Nu Revolution

god0fmusic wrote:

KenCat wrote:

But I do! And this is why I'm not planning anything on the internet (HI, SECRET SERVICE). =p

but you do what?

"you never know what the secret service of the US can do..."
But I do (know what the secret service of the US can do)!

KenCat wrote:

"you never know what the secret service of the US can do..."
But I do (know what the secret service of the US can do)!

oh.

Every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, therefore I will only use violence if violence is being used against me.

Corrbrias wrote:

Every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, therefore I will only use violence if violence is being used against me.

Amen.

Corrbrias wrote:

Every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, therefore I will only use violence if violence is being used against me.

i get your point, but you cant use the laws of phisics in such a simple manner to justify for you actions (or non-actions).

god0fmusic wrote:

Corrbrias wrote:

Every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, therefore I will only use violence if violence is being used against me.

i get your point, but you cant use the laws of phisics in such a simple manner to justify for you actions (or non-actions).

It wasn't literal, it was in a sense poetic (metaphorical?). At least that's how I perceived it.

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

solpacvoicis wrote:

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

if everyone refuses to work, what would happen is the same thing that happened in india when ghandi decided to rebell. i do support some violence if necessary, but i insist that peaceful means be tried first, and violence be used if it becomes a necessity. i think its easier to get public support if you use peace, but i might be wrong. you could also threaten your boss so he would give up the means of production.

god0fmusic wrote:

if everyone refuses to work, what would happen is the same thing that happened in india when ghandi decided to rebell. i do support some violence if necessary, but i insist that peaceful means be tried first, and violence be used if it becomes a necessity. i think its easier to get public support if you use peace, but i might be wrong. you could also threaten your boss so he would give up the means of production.

no, ghandi did not openly rebel, he advocated civil disobedience - he was the moderate of which the british insisted on "talking it out" with (meaning they wanted control of the state, or to ensure the state was created in their image)

the majority of the indian revolution was very violent

peaceful tactics have been attempted, to no avail, the time for revolution is now.

"pacifists are passively ignored"

solpacvoicis wrote:

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

I still consider myself a pasifist (I will never participate in any of our government's bullshit wars), but I will use tactics such as civil disobedience or even rioting to bring down authoritarian power. If and/or when the revolution comes to be, I will use physical violent force (but only to better our world).

Violence - exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.
I do not wish to physically kill anyone when we're not in a revolution, but I will go as far as rioting against authoritarian's puppet police force.

...its violent to breathe, because you annihilate thousands of ecosystems that exist naturally in the air

its violent to walk, because you kill at least a hundred bugs that you trod beneath your feet

its proxy violence to participate in an economy that fuels a global war against the world itself (yeah, that's the only way i can describe the imperialist wars of the u.s.)

violence is something you simply have to come to terms with, it happens all around us....

the revolution is something going on daily until we succeed, at least, in my eyes =]

doesn't mean i'm going to go rabid and kill everyone on my block, it just means i'm in no way against assassination of key political figures *cough* bush please someone do it already *cough* *cough*

nor am i against property destruction when it comes to destroying state machinery

organized violence supported by mass education is probably the best path, IMO

solpacvoicis wrote:

...its violent to breathe, because you annihilate thousands of ecosystems that exist naturally in the air

its violent to walk, because you kill at least a hundred bugs that you trod beneath your feet

its proxy violence to participate in an economy that fuels a global war against the world itself (yeah, that's the only way i can describe the imperialist wars of the u.s.)

violence is something you simply have to come to terms with, it happens all around us....

the revolution is something going on daily until we succeed, at least, in my eyes =]

doesn't mean i'm going to go rabid and kill everyone on my block, it just means i'm in no way against assassination of key political figures *cough* bush please someone do it already *cough* *cough*

nor am i against property destruction when it comes to destroying state machinery

organized violence supported by mass education is probably the best path, IMO

I'm for the use of violence less now that you have mentioned the bugs and micro-organisms. Don't justify it like that. lol

"violence is something you simply have to come to terms with, it happens all around us." I strongly disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in fighting back. But hello, they're fighting us in the first place -- rioting and fighting out government WOULD be fighting back.

For example, Che believed in peace but he participated in guerrilla warfare and killed as little as possible.

he also killed many afterwards, so be prepared to deal with the execution of the exploiters in cold blood...

i know, lol, sometimes philosophical arguments work, sometimes they don't, i obviously don't use them very often =P

i think that violence occurs all around us, lol, but it doesn't have to - or, at least, it doesn't have to be so...prominent? i guess that's a good word...maybe...common

yeah, common is better

violence would be more rare in a communist world, i think, but that doesn't mean that violence would not happen - sometimes people have bad days and brawl, for example, even if they are usually good friends who never fight

"i think that violence occurs all around us, lol, but it doesn't have to"
Agreed.

don't take it out of context, i mean that i don't think that violence has to be so common

*just to make sure you know what i was getting at i.e. nothing is perfect*

some Taoist wisdom here to sum all of this up:
act skillfully. treat every action as a complicated action, and everything will be achieved with ease.

btw, we could use that phrase "act skillfully" to inspire people to act skillfully. after all, its a simple phrase and it says a lot.

Violence is necessary. If you protest peacefully, and get a massive number of people on your side the military and police are going to fight back, no matter how much of a pacifist you are.

I say; get enough people on your side with the means to fight, and show the government that you're not afraid of them. I mean.. How can you fight an enemy who has nothing to loose and are afraid of nothing?

Hi, Im new by the way.. This is my first post

we should start off with non violence

but at the end violence is inevitable, unfortunately

I think violence is acceptable and necessary.

However for the sake of gaining popular support I think we should keep the extent to which we portray ourselves as violent low. Large scale public riots ect can give us a bad image - our violence should be kept below the surface for the time being.

Start with non-violence and if that doesn't work, end in violence -- always endorse the use of peaceful protest, though.
The more I've studied the state, the more I've had violent leanings. However, peace should be a fundamental Anarchist value.

KenCat wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

I still consider myself a pasifist (I will never participate in any of our government's bullshit wars),
force.

No your just smart

Killuminati wrote:

KenCat wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

I still consider myself a pasifist (I will never participate in any of our government's bullshit wars),
force.

No your just smart

Being a pacifist goes beyond government wars. Pacifism is something I look up to, you have to be brave to be one.
However, the revolution is necessary and I don't think it can be done via pacifism while the government's police have thousands of high-tech weapons to use against us.

KenCat wrote:

Killuminati wrote:

KenCat wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

I still consider myself a pasifist (I will never participate in any of our government's bullshit wars),
force.

No your just smart

Being a pacifist goes beyond government wars. Pacifism is something I look up to, you have to be brave to be one.
However, the revolution is necessary and I don't think it can be done via pacifism while the government's police have thousands of high-tech weapons to use against us.

ya they have ray guns that can break up civil riots so that's out of the question

Killuminati wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Killuminati wrote:

KenCat wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

sowee for not posting so much, i'll explain why in an introduction post...

now, i'm going to tell you right now - the people on top WILL NEVER WILLINGLY GIVE UP POWER

no matter how much people "refuse to work", they will simply call in others from elsewhere in the country or the world or simply threaten people to work with the army (with this army and the insistence of groups to use nonviolence, the government has a thorough monopoly on violence...and so...absolute power)

the government, by existing in the state it exists now, is in DIRECT conflict with the people's wants and interests, and works in tandem of corporations to enforce its universal control on the population - with the corporate media, it indoctrinates the general population, with the state education, it indoctrinates the youth, with the army and police, it destroys any riots or uprising or even peaceful protests that come in conflict with the state's goals and needs

the state's very nature is in conflict with the people and so MUST BE DESTROYED BY VIOLENT MEANS

i will use violence in order to defend the interests of the world in general, which means pulling the plug on the state machinery in use around the world today

I still consider myself a pasifist (I will never participate in any of our government's bullshit wars),
force.

No your just smart

Being a pacifist goes beyond government wars. Pacifism is something I look up to, you have to be brave to be one.
However, the revolution is necessary and I don't think it can be done via pacifism while the government's police have thousands of high-tech weapons to use against us.

ya they have ray guns that can break up civil riots so that's out of the question

They have cannons that make you shit. No lie.

And cars with blue lights on them that makes a horrible sound.