VenusFreedom777 wrote:


First, I am a pacifist--Although not absolutely. I understand the fundamental innocence of humanity, the innate value of life. That every human being, regardless of social and political stature later in life, is born equal, born innocent and pure of all conceived evils. What dispositions one develops contrary to the human condition, over the course of life, is molded into one's fibre despite what one would prefer in an innocent yet knowledgeable state of mind.

The extremely minor group of people to whom I display not the slightest inkling of sympathy (about 1000 people in the United States), I do so understanding very well that by destroying these people we could fulfill multiple objectives critical to improving the human condition (I am a pseudo-utilitarian):

1) Their existence is directly in opposition to our objectives, as our existence is directly in opposition to their objectives:
A) They will not hesitate to employ any political and legal means to hinder our advancement.
B ) They will readily, and without the slightest hesitation, destroy us.
C) They will corrupt and manipulate our image.
D) They will consciously portray us as violent, whether or not we pursue violence--Jared Lee Loughner
2) Their existence is directly detrimental to the well being of every human being:
A) Some of these people have within their grasp the fate of millions if not billions of people--At a mere whim they could toss us all into a state of depravity the likes of which we cannot comprehend.
B ) They have corrupted our institutions of government and social welfare into lackeys in their imperialistic campaigns.
C) They have profited from war crimes--Millions have perished for the sole purpose of increasing their profits.
D) Country, life, god, identity, moral obligations, and the future, are mere words in their vocabulary and play no factor in the decisions they make--Except to manipulate the sheep into supporting their agenda.

Ask yourselves, do you believe they will have this same discussion amongst themselves when they feel their condition of existence is jeopardized by us?

I should also note that I do not believe these things with certainty. I am very well aware of the power of peace and love during social turmoil, as displayed so blatantly by Mahatma Gandhi-But Gandhi did not threaten to destroy the British Empire, he merely struggled for the freedom of a single colony from a single empire. We wish to dispose of countless corporations and nations from existence--To believe that they will merely accept their fate is foolish to say the least. Thousands of Indians perished in the struggle for independence, imagine how many people will perish in the struggle for humanity's independence from the very ideas of nationality and capitalism.

There is a simple reality to violent behaviour which invalidates it as a basis for action: it breeds and provokes more violent behaviour.

Violence is a tendency of the uneducated, as well. That statement is not meant as derogatory. But violent people aren't thinking about their consequences clearly and critically. It has a negative impact on human life, for those that condone it, and the victims. Your statement that violence will only really harm about 1000 people is an incorrect assumption. Even if you only physically harm 1000 people, violence not only affects victims directly, but their families, their friends, their families friends, their friends friends, etc. It breeds hostility, resentment, wrath and vengeance in those not capable to think critically enough about their emotions and their actions. If you want to see peace in this world you have to start by eliminating every violent tendency from yourself.

A good phrase to keep your mind on track: "the means IS the end."

Can we not play at the same game?

Violence against one group might as well be violence against any group. More over, in reality, there is no them, there is only us. The rich elite are simply the humans who are the product of their personal realities, and are as deserving of life and fulfillment as anyone else. We must not view them as enemies but instead only as the delusional and insane that they are being. But most importantly that they are still humans, still deserving of societal love and care.

Nonviolent protest holds several key features that are needed for our position. One of the biggest fears among naysayers, is that several attempts at 'planned non-monetary economies' have resulted in violent revolutions and human suffering on enormous scales. The only way people will realize our goal of a RBE as 'self evident' is in our relentless, selfless, continual promotion of positive values, and the nonviolent, refusal to support current systems (through reducing consumption, buying local organic produce, etc).

Through this compassionate, non-radical approach people will have a harder time refusing the obvious truth of our position. Instead of violent radicals trying to destroy the 'free markets' people will see us as deeply concerned, highly informed, peaceful supporters of a alternative economic system. Of course we will have the labels of communists and radicals, but whats important is that we are not causing harm to others in our efforts.

As far as those elite that may never change their ways, anyone can change, all is needed is the change in environment. Those wealthy few will have to give in when the majority refuse to participate in their game of monetary eco-cide and class division. Of course, this will be an arduous task full of suffering, and I almost think that painful process is required.

Its similar to a child touching a hot stove; you'll repeatedly tell them that its going to hurt, but they really don't know until they've felt the pain of touching the stove. Maybe current society is the toddler stage of human development, where we are 'touching the hot stove' in the form of ineffective economic systems that produce suffering on large scales. Through our efforts of 'updating current society to modern scientific understandings' and promoting positive social values of collaboration, people will know what is needed to keep ourselves from repeating those mistakes.

It is aII weII and good to not participate in vioIence as a Movement as a personaI choice - but we must be carefuI to not engage in horizontal hostiIity and Iook down upon those who do wish to use direct action to dismantIe industriaI civilization. The unfortunate thing is - vioIence is extremeIy effective as a tactic. We can't put up the Gandhi shieId and ignore reaI proven tactics that resistance movement have used throughout history. It is fine if we as a Movement do not participate - but we cannot stop others from using them. For exampIe - destroying dams or energy infrastructure wouId be extremeIy effective at deIaying the ecocidaI practices that are murdering our pIanet.

Just a thought. I don't want to participate in vioIence myseIf - but we need it aII and stopping actions that actuaIIy heIps us in the Iong run just because we may happen to not Iike vioIent tactics ourseIves is immature.

This is an above ground movement - but there are underground aspects to any resistance movement.

As a movement we should not condone violence of course.


Personaly, burn them

The 'Elite' may do all those nasty things......and yet they couldn't do any of it if it wasn't for all the other human beings giving them the 'power' to do it ...so who is really at fault?

We need everyone to understand and 'want' an RBE, we need everyone to stop giving them the 'power' to do anything. We need all their soldiers, their bodyguards, their police, their servants, their chauffeurs, the people building their Lear jets, their mansions and their rolls royce's ....to stop saying yes just give us some 'money' and we will do anything you want.

I should make it abundantly clear before I continue that I am not comfortable discussing this matter, for I am not a very violent person. But with the recent barrage of atrocity preceded by atrocity, I am weak spirited and it has generated within me a sort of fury which has compelled me to consider this option as a sort of temporary remedy to our ails. I certainly hope that everything I am about to say is utterly wrong.

Also, this discussion is not isolated to the movement, but in relation to any individual disposed to revolutionary conduct.

Ouroboros wrote:


In reference to the 1st statement:

I agree, violence does breed more violence. Case in point: The violence inflicted upon the masses by the few has led me to consider applying violence onto the few. This is true, but I don't think this fact alone is sufficient to render violence an unfavorable option. For I do not believe it is the violence itself that breeds more violence (casualty), but the hate that results from the infliction of the initial set of violence that then increases the probability of violence, as a sort of illogical solution or to avenge the initial violence inflicted (correlation).

To analyze whether this would apply to the destruction of the elite we would have to consider multiple factors: How many lives would we save in the long term by destroying these individuals; how many lives we would have to destroy; how lives would be destroyed as a result of the hate generated thereby; etc. Regardless, I believe it would still be to our advantage to destroy these individuals, since a single decision made them jeopardizes many more people than we would destroy.


In reference to the 1st paragraph:

I must disagree with the statement that violence is a tendency of the uneducated. Since the elite often apply violence to expand their economic and political dominion--I do not consider them uneducated, although perhaps improperly. They apply violence to pursue their objectives and they have succeeded for millenia. I cannot help but believe that I have taken a very twisted and deranged perspective on this issue. But one cannot overlook the fact that violence has in fact assisted them over the centuries and that they are not uneducated.
Yes it will also hurt the family and friends of the individuals to be destroyed. But you must also take into consideration that should these people remain alive the choices they make will hurt many many more people. In fact, the number individuals who would be hurt directly by their actions will well surpass, by many many fold, the individuals who will be hurt indirectly by our actions. Although, I would like to believe that if they even a shard of sympathy in their conscious, they will understand that these people are the epitome of evil, and we have every right to destroy them in the enterprise of preserving the continued existence of human life on this planet in as superior a standard as possible. If they have the gall to mourn the loss of these individuals, then they are as tyrannical as the individuals should perish.

I would love to remove my violent tendencies, but it is becoming awfully difficult; particularly when I observe the treatment of my fellow revolutionaries by their hands. I wonder how the media would react should one of them experience a mere fraction of what we have experienced?

In reference to “The means IS the end”:


I’m assuming this means that to reach a greater state of existence we must apply those tenants of existence into our regular life (i.e. be the change we wish to see), immediately. Resorting not to extraneous, i.e. violent means, to achieve this greater standard of existence. It makes sense, but I do not believe that this philosophy is set in stone, populations have resorted often to extraneous actions (not reflective of the ends) to achieve the ends without negative ramifications. Consider the struggle for independence of a nation: The actions to which a nation might resort to achieve that independence is not necessarily reflective of the foundations upon which the nation itself will be established once it has disposed of the tentacles of empire.


Flash Genesis wrote:



Permit me to rant a little about this idea, as you have just revealed to me the true nature of my proposal.


I question both the nature of my initial hypothesis and why I would discourage propagandist tactics:


How can I advocate the destruction of life, yet abhor the idea of propagandist tactics? I can, since the destruction of that life would not be inflicted by the revolution; the sanctity of the revolution must stand at all times, preserving it’s pure pacifist stance. A single individual would destroy that life, fully detached from the revolution. And the individual would destroy their life, understanding very well that he is jeopardizing his own in the process.

The revolution cannot resort to propagandist tactics, for the use of propaganda would mark a surge of corruption in the revolution: I.E. the rise of the Soviet Union. How would we define the limits of our propaganda? And WHO would define the limits of the propaganda?

Nerdicus wrote:

I agree, in the greater scope of things there is only us. But within the confines of this society, it is of great detriment to us to deny the reality that at least two groups of people exist: The elite, and the masses. For these two groups of people possess two diametrically opposing sets of political and economic interests for which they fight and struggle.

The elite are willing to destroy us to preserve their quality of existence, and we are willing to destroy ourselves so that the elite may preserve their quality of existence. Sounds a bit absurd, but this is essentially what happens in war. One group of economically deprived serfs travels thousands of miles to destroy another group of economically deprived serfs so that the elite may preserve their standard of existence. I believe the time has come for the serfs to destroy the elite so that their standards of existence may improve.

heffe wrote:


In reference to paragraph 1:

Sounds very similar to Gandhi’s disposition. I support this policy as much as the next rational and pacifist individual, I only wonder how long we continue pursuing this before they release the chlorine gas down Main St. They will not surrender! Nothing short of literally killing them will make them stop killing us. You must understand that by preaching pacifism in this regard you are still advocating murder, but of the masses rather than the elite.

In reference to Paragraph 2:

I agree, we would appeal to many more people. It is for this reason that I do not believe the revolution itself should be violent. But a clandestine group of individuals; the revolution must continue preaching peace in the streets.


In reference to Paragraph 3:


I’m sure you understand that they will have the media on their side during the entire course of events. We will be painted as the most horrific and violent people imaginable. And, chances are, we will have people marching against us.

Watch the “War on Democracy” by John Pilger: The media convinced an ignorant population to oppose Chavez’s pro-proletariat policies, to the extent that they organized a demonstration against him. But so vast was the support for Chavez that another demonstration was staged in his support, until atrocity struck:




They will stop short at nothing to quell us, and from what I have seen so far we are hardly prepared for the hell that they are going to send us through.

In reference to paragraph 4:

We have not been granted with the opportunity of proving to people that this is possible. For that matter, I do not understand how we can prove to people that this is possible; frankly, I don’t know whether its possible. I haven’t seen any evidence in its favor. I know only that this current system is impossible and this is sufficient for me to support any goddamn fucking revolution set upon the table; since I cannot imagine anything worse than this current organization of social, political and economic systems.
But mark my words, before we reach an RBE we will have to march through the very depths of Hell and back again.

As a movement, we do not condone violence. BUT we can be willing to accept it may take many different tactics considering our goals & what we are up against. Environmentalism is not necessarily an issue that everyone cares about as much as they should...I personally care a lot, and tend to think most government actions are outright harmful....but regardless, I think the activist Derrick Jensen makes some excellent points about how absurd in retrospect many examples of working within the system can be when the system itself is wrong and oppressive. I agree with Derrick Jensen and the point I think the OP was trying to make.

DERRICK JENSEN: "Sometimes I get accused of being the violence guy, because I talk about capital of fighting back. But I don’t ever think that’s really fair, because I really consider myself the everything guy, that I want to put everything on the table and talk about, you know, all forms of resistance, and decide whether they’re appropriate or inappropriate for use. I don’t want to go in prejudging."

Here are some standard lines thrown out by pacifists. Love leads to pacifism, and any use of violence implies a failure to love. You can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. It's far easier to make war than to make peace. We must visualize world peace. To even talk about winning and losing (much less to talk about violence, much, much less to actually do it) perpetuates the destructive
dominator mindset that is killing the planet. If we just visualize world peace enough, we may find it, Peace is rarely denied to the peaceful. Ends never justify means, and pacifists quoting, The most
disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war. Gandhi gives us some absolutism, as well as absolutism for our inability to stop oppressors, when he says, Mankind has to get out of violence only through nonviolence. Hatred can be overcome only by love. Gandhi again, with more magical thinking, When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. Gandhi again, We must be the change we wish to see. If you use violence against exploiters, you become like they are. Related to that is the notion that violence destroys your soul. If violence is used, the mass media will distort our message. Every act of violence sets back the movement ten years. If we commit an act of violence, the state will come down hard on us. Because the state has more capacity to inflict violence than we do, we can never win using that tactic, and so must never use it. And finally, violence never accomplishes anything.

Civilization has from the beginning devoted itself almost completely to organization and watching the- how do I say this politely? Our survival really does depend on us learning how to take our differences- including violent and nonviolent approaches. Yet these fundamentalists attempt to eradicate this difference, to disallow it, to force all discourse and all action into only one path: theirs. That's incredibly harmful, and of course serves those in power. I have many other problems with the pacifist use of the idea that force is solely the dominion of those in power. It's certainly true that the master uses the tool of violence, but that doesn't mean he owns it.

It seems clear to me that violent and nonviolent approaches to social change are complementary and unavoidable even though I would not participate in violent acts unless it was a matter of survival or self defense.

surbitonpete wrote:


Agreed. Who is granting them the power? I’d say a rampantly ignorant and arrogant population; particularly in law enforcement and the military.

Although, I don’t think they perpetuate the system for money. It might be a minor motivating factor, but fundamentally they believe they are doing the right thing: Defending the nation and the liberty and freedom for which it stands.

The big fat question is: How do we deprogram them fast enough? becaus talking to them they ignore you or ostracize you if we do nothing and every one is in pain, the blame game begins, or in a weird case they would say "we need an idea" a Zeitguy or Zeitgirl would say: well first we shoul change..." and then being cut by a big "shut up!"

typical case of wanting a solution but not willing to accept the need for behavourial change and act accordingly, like someom who has bad grades knows he has to study more or better but it's not willing to move a finger.

Be the change. In all things, first be, then do, and only when needed tell.

This form of behavior can only perpetuate the problems in the long run. We don't need change, we need growth. Not only as a society and species, but also as individuals. The Elite need to be shown that their insanity isn't working on us by totally side stepping the false reality they try to force on us. The first step in this is to be the change. We don't change other people, the best we can do is spark the internal growth in the individual by living the example of the growth that is needed.

Okay, realistically-if our backs our entirely against the wall-what are we going to do?? of course we don't condone violent behavior against the elite-- but -it could get to the point where we have to defend ourselves - sort of like Harry and Voldemort!

1- Violence is not an intelligent tactic, since "they" are better at it.

2- The use of violence for self-preservation is a basic human right, it's the only legitimate violence there is. The current paradigm threatens our survival through physical violence, but also uses more subtle ways. An eviction notice, for example, is a death sentence for some people.

3- There are some powerfull individuals in the world that only fear a gun. They are beyond the law, and won't stop until they are forced to. I won't shoot a politician, but I won't pass judgement on the man who does either.

4- The power of goodness isn't the destruction of evil, but it's transmutation into goodness (This is Hermetism). So using "their" methods only strenghtens "their" ideology.

5- We must respect individual violence, since we cannot realy stop it in our midst. When masses try to impulse change, a minority will always be violent (not counting the guaranteed undercover agitators). Maybe they don't know better, maybe they are desperate, doesn't matter. We are not a revolutionary army, so we are not responsible for individual violence among us.

6- Material damage is not violence, nor is resistance to authority.

I have been meditating on this very topic for a some time now. My gut, intuitive thought, on this is that we can not even consider violence, as once you have that on the table as a solution, it can swiftly become the best or easiest solution. More over, in this world we live in, all media we watch essentially pushes the notion of violence, of some form or another, as the only solution to our problems. Not only is it the only solution, it is often considered and pushed as the right solution.

THe result of living a life with this belief is that when shit hits the fan and conscious thought ends and we react sub consciously, it will be those thoughts that we entertain as solutions before hand that leap to the forefront of the mind and become manifest in reality as action.

For instance, almost every single action movie or show is at some level, a vengeance fantasy. THis is the underlining story always being told in action movies where people excited by violence and action will flock to experience a fantasy of that. This floods the mind with ideas and fantasies of said stories being re-told in the lives of the viewer(internally). Going along with these thoughts will be the biochemical reactions that form addictions to them as they allow the mind to live out what it will see as victory. Eventually the mind comes to be drawn to those thoughts because of the very real chemical reactions that feed the mind.

These are all forms of subtle and not so subtle conditioning, the end result being a species drawn to violence as a solution to most, if not all, problems. To me this is bad and the way to break it is to mindfully remove notions of violence from the mindscape of solutions. This isn't easy always, especially given that many today were/are raised on said media influences and buy right into it all.

But, as has been mentioned, what do you do when your backed into a corner?

This is where a solid training in martial arts for confidence comes into play, to give one the mental and physical connectivity, clarity of mind and spirit and emotional fortitude to be able to respond without emotion and appropriately to defuse the situation and then return to a centered state of awareness and peace. But the point is to defuse the situation, not to hurt or destroy or kill or maim, to defuse. That could be as simple as disarming a person, or as easy as smiling and trying to engage in conversation before violence can manifest.


But here is the biggest thing I have come to see: Our individual growth and maturity is the solution to ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS! It is not the technical possibilities that will save the day, it will be the will to use them. This will to use them will only come from our individual growth and maturity into the enlightened beings we naturally are, with the emotional and mental fortitude to not perpetually react to life mindlessly, expressing only what the media or culture(fantasies and nightmares) has conditioned us to do, and instead respond to life consciously and mindfully with the full awareness of who we are and what we are creating and living on earth in the moment.

If we are all living heaven on earth, consciously in the now, being happy and fulfilled members of a global community, there will be no violence. How do we get there? We, as in you and me, start being and living this now. In context to the thread, we remove violence from the board because violence is what we are trying to remove currently from the world. All our solutions are tied entirely to our being, as in teh being we are being.

IMHO , i wouldnt mind if they all were found dead. Alot of these so called elite are made threw thievery and deceit. A majority of them didn't become wealthy in a positive way.

This video I watched talks about violence or resistance or political social disruption which could include breaking the law. I think protests are an important tool. What you don't want is people promoting non violence when entering a period of social conflict because that's going to disarm the people. In the face of hard social conditions, you want them to have a strong fighting spirit. It isn't about blowing things up. It's about well organised and thought out political resistance. I think this video is a healthy perspective within TZM when we discuss our position and define our views on violence and resistance in TZM especially because we have a peaceful approach. This subject keeps coming up, I noticed particular interest among young members. Comments about wanting people to be found dead are a bit disturbing and I don't think it's a good idea to be saying that on this forum. Or at least rethink what you are saying. I wouldn't want anyone to think I advocate violence when I say we don't want to promote non violence so this video says it all for me.

Violence? To whom? Where are the people who are responsible (MORE RESPONSIBLE) for what has been happening and what will happen if we do nothing? I don't want to hold the organizeable people responsible, but those who organize them. I, myself, don't think change will happen any other way unless these people are confronted face to face.

My interest has shifted today from caring and dedicating energy to topics about reality and science to something along the lines of finding the people responsible....

Anyone who has anything to say about being violence should at least know who is causing the most damage and at least dedicate their own energy to finding them and talking to them personally...