Not that this idiot has ever been in a penitentiary, except in his television-soaked mind. But then again, when you hide behind a voice synthesizer and use a cartoon as your face, how can you express anything real?
Ghandi and MLK were effective because people were angry at watching peaceful demonstrators get their fucking asses beat. If MLK and co. never got all of those ass whippings, the movement wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
They were also effective because they were appealing to voters to change laws. We're trying to destroy the state. Very different ends requiring very different means.
I Feared as much. The revolution that the egyptians paid for in blood and tears has been usurped and you have traded a visible dictator for the invisible iron grip of western neofacist-global-corpratism ism ism. You are now in the same boat as us, my friend. On the other hand, at least you guys know how to get things started;-)
And for everyone else here READ GELDERLOOSES BOOK before you open your trap. it is an eye opener, and you can get it on piratebay.
The substance of the video is more than enough to stand alone without making it a little more extreme (or perhaps you are trying for humor) with the pointless swearing. Sounds like a 10 year old that just learned a few swears is being the master of ceremonies for someone who actually has something to say.
Take Egypt as example, while the events began very violent in 28 January (an even before in Suez), yes despite what the media may told you, there was very violent confrontations, in Alexandria we didn't leave a single police station unburnt, but when everything calmed down on 11 February it was easy for the Army's leadership to assume power (in the name of revolution!) and restore the regime.
now we suffer exactly the same system as under Mubarak's rule, same social injustice, same oppression..
I personally think this issue is too convoluted to simply say "I'm for or against violent resistance." For one, people have to understand WHY you're destroying things, what you're resisting, etc. They have to see your violence as being less destructive than the violence of the existing state. And, additionally, violence is a loaded word that can mean anything from throwing a brick through a window to blowing up a building full of people--you have to understand how far you are willing to go, be
@wcropp1 certain you are able to accept the consequences if you get caught, and be fairly certain of your success or, at the very least, the righteousness of your cause. It is hard to place blame on specific individuals and institutions "at the top" when many of those "on the bottom" do not oppose the status quo themselves. I do not view self-defense as violence, nor do I see property destruction as terrorism, and I am most certainly not committed to pacifism, BUT violence is a serious tool for
@wcropp1 serious times, particularly violence against people, and only to be used begrudgingly in the appropriate context, at least IMO. This, in my mind, usually means in the context of authoritarian regimes that do not allow for a "legal" redress of grievances, basic democratic decision making, minority rights, etc. Violence may be effective in democratic nations to achieve specific, single issue goals, etc., but it should not be surprising that most individuals are opposed to "extra-legal,"
@wcropp1 or "vigilante" justice, which they see it as. In other words, with a democratic state in place, there is no excuse for illegal violent action. As far as "propaganda by the deed" goes, violent acts will never spark off a revolution unless there is majority support among the population, or at least enough people for there to be a chance of success in changing the status quo. Therefore, violence certainly has its place in certain situations, and it will certainly be demonized/scrutinized
@wcropp1 when it is carried out offensively by a minority group for reasons not understood or supported by the population at large. Violence wins battles, propaganda/education/agitation wins wars, because without support, the violence serves no purpose on a "big picture," systemic level. The real question is, are short term, small-scale victories worth the bad publicity in the eyes of the uninformed public?
@wcropp1 You've put some thought in to it. Unfortunately, the folks who feel strongly enough to do direct action like property destruction aren't the kind of people you'd put on the public relations committee.
Rather than trying to cater to a largely abstract idea of "public opinion" like the mainstream press, I think it's better to accept that popular movements are obviously going to reflect a wide range of tactics and opinions.
Canadians are going to have get less squeamish eventually.
@AUSM92 That's a pretty obvious straw-man argument. The agents of "order" have systematically crushed every spontaneous outbreak of actual freedom throughout history.
Read up on Nestor Makhno if you want an example. But he was driven in to exile by the bolsheviks when they decided "order" was more important than the ideals of the revolution.
Anyway, instead of ranting, I'll just point out that history isn't over and society is far from perfect.
@AUSM92 I think the sanctimonious pretensions of self-identified "civil people" are the paper-thin and temporary delusion of a society where some of us are completely disassociated from the violence required to maintain our little bubbles of privilege.
You live in a society maintained by mass organized violence and because other people commit this violence for you, you think you're "civil". It's sad and naive. Violence is a fundamental characteristic of life on earth. Grow up.
since the elites have created class division and they also feel they have the right to rule going by the elite blood lines then we have to fight back. These multinational companies only care for profit
Never before seen anything ny stimulator. This film was sent to me by a friend. It made me think, alot...nice to be a bit unsettled and out of my 'certainties'. Too much of the same company, same ideas all of us agreeing with each other and wanking each other off. Have to fucking think this through then.
gelderlooses book finally stated and thouroughly explained something that I have felt since I was about 12. READ HIS BOOK PEOPLE you can find it on TPB i doubt peter would have a problem with that.
resistance is empowering. FIGHT BACK people. dont accept the blood that is on YOUR hands. If you are a purely nonviolent activist YOU ARE A RACIST. you are basically saying: all those niggers and brown people should fight, im just gonna hold up my signs and be a mofuckin hypocrite
Excellent video. I'm not an anarchist but results are results! Also, most people in America fail to give the Nation of Islam enough credit for influencing the Civil Rights Movement as much as they did. You won't find Malcolm in a 4th grade history book but you'll find MLK. Both great leaders btw.
The State in the U.S. is not leftist, Obama is a corporatist. The left/right split is a digression. State power is corporatist in all but a few cases now.
What do you leftists think of the fact that the Left controls the state in the US and the Right represents the true resistance? As for anti-globalization, how would you Anarchists feel about joining forces with Nationalists? We've done it before throughout history, usually to fight Bolshevism. Speaking of which, Bolsheviks murdered and exiled Anarchists, so why do you ally yourselves with commies when they're a greater enemy to you than capitalists or Nationalists?
@IggyHazard Did you find it ironic how the radical right echoes the Nationalist views when the guest speaker says "non-violence plays a function of taking out their teeth, making them [movements] harmless ...so they can just exist in this sort of cesspool of democratic plurality, in which everything is ok nothing can really be challenged or changed". Pulling everyone to the mean...shadows of Harrison Bergeron IRL.
@fairiebee That's an excellent analogy! That movie (aside from being awesome in its own right) is perfect allegory of the concept, especially since it portrays the State as leftist.
in uniform, in a suit, in a gang uniform, in a team jersey or in Black Bloc garb:
its dangerous, childish bullshit to abuse others & then leave the retaliation from the better armed & outfitted to the people who are being responsible & effective.
5:15 - Great to see how quickly some so-called 'leftists' denounce others as "terrorists", thus situating themselves on the side of state power in the so-called "Global War on Terror".
The corporate and state actively encourage violence on small scales because it justifies their existence. Gigantic record labels will eagerly distribute music advocating direct action, and the state injects agent provocateurs into protests to incite violence.
Anyone who smashes windows and burns cars is a tool, serving no meaningful purpose other than pumping fear of "anarchy" into the hearts of the working class.
Diversity of Tactics is the SOLUTION: (non-violence, self-defense, violent action, & intellectual-terrorism) all have their place...otherwise, yr nonviolence pacifism just becomes a methodology which may NOT produce any positive results and effectively ensnare even more lambs to the slaughter. Non-violence can be a COWARDLY thing afterall.
The argument for violence and against pacifism as an agent for change is almost always a lame one; at least in the United States where there is nothing at all preventing those who would wish to live in a different way from doing so.
It's not hard to understand why male anarchists in the United States are so angry and frustrated. There are hardly any women who will love them, create something with them. Violence is one of the easiest responses, uniting with other people and actually creating something is one of the most difficult.
I'm surprised that Peter didn't go into greater detail about the fact that Ghandi spoke in support of peoples right to a diversity of actions against oppression including aggressive resistance.
@Leibo07 which is exactly the point... by the way.. non-violent action in gandhian terms includes and in a certain way welcomes finitude at the hands of the oppressor... as a clear and extreme demonstration of injustice. Death as an act of relational nonviolence (including immolation) is a message: "It is not worth living under these conditions. You forced my hand. Now deal with that cognitively and try justifying your causal role in what lead to my death infront of all other human witnesses."
@dubified89 Good question. It has more to do with Justice, Equity, Equality,, Sacrifice, Equiarchy (remember where you read that word first), Dying for Something instead of Standing for Nothing etc etc. Death is at times more than just the cessation of one individuals sentient experience. It can become a symbol. And Man is a symbolic animal. The question here is: Death as a symbol of Resistance. It can change the entire conflict-situation in certain extremely rare circumstances. ponder that.
Those interested in the issue should get acquainted with Herbert Marcuse and his concept of 'repressive tolerance'. Really quite relevant, to this day.
That's right. But we also need to face the fact that even violence can be tolerated repressively as expounded by Marcuse. The usual anti-globalization outbursts fit within this context. In order to bypass this, we need to make our violence *painful*, not something that can be "dealt with", "anticipated" or "repressed". If the present tactics don't work, change the tactics.
1. The establishment is (still) very nervous about revolutionary violence. The fact that f.e. the EU is rapidly mobilizing to hitherto unseen dimensions (police forces in all sorts; Battle Groups) indicates that too. And undoutedly internet and YT and fora now are being used for those mindgames;
2. Its fascinating to hear Gelderloos about the Dutch RaRa group from the 80s. They were succesful indeed, but mind, in those days there were no satellites, no gsm antennae in your neighbourhood, no internet, no surveillance cameras on each square cm, and so on and so forth. Makes you rethink about the repressive nature of technology, acc to Marcuse, too.
Then to use this technology against the system is the only thing that's left to do. Anarcho-primitivists and green anarchists get a lot of shit about being "hypocritical" in their own musings with technology. Now, up to a point this has some ground, but in order to bring down industrial capitalism as we know it, we must use it's technology - otherwise we're utterly chanceless. Not that I suggest we play some sort of mirror chess-game with black.
The idea of violence against property is about as ingrained you can get.
I agree that people need to stop playing by the rules.
The problem is that people need to be in the damn streets!
The idea that you can defeat the most violent civilization ever(this one) with violence is lunacy. You would also be in fact bringing a swifter destruction to the earth because the destroyed property would be replaced and resources are required for such a thing.
Just using violence isn't enough. You have to use it *effectively*, i.e. hitting them where it hurts, to quote Kaczynski:
"Smashing up McDonald's or Starbuck's is pointless. Not that I give a damn about McDonald's or Starbuck's. I don't care whether anyone smashes them up or not. But that is not a revolutionary activity. (cont)
Even if every fast-food chain in the world were wiped out the techno-industrial system would suffer only minimal harm as a result, since it could easily survive without fast-food chains. When you attack McDonald's or Starbuck's, you are not hitting where it hurts."
The problem with nonviolence isn't that it doesn't work. It is that for nonviolent action to effect a replacement of the political culture that legitimates the targeted form of exploitation, it has to be MASSIVE, CONTINUOUS, CROSS-SECTORAL, INTERGENERATIONAL, TRANSGENDER, and in these days of globalised TNC and thei networks, it has to be coordinated on an INTERCONTINENTAL level. Now if the young man had said that THESE are the reasons why he thinks nonviolence sucks... I'd give him props.But:no
This young man is talking about non-violent passive-ism. Please do ponder the difference. Nonviolent pacifism is sharpest when the refusal to participate with the oppressive structure and system is total and absolute. Violence is not the opposite of non-violence. Nonviolence is a method which infacts applies pressure to the system by abrogating any form of synergy between its applicants and the structure nonviolent non-compliance/non-participation/detachment is inflicted upon.
Violence and Nonviolence are not opposits. Technically, they designate two completely different conceptual and tactical approaches. This author's understanding of nonviolence subsumes it to the forms of negation of violence which is correct... and fails to see how politically effective and proactive non-violence actually implies a radical form of disengagement so complete, that the macropolitical structure of injustice collapses as a consequence.
You make some good points, but, though I am not a pacifist, I think a distinction needs to be made between activism and civil resistance. Marching, chanting, and die-ins will do nothing. Civil resistance takes determination, mass participation, and thinking of new ways to fuck up the system. It can be effective, if done correctly, but people need to study it.
Theres a good reason theres all this spiritual stuff going on now,,like the david wilcoks project camelot stuff,,they want us 2 be peacefull and just think spirituality n good vibes will solve everything,,im not saying i dont believe in being spiritual i just know thats only half of it,the other half is the physical protest/anarchy type stuff,nothing will change unless u get physical,it has 2 be done..its sad it has 2 be this way but the nwo wont give in to hippies,we have 2 be warriors
Not that this idiot has ever been in a penitentiary, except in his television-soaked mind. But then again, when you hide behind a voice synthesizer and use a cartoon as your face, how can you express anything real?
piedradelocura 1 month ago
Blowing up a bank= win
skulldrix 2 months ago 2
woah this is scary
PIlotrcm 3 months ago
Comment removed
dannyscottburr 4 months ago
Ghandi and MLK were effective because people were angry at watching peaceful demonstrators get their fucking asses beat. If MLK and co. never got all of those ass whippings, the movement wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
keyonte0 4 months ago
@keyonte0
They were also effective because they were appealing to voters to change laws. We're trying to destroy the state. Very different ends requiring very different means.
guatahala 3 months ago
@KhaledKhalil
I Feared as much. The revolution that the egyptians paid for in blood and tears has been usurped and you have traded a visible dictator for the invisible iron grip of western neofacist-global-corpratism ism ism. You are now in the same boat as us, my friend. On the other hand, at least you guys know how to get things started;-)
And for everyone else here READ GELDERLOOSES BOOK before you open your trap. it is an eye opener, and you can get it on piratebay.
peace
DJpopel 4 months ago 2
The substance of the video is more than enough to stand alone without making it a little more extreme (or perhaps you are trying for humor) with the pointless swearing. Sounds like a 10 year old that just learned a few swears is being the master of ceremonies for someone who actually has something to say.
xbrandoncrisp 4 months ago
@xbrandoncrisp if you can't look past a few swear words to get to the important content, then it is you who is the 10 year old.
2DGorillaz192000 3 months ago
Take Egypt as example, while the events began very violent in 28 January (an even before in Suez), yes despite what the media may told you, there was very violent confrontations, in Alexandria we didn't leave a single police station unburnt, but when everything calmed down on 11 February it was easy for the Army's leadership to assume power (in the name of revolution!) and restore the regime.
now we suffer exactly the same system as under Mubarak's rule, same social injustice, same oppression..
KhaledKhalil 4 months ago
A 100% non-violent revolution WILL NOT WORK to bring down the state and/or capitalism. You need a wide-range of tactics which includes violence.
juliaisafilmbuff123 4 months ago 3
I personally think this issue is too convoluted to simply say "I'm for or against violent resistance." For one, people have to understand WHY you're destroying things, what you're resisting, etc. They have to see your violence as being less destructive than the violence of the existing state. And, additionally, violence is a loaded word that can mean anything from throwing a brick through a window to blowing up a building full of people--you have to understand how far you are willing to go, be
wcropp1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from stimulator
@wcropp1 certain you are able to accept the consequences if you get caught, and be fairly certain of your success or, at the very least, the righteousness of your cause. It is hard to place blame on specific individuals and institutions "at the top" when many of those "on the bottom" do not oppose the status quo themselves. I do not view self-defense as violence, nor do I see property destruction as terrorism, and I am most certainly not committed to pacifism, BUT violence is a serious tool for
wcropp1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from stimulator
@wcropp1 serious times, particularly violence against people, and only to be used begrudgingly in the appropriate context, at least IMO. This, in my mind, usually means in the context of authoritarian regimes that do not allow for a "legal" redress of grievances, basic democratic decision making, minority rights, etc. Violence may be effective in democratic nations to achieve specific, single issue goals, etc., but it should not be surprising that most individuals are opposed to "extra-legal,"
wcropp1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from stimulator
@wcropp1 or "vigilante" justice, which they see it as. In other words, with a democratic state in place, there is no excuse for illegal violent action. As far as "propaganda by the deed" goes, violent acts will never spark off a revolution unless there is majority support among the population, or at least enough people for there to be a chance of success in changing the status quo. Therefore, violence certainly has its place in certain situations, and it will certainly be demonized/scrutinized
wcropp1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from stimulator
@wcropp1 when it is carried out offensively by a minority group for reasons not understood or supported by the population at large. Violence wins battles, propaganda/education/agitation wins wars, because without support, the violence serves no purpose on a "big picture," systemic level. The real question is, are short term, small-scale victories worth the bad publicity in the eyes of the uninformed public?
wcropp1 5 months ago in playlist More videos from stimulator
@wcropp1 You've put some thought in to it. Unfortunately, the folks who feel strongly enough to do direct action like property destruction aren't the kind of people you'd put on the public relations committee.
Rather than trying to cater to a largely abstract idea of "public opinion" like the mainstream press, I think it's better to accept that popular movements are obviously going to reflect a wide range of tactics and opinions.
Canadians are going to have get less squeamish eventually.
TyrannisSicSemper 5 months ago
@AUSM92 That's a pretty obvious straw-man argument. The agents of "order" have systematically crushed every spontaneous outbreak of actual freedom throughout history.
Read up on Nestor Makhno if you want an example. But he was driven in to exile by the bolsheviks when they decided "order" was more important than the ideals of the revolution.
Anyway, instead of ranting, I'll just point out that history isn't over and society is far from perfect.
Peaceful protest is not enough by itself.
TyrannisSicSemper 6 months ago
@AUSM92 I think the sanctimonious pretensions of self-identified "civil people" are the paper-thin and temporary delusion of a society where some of us are completely disassociated from the violence required to maintain our little bubbles of privilege.
You live in a society maintained by mass organized violence and because other people commit this violence for you, you think you're "civil". It's sad and naive. Violence is a fundamental characteristic of life on earth. Grow up.
TyrannisSicSemper 6 months ago
since the elites have created class division and they also feel they have the right to rule going by the elite blood lines then we have to fight back. These multinational companies only care for profit
SuperEarther 7 months ago
Never before seen anything ny stimulator. This film was sent to me by a friend. It made me think, alot...nice to be a bit unsettled and out of my 'certainties'. Too much of the same company, same ideas all of us agreeing with each other and wanking each other off. Have to fucking think this through then.
MuntucoGer1 8 months ago
Peter is da man.
02Blackbeard 9 months ago
YES!!!!
gelderlooses book finally stated and thouroughly explained something that I have felt since I was about 12. READ HIS BOOK PEOPLE you can find it on TPB i doubt peter would have a problem with that.
resistance is empowering. FIGHT BACK people. dont accept the blood that is on YOUR hands. If you are a purely nonviolent activist YOU ARE A RACIST. you are basically saying: all those niggers and brown people should fight, im just gonna hold up my signs and be a mofuckin hypocrite
peace
DJpopel 1 year ago 2
You know what to do boys. But in case you're wondering, there's this: AKYLAOKDSOLAPOSKOLWG
kskshghg 1 year ago
Excellent video. I'm not an anarchist but results are results! Also, most people in America fail to give the Nation of Islam enough credit for influencing the Civil Rights Movement as much as they did. You won't find Malcolm in a 4th grade history book but you'll find MLK. Both great leaders btw.
MPArmstrong84 1 year ago
The State in the U.S. is not leftist, Obama is a corporatist. The left/right split is a digression. State power is corporatist in all but a few cases now.
kskshghg 1 year ago 5
@kskshghg and Chavez?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
What do you leftists think of the fact that the Left controls the state in the US and the Right represents the true resistance? As for anti-globalization, how would you Anarchists feel about joining forces with Nationalists? We've done it before throughout history, usually to fight Bolshevism. Speaking of which, Bolsheviks murdered and exiled Anarchists, so why do you ally yourselves with commies when they're a greater enemy to you than capitalists or Nationalists?
IggyHazard 1 year ago
@IggyHazard Did you find it ironic how the radical right echoes the Nationalist views when the guest speaker says "non-violence plays a function of taking out their teeth, making them [movements] harmless ...so they can just exist in this sort of cesspool of democratic plurality, in which everything is ok nothing can really be challenged or changed". Pulling everyone to the mean...shadows of Harrison Bergeron IRL.
fairiebee 1 year ago
@fairiebee That's an excellent analogy! That movie (aside from being awesome in its own right) is perfect allegory of the concept, especially since it portrays the State as leftist.
IggyHazard 1 year ago
well, I can't respect a thug.
in uniform, in a suit, in a gang uniform, in a team jersey or in Black Bloc garb:
its dangerous, childish bullshit to abuse others & then leave the retaliation from the better armed & outfitted to the people who are being responsible & effective.
sorry, but I can't abide a thug.
Pacifism works: if you're not stupid.
ThisCanadian 1 year ago
5:15 - Great to see how quickly some so-called 'leftists' denounce others as "terrorists", thus situating themselves on the side of state power in the so-called "Global War on Terror".
Nullifidian 1 year ago
The corporate and state actively encourage violence on small scales because it justifies their existence. Gigantic record labels will eagerly distribute music advocating direct action, and the state injects agent provocateurs into protests to incite violence.
Anyone who smashes windows and burns cars is a tool, serving no meaningful purpose other than pumping fear of "anarchy" into the hearts of the working class.
ufee 1 year ago
We are living in the age of the THING.
We are worthless because we have blood.
We are enemies of the systems.
We are too unpredictable.
Because we are not plugged in.
Peace.
Suisseflight 1 year ago
Kill the alien, burn the heretic, purge the unclean!
There is no innocence, only varying degrees of guilt.
12345combination 1 year ago
he doesnt like pacifists telling him what to do? so he wrote a book about it? lol!
phospheneca 1 year ago
Gr8 Vid!
@communal...
Diversity of Tactics is the SOLUTION: (non-violence, self-defense, violent action, & intellectual-terrorism) all have their place...otherwise, yr nonviolence pacifism just becomes a methodology which may NOT produce any positive results and effectively ensnare even more lambs to the slaughter. Non-violence can be a COWARDLY thing afterall.
Oppression is WORSE than death.
RomanticConfusion 1 year ago 4
The argument for violence and against pacifism as an agent for change is almost always a lame one; at least in the United States where there is nothing at all preventing those who would wish to live in a different way from doing so.
TheCommunalSolution 1 year ago
Comment removed
Allpovvertoslaves 1 year ago
It's not hard to understand why male anarchists in the United States are so angry and frustrated. There are hardly any women who will love them, create something with them. Violence is one of the easiest responses, uniting with other people and actually creating something is one of the most difficult.
TheCommunalSolution 1 year ago
@TheCommunalSolution
Cheap shots and misdirection aren't going to get you anywhere worth being.
Allpovvertoslaves 1 year ago
I'm surprised that Peter didn't go into greater detail about the fact that Ghandi spoke in support of peoples right to a diversity of actions against oppression including aggressive resistance.
takotheoktopus 1 year ago
@takotheoktopus
Very true. Plus we should realize that his peacuful actions cost many, many lives indirectly.
Leibo07 1 year ago
@Leibo07 which is exactly the point... by the way.. non-violent action in gandhian terms includes and in a certain way welcomes finitude at the hands of the oppressor... as a clear and extreme demonstration of injustice. Death as an act of relational nonviolence (including immolation) is a message: "It is not worth living under these conditions. You forced my hand. Now deal with that cognitively and try justifying your causal role in what lead to my death infront of all other human witnesses."
TranscendMedia 1 year ago
Dude why the fuck would you want to take yourself out rather than the people who are doing the oppression?
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 Good question. It has more to do with Justice, Equity, Equality,, Sacrifice, Equiarchy (remember where you read that word first), Dying for Something instead of Standing for Nothing etc etc. Death is at times more than just the cessation of one individuals sentient experience. It can become a symbol. And Man is a symbolic animal. The question here is: Death as a symbol of Resistance. It can change the entire conflict-situation in certain extremely rare circumstances. ponder that.
TranscendMedia 1 year ago
Those interested in the issue should get acquainted with Herbert Marcuse and his concept of 'repressive tolerance'. Really quite relevant, to this day.
Leibo07 1 year ago
@Leibo07
That's right. But we also need to face the fact that even violence can be tolerated repressively as expounded by Marcuse. The usual anti-globalization outbursts fit within this context. In order to bypass this, we need to make our violence *painful*, not something that can be "dealt with", "anticipated" or "repressed". If the present tactics don't work, change the tactics.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
@vanderbilt887
1. The establishment is (still) very nervous about revolutionary violence. The fact that f.e. the EU is rapidly mobilizing to hitherto unseen dimensions (police forces in all sorts; Battle Groups) indicates that too. And undoutedly internet and YT and fora now are being used for those mindgames;
Leibo07 1 year ago
@vanderbilt887
2. Its fascinating to hear Gelderloos about the Dutch RaRa group from the 80s. They were succesful indeed, but mind, in those days there were no satellites, no gsm antennae in your neighbourhood, no internet, no surveillance cameras on each square cm, and so on and so forth. Makes you rethink about the repressive nature of technology, acc to Marcuse, too.
Leibo07 1 year ago
@Leibo07
Then to use this technology against the system is the only thing that's left to do. Anarcho-primitivists and green anarchists get a lot of shit about being "hypocritical" in their own musings with technology. Now, up to a point this has some ground, but in order to bring down industrial capitalism as we know it, we must use it's technology - otherwise we're utterly chanceless. Not that I suggest we play some sort of mirror chess-game with black.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
"I am in no way committed to non-violence in a violent society such as the USA" (Bernardine Dohrn)
CaptainBluebear08 1 year ago 26
The idea of violence against property is about as ingrained you can get.
I agree that people need to stop playing by the rules.
The problem is that people need to be in the damn streets!
The idea that you can defeat the most violent civilization ever(this one) with violence is lunacy. You would also be in fact bringing a swifter destruction to the earth because the destroyed property would be replaced and resources are required for such a thing.
donttrustany1 1 year ago
Just using violence isn't enough. You have to use it *effectively*, i.e. hitting them where it hurts, to quote Kaczynski:
"Smashing up McDonald's or Starbuck's is pointless. Not that I give a damn about McDonald's or Starbuck's. I don't care whether anyone smashes them up or not. But that is not a revolutionary activity. (cont)
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
Even if every fast-food chain in the world were wiped out the techno-industrial system would suffer only minimal harm as a result, since it could easily survive without fast-food chains. When you attack McDonald's or Starbuck's, you are not hitting where it hurts."
He has an interesting article on this.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
Kaczynski names five important targets, namely:
The electric-power industry, The communications industry, The computer industry, The propaganda industry, The biotechnology industry.
We might add, as the brave folks from Stim's vid already knew: the Financial institutions.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
The problem with nonviolence isn't that it doesn't work. It is that for nonviolent action to effect a replacement of the political culture that legitimates the targeted form of exploitation, it has to be MASSIVE, CONTINUOUS, CROSS-SECTORAL, INTERGENERATIONAL, TRANSGENDER, and in these days of globalised TNC and thei networks, it has to be coordinated on an INTERCONTINENTAL level. Now if the young man had said that THESE are the reasons why he thinks nonviolence sucks... I'd give him props.But:no
TranscendMedia 1 year ago
This young man is talking about non-violent passive-ism. Please do ponder the difference. Nonviolent pacifism is sharpest when the refusal to participate with the oppressive structure and system is total and absolute. Violence is not the opposite of non-violence. Nonviolence is a method which infacts applies pressure to the system by abrogating any form of synergy between its applicants and the structure nonviolent non-compliance/non-participation/detachment is inflicted upon.
TranscendMedia 1 year ago
Violence and Nonviolence are not opposits. Technically, they designate two completely different conceptual and tactical approaches. This author's understanding of nonviolence subsumes it to the forms of negation of violence which is correct... and fails to see how politically effective and proactive non-violence actually implies a radical form of disengagement so complete, that the macropolitical structure of injustice collapses as a consequence.
TranscendMedia 1 year ago
You make some good points, but, though I am not a pacifist, I think a distinction needs to be made between activism and civil resistance. Marching, chanting, and die-ins will do nothing. Civil resistance takes determination, mass participation, and thinking of new ways to fuck up the system. It can be effective, if done correctly, but people need to study it.
CrawdaddyJoe 1 year ago
@CrawdaddyJoe Exactly. People need to study it. Do it here: w'w'w'dot'world-peace-academy'dot'ch
TranscendMedia 1 year ago
Theres a good reason theres all this spiritual stuff going on now,,like the david wilcoks project camelot stuff,,they want us 2 be peacefull and just think spirituality n good vibes will solve everything,,im not saying i dont believe in being spiritual i just know thats only half of it,the other half is the physical protest/anarchy type stuff,nothing will change unless u get physical,it has 2 be done..its sad it has 2 be this way but the nwo wont give in to hippies,we have 2 be warriors
EnveBeats 1 year ago
people are miles away from understanding these acts are in self defense. I would like to do all these things, but I disagree that it helps.
vteam02 1 year ago
don't. admit. defeat.
jack00008 1 year ago
i love the phrase "cesspool of democratic plurality." might have to borrow it lol
sec0f111 1 year ago
wage war
TheHIETTz 1 year ago
no war but class war!
Vertsk8er419 1 year ago 19
I'm not sure I agree but it's thought provoking stuff nevertheless.
Redshift21 1 year ago 2