pacifist brainwash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYBZmK9hmA

why pacifism is usually not enough

Why violence is stupid:

"FUCK YEAH, THEY SMASHED MY WINDOWS, AND TORCHED MY CAR, I'M GOING TO GO JOIN THEIR CAUSE!"

That said, there have been good outcomes from certain violent revolutionaries. Nelson Mandela to name one.

what?
the destruction of inanimate objects is not violence.

that being said, most property destruction is made to corporations or govt property. i would say only the ignorant destroy a small business.

You do bring up kind of an interesting point.
I didn't watch the whole video but so I may have missed something but it seems mostly the argument they were making was that pacifism hasn't worked in the past. Which it has to an extent.
You can force change without being violent and hurting people. Or I guess what I mean to say is that force doesn't have to be violent. You can disrupt the normal flow of society without hurting or killing people.
I don't necessarily consider the destruction of inanimate objects to be violence but usually its counterproductive.
Its interesting that people usually see Malcolm X as having supported violence but actually he only advocated it in self defense, which makes more sense. However it still resulted in more trouble for the Civil Rights movement rather than progress.

When you look at violent revolutions a lot of the time they don't end well. Violence creates more resentment between the opposing sides. Look at Palestine, for example. Everytime that Hamas shoots off a rocket it causes more suffering for the people in Gaza because Israel reacts in a completely disproportionate way, and the fact that the IDF kills huge numbers of civilians is whitewashed over because of Hamas being 'terrorists.' Of course thats not the only thing standing in the way of justice for the Palestinians and I'm not blaming them because how would you react if your children were starving and dying because of an illegal blockade? The point I'm trying to make is that violence should be the very very last resort and even then it doesn't necessarily work.

Pacifism works as a way to make it harder for whoever is oppressing you to objectify you and paint you as a mindless violent terrorist or whatever. Violence causes people to look at your cause as dangerous and sinister.
Don't get me wrong, watching this country go to shit in the way that it has is extremely frustrating, but blowing something up or assassinating someone won't change that. If anything it would just rally people around the right wing national security christian nutjobs.

Also its important to ask yourself if you're personally morally okay with using violence to acheive a political end. I'm definitely not.

antiflagtuzo wrote:

what?
the destruction of inanimate objects is not violence.

that being said, most property destruction is made to corporations or govt property. i would say only the ignorant destroy a small business.

I don't know, it kind of depends on your definition of violence. I've always considered any kind of destruction to be violence. And smashing windows or whatever really does nothing for your cause.

Violence against the police, or whoever, is more or less the same. I think there's a difference between Palestinian - Israeli violence than any domestic violence in the United States. In Palestine, they're being physically oppressed by a state only because of its connections with more powerful countries. In America or Canada, we're fighting things that are much more abstract like environmental destruction and corporate greed.

In Palestine, everyone can clearly see what's going wrong, whereas in North America most people see only that they're living comfortable lives, and why would they want to change that? The majority of the people don't understand how their freedoms are limited by things like these, and therefore don't see the need for immediate change (much less anything that will change their lifestyles). They see violence in the media in the Middle East and the Far East, and I think that when they hear about violence within their country, their minds immediately see all of the poverty and destruction caused by violence in many third world countries.

The government and corporations take advantage of the media to exploit those fears, and thanks to mass communication, I think that the tides are slowly turning in that aspect. More and more people are getting access to video cameras and a YouTube channel that their message is reaching broader audiences. Now, if you take less time to promote revolution, and more time to promote change in each person's lifestyle, and how this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I think that would hasten the process, at least somewhat. In violent revolution, you won't find much progress without enough people behind you.

That's probably really jumbled up, I just kind of typed what I thought.

StoolPigeon wrote:

Violence against the police, or whoever, is more or less the same. I think there's a difference between Palestinian - Israeli violence than any domestic violence in the United States. In Palestine, they're being physically oppressed by a state only because of its connections with more powerful countries. In America or Canada, we're fighting things that are much more abstract like environmental destruction and corporate greed.

I was just talking about violence in general, and saying that even when there is clear cut injustice going on (eg in Palestine, or during the civil rights movement in the US,etc.) violence often does more to exacerbate the situation than to bring about justice or an end to oppression.

But I definitely agree with this point.

The problems we have in the US can still be fixed through political reform and violence isn't necessary.

Yes, I do agree, still, that even in cases where it's clear to everyone that injustice is rampant, that violent opposition is going to cause more problems (at least in the short run), but at least in those cases they have the support of many more people (I won't say majority, because I really don't know).

The thing is, it's difficult to fight violent oppression with peaceful protest, unless you want to become a martyr. And I'm pretty sure most people want to see the end of their fight. At least in North America, they're courteous enough to use mostly bureaucratic means of oppression.

the video doesn't say to always use violence. it says everything is needed from liberals with signs to the earth liberation front. the video is kind of saying to use more "aggressive" direct action instead of the usual signs at protests. a piece of forest that is going to be cut down will most likely be successfully be saved by the earth liberation front through direct action than people protesting. and if we have to look at the effectiveness of smashing stuff you also have to look at the effectiveness of holding a sign to a person who only cares about power and money. most if not all significant reform came with the big help of militant activists not just pacifists.

it also points out that reform through m luther king and ghandi happened because the oppressors as the lesser of their worries between more militant black activists or more radical people from India.

you guys have to remember that the US government is one of the most brutal regimes ever to exist. i believe self defense is justified in the world when you have to work to be alive.

in the end all tactics are needed

antiflagtuzo wrote:

you guys have to remember that the US government is one of the most brutal regimes ever to exist.

Okay, that's not true.
I mean, yes our presence in other countries tends to be very disruptive and result in a lot of death and destruction, and yes our economic policies are shit in a lot of ways (leniancy towards corporations,but not towards the poor) but I would definitely not say that the US government is "one of the most brutal regimes ever to exist."
Sleazy yes. Inept yes. Are there laws that clearly favor the rich? Yes. But one of the most brutal regimes ever? No.
The fact that I can go protest really controversial issues, the fact that labor unions are allowed to strike, the fact that we're allowed to be having this conversation, the fact that I'm allowed to complain about the government at all disproves that statement. I'm not saying that those are privileges, they are my rights and I'm not thanking anyone for them. I'm just saying that they are rights that many many other governments deny their citizens and for that reason I wouldn't call this government 'brutal.'

And this comes from someone who is extremely frustrated with our government and the way that its run. Although, I guess actually I'm even more frustrated with the stupid people that live here.

antiflagtuzo wrote:

you guys have to remember that the US government is one of the most brutal regimes ever to exist. i believe self defense is justified in the world when you have to work to be alive

You actually sound like the biggest spoiled bitch ever, right there.

Or someone who gets all of their news from Anti-Flag songs

Probably both, really.

You don't have to work. Look at this man:



He's alive and I bet you 5 gil he doesn't work.

ok?

u guys want to offend people for no reason . whatever go ahead but u guys seriously gotta do your research with radical politics before opening your mouths up only to spew your privileged liberal bullshit.

90% of those brutal countries you talk about wouldn't exist without the US.

I don't think i need to do my research with radical politics to know the Romans were slightly bigger assholes than the US.

blake wrote:

I don't think i need to do my research with radical politics to know the Romans were slightly bigger assholes than the US.

Or pretty much every regime to exist before the US did.

Also, any research you do into radical politics is going to be just as biased as any other research you find elsewhere, if not more so.

I find it funny how you're calling us privileged, when you're the one complaining that you have to work to live. It sounds like one of those spoiled teenage girls who thinks that daddy should have to pay and provide for them their whole lives.


Aaaaaand...
Nazi Germany, USSR, Iraq, North Korea, China, Sudan, Rwanda (a long list of African regimes, really), Rome, Mongols, Cambodia, the British Empire, etc.

That said, yes, the US did put in their puppet governments, like Batista and Pinochet.

Well, there are puppet governments, and then there are governments that are as extreme as they are because of their insecurity that is caused by the opposition of the US.

Still, the same could be said of the UK and pretty much any country that has ever been involved in imperialism.

But to say that the US is 'one of the most brutal regimes ever' or whatever is just kind of silly. Its hyperbolic and counterproductve and stupid.

And I'd like to know what this guy's 'reasearch' consists of.

i guess research was the wrong word for it. but just be brave and ask me directly instead of throwing it out there hoping someone knows what i've read in my life.
and i dont see how its counterproductive . most of the US direct violence is exported overseas now but the US has been a violent entity for a long time now.

stool pigeon i wont comment on your sexist statement of me being one of those "spoiled teenage girls" but if u think its ok to work you whole life just for something eat then ok go ahead your pretty much set on your beliefs im not going to waste time here arguing over the internet

i didnt ask what you thought and im not a she or a teenager. sorry everyone you disagrees with you, you have to call them names and directly attack even though i never attacked you or anyone.

Hahahahaha.

"I didn't ask what you thought"

This is a message board buddy. People get on message boards to talk (type) about what they think about things. If you post something, people will say what they think about it. If you don't want anyone contradicting your views get a diary.


Besides that if you really want to have a debate then I'd be happy to oblige but you haven't said anything substantial to defend your assertions.

So, I'll be 'brave' and ask you 'directly' (over the internet).
What have you read?
What are your references?
If you could explain your position without using hyperbolic blanket statements then you would have a lot more credibility. I'm just saying.

antiflagtuzo wrote:

stool pigeon i wont comment on your sexist statement of me being one of those "spoiled teenage girls" but if u think its ok to work you whole life just for something eat then ok go ahead your pretty much set on your beliefs im not going to waste time here arguing over the internet

I'll admit that what I said was somewhat sexist, but to be honest, the first thing that came to mind when I read your post was My Super Sweet 16, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a guy on there (although I tend to avoid MTV as a whole, especially shows like this). Still, I'll recant my sexist statements and name-calling.

But seriously it sounds spoiled when someone feels that their country is so horrible when they have to provide a service for others just like everyone else provides a service for someone. It's merely progression in the human race to organize a country's/world's workforce like that. That said, I don't agree with how it's all done, and I don't agree with a lot about the hierarchy of the work place, but I by no means consider it a bad thing that I have to work for a living. My disagreement with the workplace lies mostly in cultural issues, which are difficult to change, but I still don't believe violent action is necessary.

To use direct action to change a person's mindset will only find violent opposition. That said, a successful, peaceful action to change a person's mindset is likely to find similar opposition, at first. The key words there, however, are at first. The idea behind people like Gandhi is that if we endure the violent opposition, perhaps maybe they'll see our side of things, and I think this is doubly true in a democratic society like the western world, even if the democracy is a sham. The people will always have some persuasion on the government if there is a majority behind it. Canadians have long opposed cannabis prohibition, and as such, Canadian police forces have made it much less a priority compared to how it used to be, or so I've been lead to believe.

Also, I try to be understanding of the whole anti-establishment thing, being one who hates the 'establishment' and all, but I honestly think that violent or direct action in North America only causes the people to see that cause as a bunch of hoodlums, or something to that extent. Yeah, direct action did a lot in South Africa, Europe and Asia, but North American culture is entirely unique in how the people are much more apologetic and peaceful (despite our willingness to send troops overseas to bring ourselves comfort). You can't use examples from entirely different cultures to compare our own cultures. Gandhi is a different story from revolutionaries, in that he was a non-violent opposition to a violent regime, he used North American mentalities against entirely honour-driven mentalities.

Also, like Face said, this is a message board. You did ask what we thought, and I don't care how aggressive you get to this reply, because by posting anything in a discussion forum on a message board, you're asking everyone what they think of it.

Disclaimer - I was/am drunk/stoned during the previous post, so that may not make that much sense.