# Political Activists Targeted as Terrorists-Zeitgeist Movement Response



## AnarchistRon (Jun 21, 2011)

What do you guys think about this:


----------



## Gudj (Jun 21, 2011)

Minutes 1-7: Dissidents are repressed
Minute 8: Disregard the repression and organize nonviolently.

What a waste of time.


----------



## Synth (Jun 21, 2011)

^
Pretty much this. You think seeing the history of repression people would make the leap that it obviously doesn't work.


----------



## Gudj (Jun 21, 2011)

I hope you didn't think I meant "It was a waste of my time because I agree with it."

In reality, it was a waste of time because minutes 1-7 were useless and minute 8 was fucking stupid.


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 21, 2011)

Gudj said:


> I hope you didn't think I meant "It was a waste of my time because I agree with it."
> 
> In reality, it was a waste of time because minutes 1-7 were useless and minute 8 was fucking stupid.


 
You are viewing this from an individual perspective--Certainly for you the first 7 minutes were useless, as it was for me. But consider the thousands of people who might have viewed the video without any knowledge of Galileo and the repression that has dominated society for centuries by religious institutions and government. 

Minute 8 is not stupid, because the only way to progress is by organizing (whether non-violent or violent depends entirely on the context) as history has proven countless times. Practically any freedom we enjoy at this moment is a result directly from the organization of the masses of people.


----------



## Gudj (Jun 21, 2011)

AnarchistRon said:


> You are viewing this from an individual perspective--Certainly for you the first 7 minutes were useless, as it was for me. But consider the thousands of people who might have viewed the video without any knowledge of Galileo and the repression that has dominated society for centuries by religious institutions and government.
> 
> Minute 8 is not stupid, because the only way to progress is by organizing (whether non-violent or violent depends entirely on the context) as history has proven countless times. Practically any freedom we enjoy at this moment is a result directly from the organization of the masses of people.


 
You are right, it was especially useless for me and you. But who is it useful for? Knowing about Galileos submission to the church helps our cause how? Even if it's new information to you, who cares? That information isn't useful. If you wanted to look up histories of repression that might help protect you or help form strategy, Galileos case is not one of them.
More importantly, the last minute (to me) had the attitude that alot of ignorant liberals (redundant, I know) take which is "If we just keep above ground organizing and don't act afraid of them, then we will be safer, and more effective. Oh yeah, use non-violence". That is the part that really annoyed me. Firstly, advocating non-violent tactics to everyone who might watch your video is absurd, authoritarian, and encourages impotence. Secondly, suggesting that if activists ignore government and private surveillance on them is as dangerous as it is delusional, and disregards security culture.


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 21, 2011)

There are millions of people living in this country who think they're free to express themselves, who believe they live in a nation that embraces progress, intellectually and socially. By comparing contemporary society to the established church in the 16th century, well....we at least attempt to rattle peoples interpretation of the status quo. We dislodge them from their state of comfort. 

If they didn't care, I doubt they would watch the video. This video is intended for people who care about political activists being labeled terrorists--therefore, it's likely that the bulk of the viewers are liberals. 

I must disagree, I believe Galileo's case served as the epitome of intellectual repression--The established order repressed the truth in order to maintain the status quo, preserving their individual interests contrary to intellectual progression. The video had no intention to function as a set of safety guidelines in a society oppressed intellectually and socially. 

Believe me, I wish we could advocate violence, I'd be the first to raise a machete and hack into these elitist cock sucking capitalist pricks. But that would only give them a reason to kill us. For this reason alone we must wait until they start spilling our blood, for us to then be justified in spilling theirs. Many people would renounce support to the enterprise should we inflict violence first. Upon the occasion that they target us, the mirage of principles in empire will collapse--Then, even the oafs will realize the extent of the tyranny present in this nation and we just might have a revolution on our hands--But, then again, I have the tendency of exaggerating the intelligence of the common man.


----------



## Gudj (Jun 21, 2011)

AnarchistRon said:


> Believe me, I wish we could advocate violence, I'd be the first to raise a machete and hack into these elitist cock sucking capitalist pricks. But that would only give them a reason to kill us. For this reason alone we must wait until they start spilling our blood, for us to then be justified in spilling theirs. Many people would renounce support to the enterprise should we inflict violence first. Upon the occasion that they target us, the mirage of principles in empire will collapse--Then, even the oafs will realize the extent of the tyranny present in this nation and we just might have a revolution on our hands


 
You have just revealed the extent of your ignorance due to privileged position, or you have a really fucking weird idea of who "us" and "we" are, but probably both.
Someone who advocates against a true diversity of tactics is not someone who I want to argue with anymore.
Also, using "cock sucking" as a term for someone you hate is not going to win you points outside of misogynist/homophobic circles.


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 21, 2011)

"We" are the people "they" would not hesitate to massacre upon the instance "we" open our eyes and threaten "their" quality of existence. And I doubt that "they" would deny a cock sucking should it rid them of the obligation to pay taxes for "our" social welfare programs.


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 21, 2011)

Also, I don't understand how I am advocating against the diversity of tactics. Perhaps you could explicitly list the tactics you have diversified and which I have then consciously opposed, because, frankly, I don't even recall you mentioning any tactics, nonetheless my opposition to them.


----------



## Gudj (Jun 22, 2011)

Well then if you open you eyes and ears you would realize that "we" are being massacred and have been for many generations. Most people I know who would enter this sort of discussion include themselves in the "we" of the poor, the dis-empowered, peoples whose land and life has been sold for resource extraction, peoples who have become extinct or near extinct at the hands of empire, homeless, queer, latino and black people being killed on the street by police or other bigots, prisoners, indigenous peoples, Palestinian resisters, and resisters everywhere. Just because those of "us" who have the means and time to be on the internet discussing this shit aren't generally being hunted (unless you count greenscare style repression and prision sentences violence, which you should), doesn't mean that "we" aren't in general. 

Saying that "we must wait" to use tactics other than those considered non-violent (by you) is speaking for people who are not in the same situation as you, people who ARE being shot at, kidnapped and "massacred." I guess you would be guilty of just being authoritarian if it weren't for the fact that "non-violence" in the face of annihilation is really shitty advise. 

I didn't talk about specific tactics, this is all theory to me, I don't need to fight to keep myself alive. But people who do are not going to hear some liberal ass "use non-violence" from me.


----------



## venusinpisces (Jun 22, 2011)

It seems like he was just trying to say that it's important to reserve violence exclusively for the defense of self or others, which is quite sensible advice considering how many times police infiltrators have been caught inciting black block-style riots during anti-globalization protests.


----------



## Gudj (Jun 22, 2011)

venusinpisces said:


> black block-style


 
ain't that some shit


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 22, 2011)

I most certainly do include myself in the "we". Perhaps my hatred for the established order has not reached a magnitude as great as yours for this to be apparent. And, perhaps in the abstract indirect sense we are all being killed: through the mass media we consume incessantly, the chemicals we shove down our throats, the principles by which we lead and define our lives, our detachment from the natural world and our hell-bent disregard for the fellowship of man. But I cannot recall the last time a figure of the status quo has raised a rifle against my form, and until that day I do not believe I will be justified in spilling his blood. Nor do I feel entitled to kill an officer here in Texas as a result of the conduct of nationalists in the Middle East. These people are not one in the same--Although they serve the same function: To preserve the status quo. I suspect you're correct in your assessment on this matter, the only issue being that the authoritarian figures in this nation have not yet reached the stage of killing the people. 

I hope people who are being shot at and massacred don't spend their time chatting on forums or watching youtube videos, they must have something more significant to accomplish. 

This video was not intended for those people already caught in the midst of revolution--And thereby targeted directly with violence--but western worlds, people caught in a condition perhaps equally as detrimental to their emotional condition, a state of bliss and comfort. This video was meant to rile them up, and appeal to their liberal value of preserving liberty. To perhaps inspire them to such an extent that we might organize, threaten the status quo and then they might poses a direct threat to our physical condition.


----------



## Nelco (Jun 22, 2011)

It took it long enough to start being discussed
i was looking for it to happen a couple of years ago..i've already decided I'd rather get shot in the head than end up in a fema camp..but at least in fema camps, i'll have someone to kick it with, that I'll probably be in agreeance with..as we choke on gas


----------



## Nelco (Jun 22, 2011)

for you ron

[video]http://youtu.be/hHmuux15S-4[/video]


----------



## venusinpisces (Jun 22, 2011)

AnarchistRon said:


> Many people would renounce support to the enterprise should we inflict violence first. Upon the occasion that they target us, the mirage of principles in empire will collapse--


This is a good point and I hope my previous post didn't come off as necessarily recommending an antagonistic response in every situation. Advocating non-violence isn't about condemning oppressed individuals who are forced into violent situations for purposes of survival, since governments cause far more violence than the majority of people do. It has more to do with removing from power those institutions that initiate violence to begin with, since advocating for the human rights of subjugated peoples also means creating a war-free environment for their children to be raised in.


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 22, 2011)

Nelco said:


> for you ron
> 
> [video]http://youtu.be/hHmuux15S-4[/video]



Great video, thank you. But, apparently, I'm an anarchist, I know very well the function of government. And it has a bit more to do with preserving power than the interests of the people. 

@ Venusinpisces

And I don't oppose violence entirely--Which conflicts directly with the tenants of the Zeitgiest Movement of which I am a part. I had mentioned in one of my earlier posts on this thread, that the just application of violence depends entirely on our social context. I am not foolish enough to believe that the people will acquire power over the established order by merely sitting in circles and singing Kumbaya in a forest. 

First, we must receive media attention: The overwhelming majority of people will not do anything but merely sit on their ass and watch television. Tied directly with the preceding points, if we fail to attract the attention of the media then we are doomed before we even begin. This is particularly challenging in the U.S. where the media lies essentially in the hands of the financiers. 

Second, we must cause administrative upheaval: Blocking entrances into city halls, courtrooms, police stations, preventing meetings between high-ranking government and corporate officials. By accomplishing this task we effectively render the entire city idle until they submit to our desires. 

Third, we must cause economic upheaval: People protesting do not consume, and they often prevent other non-participants from consuming in the surrounding establishments.

Fourth, we must preach unwavering solidarity along all boundaries: Because we no longer live in an isolated world defined by national, racial, or sexual boundaries. And the problems of this planet cannot be addressed until we recognize this much.

Fifth, we must preach peace, initially at least: Because the overwhelming majority of the people will remain disposed to favor the established order. *And if we so much as poke a figure of the status quo we will be labeled terrorists, and anyone affiliated with the individual who has assaulted the figure of the status quo will be labeled a terrorist as well*--This single act of violence will lead to a tidal wave of consequences of a nature far more dire than should we have merely remained peaceful. But upon the instance that it becomes common knowledge that the government is targeting innocent people, we can raise all the hell we please--Although, by that time I suspect this nation will be in a state of deep martial law and it will become an immense challenge to coordinate beneficial acts of disestablishment.


----------



## venusinpisces (Jun 22, 2011)

AnarchistRon said:


> Fifth, we must preach peace, initially at least: Because the overwhelming majority of the people will remain disposed to favor the established order. *And if we so much as poke a figure of the status quo we will be labeled terrorists, and anyone affiliated with the individual who has assaulted the figure of the status quo will be labeled a terrorist as well*--This single act of violence will lead to a tidal wave of consequences of a nature far more dire than should we have merely remained peaceful. But upon the instance that it becomes common knowledge that the government is targeting innocent people, we can raise all the hell we please--Although, by that time I suspect this nation will be in a state of deep martial law and it will become an immense challenge to coordinate beneficial acts of disestablishment.


 I think it's important to remember that most military dictatorships and similar oppressive regimes have not had the technological capacities that the US government has for crowd dispersal and other methods of suppressing dissent. For example, ultra-low frequency waves and other electronic crowd control methods can cause nausea, heart attacks and all manner of other consequences and they have already been successfully used for breaking up protests in other countries such as Iraq. If violent revolutionary sentiment in this country ever reaches a point where counterinsurgency can be justified by the media, then these methods can and will be used whenever possible which is one reason why it is imperative to try every other form of peaceful resistance first, since the human body simply does not have the physical capability of withstanding attacks of this nature. Also, many people who have lived through civil wars with mass civilian casualties will not take too kindly to the idea of sheltered Westerners romanticizing violent revolt, so any discussion of privilege occurring in the non-violence movement has to take that side of things into account as well.


----------



## AnarchistRon (Jun 23, 2011)

@venus

Oh yes, I am very well aware of this fact. Even the pepper gases applied are suspected to cause various neurological harms.

Listen, I'm not a militant prick--an estimated 98% of my fibre is of a pacfisit nature, but I'm not so delusional as to believe that the foundations of society can alter on a pacifist ground alone.

Let the majority of the people preach pacifism, but permit also the heated few to inflict upon the crown a fraction of the indifference inflicted upon us all for so very long. I do doubt that anything short of fear for their individual lives will compel them to resign--History has proven this very effectively. Then again, this remains subject to the compulsions and powers granted to the individual in power; in some instances, threats against the existence of a single figure have led not to resignation but quite the contrary, a more concentrated effort at the destruction of the population.

The fact that democratic nations do not have any single leader, and the resignation of one will lead only to the imminent replacement by another, does not make this task any easier.

I cannot see the transition from this society to the next being anything less than horrifically violent, whether we preach pacifism or not. The question stands whether we will inflict any violence upon them, or whether we are to be their pacifistic punching bag.


----------



## venusinpisces (Jun 23, 2011)

AnarchistRon said:


> in some instances, threats against the existence of a single figure have led not to resignation but quite the contrary, a more concentrated effort at the destruction of the population.
> 
> The fact that democratic nations do not have any single leader, and the resignation of one will lead only to the imminent replacement by another, does not make this task any easier.
> 
> I cannot see the transition from this society to the next being anything less than horrifically violent, whether we preach pacifism or not. The question stands whether we will inflict any violence upon them, or whether we are to be their pacifistic punching bag.


Pacifism is the opposition to war but not necessarily violence. Personally, the version of pacifism I find most useful is that of refusing to fight for the state, since the sincere motivations of individuals can so easily be manipulated by the state-media apparatus, given how it most often serves the interests of big business and not the people. I would also add to that the judicious examination of which forms of revolt are the most pragmatic in any given situation since, as you mentioned, insurrection can so often justify reactionary totalitarianism that leaves the populace in circumstances far more dire than if a different method of revolt had been chosen. For example, the slaughter of hereditary rulers during the French Revolution immediately lead to the massacre of thousands of French peasants by revolutionary forces. Ironically, many of those peasants were entirely supportive of the revolutionary goal of replacing the monarchy with a representative government, yet the paranoia and power-grabbing so typical during revolutionary movements prevented a truly unified resistance from ever taking shape.

And here we are today, with huge numbers of political representatives who can trace their heritage back to the same blue blood families who ruled over Europe during the Middle Ages. Are the long working hours in the US, coupled with the reality of so many living paycheck-to-paycheck, really all that different from feudalism? We do have a greater degree of freedom when it comes to censorship but in terms of quality of life, the needs of upper classes are still considered more valuable than those of everyone else. I don't mean to sound so pessimistic but I don't think that examining history will reveal a successful utopia that was created by revolutionary factions. The only way out is forward, and the incredibly harmful capabilities of state-owned technologies alone will block any violent resistance the second it gets off the ground.


----------



## venusinpisces (Jun 23, 2011)

Just to clarify: I am not including damage to property, specifically GMO crops, nor the forcible occupation of government buildings, as examples of "violence" since these acts don't cause harm to actual people. Whatever personal and ideological differences I may have with US military personnel, I do think that a large number of them will hesitate before shutting down the political expression of US citizens, as long as that expression can reasonably be judged as not having harmed another person. Unfortunately, not everyone in law enforcement or the military is reasonable so some will be easily swayed by over-exaggerated reports about domestic "terrorists" who have been encouraged and allowed to exist as a way to further escalate the police state which is currently one of the only profitable industries in this country. That's why it's hard for me to take all the hysterical calls to violent revolution too seriously, because they seem to be the direct products of COINTELPRO efforts to glamorize violence while infiltrating social justice movements.


----------

