The views I express in this forum are strictly my own.

Although, I must say, I am extremely surprised that this idea has had such a positive reception. I interpret this as a manifestation of our universal angst and impatience. We do not know what to do, for our individual observations of the general mass has lead us all to essentially the same conclusion: That little hope exists within this context, we doubt that we can awaken them before it is too late.

As one individual has mentioned previously in this thread: Desperation and hopelessness leads to violence. We must merely ask ourselves whether we can justify this violence.

Upon creation I had expected, and, truly, to a much more profound extent, hoped that the bulk would disparage me, raise vehement opposition to what I had proposed. I am not glad that violence is accepted by so many as a legitimate course of action--Regardless of its minor application by a select few in a clandestine fashion.

I have two strong urges in writing this reply.

One is to argue against violence.

The other is to point out the hypocrisy of such an argument because i am just as immersed in the fucked up culture we live within as everyone else.

I think most of the people living on the planet today is violent regardless of their personal disposition. We all have in common that we have been brought up in a culture that makes mass poverty and war seem like business as usual. Simply accepting such a state of affairs is causing terrible violence on large amounts of people.

And violence manifested as physical attacks are promoted in entertainment as a necessary evil to resolve conflicts.

I hate violence. Academically there are very good reasons not to condone it. But I am violent because I was brought up in a violent culture. My personal disposition just happens to be a hypocritical one: Pacifism.

Edit: This just occurred to me, but violence was actually talked about in Moving Forward. One of the types of violence i described is "structural violence" , there was another one as well. But rewatch that part of Moving Forward, I know I will.

Let's think this one through....

You murder 1000 Americans. Members of the "Elite", as you call them. Forget about the logistics, and let's just say you commit this mass murder. So, these people will be replaced within 24 hours and the atrocities continue as usual.

There will be a day of national mourning for the victims of this terrorism. Since you've already posted this idea or plan, TZM will be identified as a mass murdering cult/terrorist group. Anyone associated with TZM will be seen as a fellow nut case and the movement will be over. Even the idea of RBE will be tainted.

Do you truly believe that this is an attractive proposal to most people?

Could you really look the children of your victims in the face and tell them that murdering their parent was for the betterment of the world? By the same logic, wouldn't killing you and other TZM members be just as justified to others from their point of view?

In the end, nothing will have been gained. And everything could be lost.

I understand that this is just my opinion. Its not worth much to anyone else. But, as new members come into this forum and read this post, I would like to be on record promoting the idea of a RBE to the public as the first priority and violence as the very last. Regardless, I will not murder.

I should add something...I completely understand your outrage. I feel it, in one way or another, every day. I see the photos of starving children, war torn countries, etc. The list seems endless. I had given up before finding TZM. This is the one ray of hope I have left in looking at these issues. As long as this movement survives, I feel we have a real chance to make this happen. My hope has returned and my dispair is lifted. I feel Human again.

You, stp52x, have been very honest about how you feel, and I think everyone can relate to your internal struggle. I am proud to share this space with you.

Its a conflict of values for me. And for you, I suspect. What some people get away with in the name of money is nothing less than evil and I hate that I can't stop the carnage. But, I value human life to the point that personal violence to the point of murder is off the table for me.

I also have to be clear that this will not be a struggle without casualties. If this movement reaches its logical conclusion in my lifetime, it is likely that I will have make some unpleasant choices in terms of violence. I understand that and have the will to follow through. I will do what is necessary. I believe you will as well.

I believe we share a common goal. I also want to believe that your thoughts were more emotionally expressive in nature than actually tactical.

Best to you.

I thought It was clear that this whole corruption of the elite was infact systemic. Therefore, who could we possibly blame that is even still alive today?

Is being afraid the crime they would be executed for?

I find it interesting that some people here seem so confident about how these elite are going to act. Can all people be predicted so easily? Or only the elite?

Where is the line that differentiates the elite from the non-elite exactly? How about we ask the bottom 90% of the global poor that question and let them pre-emptively execute all of us. Could be blame them?

Really, anyone who posts here is infact, in global terms, part of the elite...... I sincerely hope that the truly poor and suffering have more empathy and insight than some who have posted here.

bubble07 wrote:


Yes...So many people do seem to take it as a given that the 'elite' will only behave in one way, even Jaques says 'they' will do everything they can to prevent an RBE because the monetary system is the only way they know to perpetuate their own kind.
I would at least like to give them a chance and make sure they have understood and rejected this idea before judging them.

surbitonpete wrote:


My point is that we are the elite... so if we are here talking about whether we should or shouldn't condone violence against the elite then I guess that we are infact predicting our own behaviour.

The system will get violent, we are the system. So we can now justify anything we want to..

I hope we can give ourselves a chance too.

I'm all for non-violence. Stating that off the hop.

But if people's lives are threatened by "them" then violence will happen. Fact of life I'm afraid.

All we can do is encourage people to be as peaceful as reasonably possible, and hope that it doesn't get to that point.

The minute the elite decided to exterminate the non-elite, stands will be made.

@Kagami

I do not have sufficient reason to believe that people are subconsciously violent--Despite the fact that we have been raised in a violent society. Although, I do recognize that it requires a fundamental disregard of the well being of another to tolerate the fact that when one receives a job there are dozens who do not--Who had struggled to acquire that occupation, hoping that they would improve their quality of existence in the process; when one acquires a material good, billions are denied that material good. To recognize this and to accept it, requires, perhaps not a violent disposition, but an apparent subconscious disregard of the human condition.

You have provided little to no support for your argument against violence--The fact that you live in a violent society is no reason to oppose violence. Should you have lived in an RBE would that justify opposing an RBE? Certainly not.

The argument against violence is, nonetheless, an extremely simple one: To not harm others, understanding that by harming another you are harming yourself, for we are one extended family lost in a twisted world.

I, then, attempt to justify violence by raising the argument that by harming a select few we can prevent them from harming many more.

@ Freer

Certainly, it is a bit unrealistic to hunt down 1,000 of what could be the most difficult game in the world. Then again, we are to some extent disposed to pursuing the unrealistic in this movement. I also understand that they will be replaced.

But consider also the following: 1000 need not die before the people realize the motives behind the actions. I suspect that before even the destruction of a dozen, fear shall sink into the loins of the elite and they will realize that an institution has arisen violently disposed to their existence. Their potential destruction will become a factor in their economic formula. They will debate whether they can afford to risk implementing certain economic policies without being destroyed in return.

The destruction of even a handful of the elite will serve a profound symbolic function: That no longer are the people dormant and passive, that no longer will we accept our exploitation and mental corruption; that for so long have our wishes been denied politically, economically and socially that we now seek other mediums to pursue our needs, foremost that of the barrel of a gun. We will no longer subject ourselves to the torment and futility of public and civic display understanding very well that this enterprise is designed well in favor of the established order--Failing dreadfully to fulfill its intended purpose.

Perhaps I did not make it clear in the previous posts of mine: TZM will not commit the destruction itself, rather a rouge, clandestine group of individuals detached from any socially progressive movement.

Do you truly believe that this is an attractive proposal to most people?

For TZM to destroy them? No.

For others to destroy them? I do not know, possibly. That is the purpose of this thread to figure out whether the advantages outweigh the ramifications.

Could you really look the children of your victims in the face and tell them that murdering their parent was for the betterment of the world?
If it's the truth, yes.

By the same logic, wouldn't killing you and other TZM members be just as justified to others from their point of view?

Possibly. Of course by joining this movement we assume that we have assessed the human condition correctly and that they have a corrupted perspective; therefore if they kill us they will have made a dire mistaken, where as if someone killed them we could praise them for having made a considerable contribution to humanity.

Or the act of violence will perpetuate itself, as the intentions of what you are doing will tie over into the expression of that act in life and at play in reality. IT's one thing to discuss the moral justification in defending yourself, there is quite another thing when discussing eliminating certain members of OUR species for the supposed benefit of the many.


Let's say some attack happens on one of these supposed elites.....or even a group of them, the reasons for which made public and known. How should the rest of these elite respond? Violence begets violence.

I think Warren Buffet's article in the NYTimes is a perfect example of why we need a value shift to take place, and not a violent shift.

www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-...html?_r=3&src=tp

That is an article by one of the elite you are discussing heaping violence upon...or would you make further arbitrary distinctions between the "good humans" worth keeping and the "Bad Humans" worth killing?

Any time you let fear rule your decisions you will fall into a negative spin false reality that will only find more reasons to perpetuate said false reality and magnify the perceived sources of fear. Time to be that value shift we keep talking about. Any talk of violence on people is not the value shift we're actually(as in the only true purpose of this movement) talking about.