][/hr] The result is that we're permanently stuck with the same masters with no hope of regime change.
