What is making us NOT fight back?

Smallpeeps: Thanks for the book suggestion.

One reason why we don’t “fight back” may be the very thing we so desperately cling to: The Constitution; namely, the freedoms of speech and expression.

By allowing citizens to actively and publicly write, speak, and protest, certain pressures that might otherwise move underground—collecting mystique, intrigue, and movement—are expressed on-the-spot. Furthermore, it allows for such ideas to be criticized, debated, perhaps mocked, and otherwise shelved as novelty. Eventually, these voices become just another cry in the din of modern information. An organized gathering of thousands—an amazing feat—becomes simply another news blurb; slipped in between stories of “Brangelina,” local fires, and sunday-sunday-sunday car commercials.

A must read regarding the effect modern media has had on the mind, and debate, is Neil Postman’s, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985).




I would also like to share pieces of a letter that I have written to Contentious; who apparently has been banned from this discussion for reasons unknown to me. You can gather the spirit of our dialogue from portions of this letter.



‘In regards to your letter: I couldn’t agree with you more. That was my point in addressing the Alexandrian Option. If we follow a modern revolution to its logical conclusion, an “all-stop” scenario becomes the final, and only, solution. This leads us to a dilemma not faced by former societies. There has always been a point, a destination, that revolutions move toward—historically, this destination has always been replacement; with Communism, with Dictatorship, with Parliamentary Republics. Never has this destination been Anarchist-like destruction. A modern revolution today, on American soil—if successful—would most likely divide our lands into city states and war-lord grottos. Katrina and Iraq both provide excellent case studies in vacuums of power. Katrina is a stunning illustration of what people—American people—do when government does not exist. Now take the rape-gangs, the bands of armed thugs, the indiscriminant killing, and magnify it on a national scale. This is what a modern American revolution would lead to; without proper planning, foreign-state sponsorship, and a military coup.

Indeed, something must be done. In my opinion, our primary enemy is Corporate America, and while I hate that cliché phrase, I can come to no other conclusion. With a corporation, there is no personal, flesh-and-blood accountability. They extort legislation by threatening politicians with relocation, joblessness, not to mention lobbying power; how does one convict a “person” that does not exist? That has no family, no children, no blood, no flesh, and no conscience. How many real people would face homelessness and subsistence living if we, in fact, “imprisoned” a corporation by revoking its charter? What are million dollar penalties to profits measured in billions?

But how, when, and why? These are the questions the American people and would-be revolutionaries must begin to ask themselves. Even the most disturbing question: is revolution even a viable option? I think Americans have always kept the possibility in the back of their minds--like a spy with cyanide capsules--but what if it isn't even possible? How are we to fight Stealth Bombers, M-16’s, and billions in funding with 30/30 hunting rifles and Molotov Cocktails? Make lots of soap? ‘

[

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Dr_Faustus]

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Dr_Faustus]

revolutions dont have to be all violent. keep that in mind. the fight goes beyond that. imagine 200 million or so consumers started to stop buying products, or just buy the real bare minimum? local store owners who they know and buy small products, just enough to live off of. stopped working. went back to trading what they have. you know the damage that would do to Big Business?

first we need to grow up, and become mature and moral as people. we need to identify that we need to unite. thats whats most important. katrina was different. there was government, government that was making sure all people were disarmed and defenseless against such criminals.

responsibility amoung our people is one of most importance. when we again become responsible and start to take responsiblity for what we have done we can progress. make peace with our wrongs and instead of dwelling move on to the current problems as a nation.

what i see is constant fighting over things that really arent a priority. the priorities are all screwed up because we are being fed so many different things while being deprived of whats important.

what our nations needs, Responsibility, Unity, and Priorities. what our countries has though are a bunch or red necks thugs and rebels without any cause because they refuse to take responsibility for what they do, and have no priorities because they dont think enough to see whats important to them.

until then i have to sit and watch my people destroy themselves, my nation destroy itself, big business destory all of it for money. thats what i have to watch on a daily basis because the adults of this time dont have the guts to stand up. they rather sit down like the jews did when hitler invaded. every invasion of their freedoms they said, ah its just one more small rule. its no big deal. it is a big deal and will continue to be, it will get bigger to. thanks for stand up though you guys, my generation will really appriciate it when reality kicks in for them and they are in a hole they cant get out of.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Why wouold you want to organize anything on a public forum? Especially when it comes to "fighting back" Wouldn't it make more sense to be as discreat as possible?
..

BINGO, that's more or less what i warned of on page #4, Authority is *their* playing field, if you're depending on leadership, chains of command and such you're using a form of cooperation which instills the content of secretive power schemes (just like TV is by default superficial), they are masters at that game, you may win, and you may even avoid the temptations of pyramidal power, but it's not getting easier that way and the most likely outcome is yet another generation ever more ruthless and cynical joining their ranks.

I don't pretend i know the answer to that problem, but i think that doing things openly, with people you get to know on a personal basis, ie. NOT on the internet, in a way which leaves them no choice but to indiscriminately target you OR leave you alone, which can only be achieved by maximum multidirectional cooperation which does not rely on structures cast in stone.
move as one.

last post in this thread, i'm unwilling to repeat myself more than twice

In order for ANY revolution to work:
3 needs must be met:
#1: police/law/order
#2: Peoples NEEDS (food, water, power)
#3: GOVERNMENT (no anarchy)

A violent revolution is possible, shoot most revolutions started out with inferior use of weapons but through capturing depo's lead to a full scale war on equal ground. Then it was a "war of the wills" so to speak.
Having the nation boycott the corporation is impossible, they have so many ties it wont work, even if you slowed down your use there is so many people using it they would still rake in billions upon billions of dollars.
If a violent revolution were to take place no fool would try and fight on a battle line, thats what they want, it would be a gurilla war for years untill a strong foothold was gotten then it would expand bit by bit securing states and establishing law and order as the revolutionary armys power and effective range grew.
The good news is we wont be fighting with hunting rifles, you can go online and buy high powered sniper rifles right now if you want too. Everything you need as far as assult weapons go can be gotten online in short order along with helmets, body armor, etc.
None the less any revolutionaries would be REQUIRED to re-establish the economy in areas and rebuild what was destroyed, this would make it a slow war but all revolutions are slow.
There are a million things that would need to be added more than likely to a plan such as taking over the US by revolution. We can only hope its not skinheads that start it or KKK (0.0000000000000000001% chance, they dont have the numbers) but decent people who are more like the ones who fought in the first revolution in america, ones who would uphold honor and dignity not bloodlust and dictatorship. So really its up to us as to what happens when it comes down to the "nit and grit" of it.

People, even though they may not have experienced it, fear at least two things: war and anarchy.

Mistakes: There are 6 billion people in the world, and we all make mistakes. That amounts to at least 6 billion mistakes. Trying to negotiate those mistakes makes life interesting while we think we have better things to do.

Mass media distraction is another problem. They tell millions of people what is worth talking about, but distract people from actually solving problems. Here's an example:

People: Mr. President, there is a dam which is going to break and flood our land. You can: 1. Build a new dam. 2. Fix the dam 3. Direct the water. What are you going to do?

Media: Mr. President, how are your pets doing this week?

Mr. President: They are doing fine.

People: What kind of pets does he have?

The problems are there. The solutions are there. The will do do the work goes absent, so the land gets flooded.

You might think this serves the owners of mass media or their friends, but it really does not. It serves no one and is destructive behavior, and portrays a lack of wisdom. Wise politicians act in the best interest of the people even if the people will otherwise, and I hesitate to provide an example for fear of sidetracking the subject, but there are many.

Would they tell us what can be done to solve problems of hunger, disease, and poverty, rather than what they thought was 'newsworthy.'

Somewhere the priorities get skewed. One of our congressmen holds up a bottle of designer water and tells the top oil CEO's of the world, "I don't know what drives people to buy water for $2.50." The CEO says, Gasoline is not our only product. So did the congressman just give them the go ahead to gouge the consumer? Sure, why not? What could the congress do to the oil corporations anyway? Nothing. Not a damn thing.

The banking system controls everything. People who work for a living know they are not getting a fair 50/50 split of the profits from the people who own the means of production (the wealthy 5% of the population who own 84% of the stocks). I would like to see XO's earn no more than 20% above the highest class of laborer, and a law that forbids the owners from taking more than 50% of the profits. Somewhere along the line we 'forgot' to make that a law.

"There are two kinds of people in the world; monsters and victims." Most of us don't want to be monsters, but then again we don't have the required resources if we did, thanks to the above.

The problem today is that there are so many things that could send us all to Armegeddon, that people fear speaking out or taking action. On a local level, if you oppose the powerful you get stomped into oblivion. That is just a plain fact of social dynamics.

It is plain to me that we 'the public' are still serving the wealthy aristocracy. We have all the rights and freedoms we want as long as we do not oppose anything they have proclaimed, and that includes our own servitude.

Why don't people fight back? It is simple really. Accomplishing a goal requires a plan. The plan must be well designed, engineered, and undertaken. We don't have the resources to fund the plan. The people that control the world do have the resources. That is why they are in control, and why their plan is the one that gets action.

The problems of governing are solvable with todays' technology. Example: The protocols used by congress in session are archaic. Gone. Information overload. Gone. Finding the right solutions to the right problems. Done. Redesigning the judical branch. No problem. Take away their gavels and black robes (just kidding, got to have those black robes).

It is not the government that is the problem. The government is necessary. The information and methods used by the government should serve the government rather than challenge it. The problems of the nation should challenge the government rather than overwhelm it. They need the tools to deal properly with the information, and they need the right information to review in that process.

"We have met the enemy and it is us."

DenniSys.com

[edit on 8-4-2006 by dennisys]

As I said you have to do many things to win, but no matter WHAT you must ensure one thing:
That the elite do not escape.
In short EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM must go down, if any of them remain they will try to form up a new army of themselves and try again.
Your problem with media is it will NEVER accept the notion of taking on govt. because they own part of it. Now if the media suddenly does, worry, because they are up to something new.
Refering back to a movie: V for Vendetta.
You would be better off doing what he did to the media station, break in silently, have a pre-prepared speech/movie on hand then force them to play it or die. This would be HIGHLY effective, sure you would have people all over you but at least you got the message out for at least 5 min. tops which is more than enough. Or you could put in a virus to boot that downloads the program into satellites and keeps broadcasting for ohh lets say 3 days. While the mayhem ensues of trying to shut them all off (which will take a while) you got your message out and escaped in the chaos that ensues.
I will say this: When the police state/gestapo is in full swing and martial law is in for the rest of your lives, you have no choice but to fight back violently. At that point peacefully protesting will get you shot on sight or run over with a tank, they are more sinister than the Chinese will ever be at Tianamen Square, they have no second thoughts of killing any one of us.

Originally posted by Dr_Faustus
Firstly, it should be pointed out that Americas Founding Fathers were by-and-large

Sir: We have come to believe in things that are not true. The history we have learned is not totally a fabrication, but it has been thoroughly washed to the point that it does not begin to represent historical accuracy. You might as well carry that on to other subjects, and then begin to understand that what you think you know is bs.

I could go on, but the point: If you accept what you believe as true, then may I suggest that you talk to your enemies. At some point, you may arrive at bits and pieces of truth, but to try to put it right would be like trying to reconstruct a cherry pie that had fallen on the floor.

DenniSys.com

U2U sent (link)

[edit on 8-4-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by dennisys



I could go on, but the point: If you accept what you believe as true, then may I suggest that you talk to your enemies. At some point, you may arrive at bits and pieces of truth, but to try to put it right would be like trying to reconstruct a cherry pie that had fallen on the floor.

Very TRUE in the sense that the history is ALWAYS written by the Victorious.

Springer...

Man-on-man. I didn't think that me and my sister were the only ones that felt like this, but it's good to see it out in the open. I truely beleive that people are purposely being dumbed-down. There's no other way to explain the multitude of irrational, idiotic shows on TV and movies in theaters.

As for why people do nothing, I think it's mainly because of the fact they will be dissowned by the populace for the most part. For the people who dont care about that and still do nothing I think it would be denial, or just inconvenience. Our nation has become a sucker nation for convenience.

Other than that I beleive that there are the worst people of all, the blindly patriotic. The people who beleive that the government does no wrong, at no time. Also the people who beleive that the government does all of the things that it does for one good cause or another, no matter how horrific it is.

For example my stepfather is under the category of blindly patriotic. He beleives that the death of civilians in Iraq is justified simply for the fact that they MAY capture a few soldiers in the process. I don't agree with that, and beleive that is the problem with the US today. After being shown a picture of dead iraqi children he proclaimed.. "Well if they weren't terrorists they wouldn't have died" mind you these were babies. Ill be glad when everyone wakes up and realizes that they don't have to live with everything the government does.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
to the poster who was bashing malcolm x, go do some studying of him AFTER he went to mecca and left the Nation Of Islam. once he left that he really became a threat. his whole views changed, only reason why i idolize him so much, he practically dropped and denounced all his racist comments he made after he returned from Mecca. do some research please

grimreaper797, I wanted to comment on your post because I feel it's important here. I respect what you said.

I am not an expert on Malcom, but his interest in saving his people was legit, and for his honesty and his fire, there is no surprise that he would be an example for many people. Let's face it, he was handsome, and a powerful member of the personality cult.

But in the final analysis, Malcom was used by the nation and I'm sure you're familiar with the lunacy of their teachings. I mean Black Islam doesn't even TRY to remain in the realm of reality.

I wanted to address this because lots of people in the crowd want to grasp onto totems and icons in order to embolden themselves. But really, is it for his smarts that people admire Malcom, or is it his sheer guts? Was it for his cool looking choice in eyewear, or is it because he was not afraid to face down a shotgun? For me, I admire him for his courage in the latter, above all else.

I'd say that his life was a great triumph and he was a blessed soul. As you mention, he was just waking up, struck down at the very time when he could have become a true leader of many. Well, that's why he was killed. That's the point.

The gameboard seems to be set up now so that anybody like Malcom will be marginalized or toasted before they get to his level. In thinking about this, it makes me wonder if perhaps the only hope would be for someone already famous to become a leader of sorts. Now if only Malcom could somehow emerge from the afterlife and inhabit the body of Lenny Kravitz, for example, you'd have a fairly effective revolutionary there.



[edit on 8-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by Springer
Very TRUE in the sense that the history is ALWAYS written by the Victorious.

This is a long held belief that has often proven true, but considering that in an age of increased liberalism and instantaneous communications, the writing of history is no longer restricted to the victor. Thus, history changes with the times, just as it records those times. The "victor" no longer has a 'sole' valid claim to writing History.





seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]

smallpeeps i idolize him for the speech he made which you can download called "By Any Means Necessary"
i believe its one of his last speeches or his last speech but im not quite sure. either way its my favorite speech because he really toned down all the racism, and just really started to send a message thats like "yea, ya know what, hes right"

thats all really, his earlier speeches i dont like as much because many of them usually have some racism in it.

What is maing us NOT fight back

Two things:
Unity and diversity.

Revolution, whether violent or non-violent, involves varying levels of population (numbers, ethnicity, community, local, state, federal, etc.). Revolutions are typically, historical anyways, a "call-to-arms." The issue here is not revolution, but the actual implements needed and required to "fight back." It must be highly thought out, detailed, and then implemented, and in considering that, you folks are talking about doing it on a national level.

As such, I would simply say use the format being considered by those that are seeking "world revolution."

First, the world revolution is and will be nonviolent. Most of the major revolutions in world history have been physically violent in nature, involving militancy and the organized use of arms -- hence "world revolution" may ring of violent, armed social upheaval. This revolution, however, will be categorically nonviolent in nature. It will not be necessary to be a pure pacifist in one's personal ideological orientation. World revolutionaries will not have to believe in the absolute immorality or illigitimacy of violence as a means to achieve perceived moral ends, in either domain of personal affairs or social change. But they will commit, in the arena of actual action and activity, to the renunciation of physical force, coercion or violence as a weapon or tactic in any activity connected to the world revolution. The world revolution aims to achieve a nonviolent, peaceful world -- and it will not use or advocate violence as a means to this end. The world revolution has been inspired at its origins by the spirits and moral examples of M. K. Gandhi and M. L. King, Jr., and, for one thing, it would be a gross disrespect to them, the foremost advocates of nonviolence in modern history, to diverge from this cardinal value which they lived, fought and died for.

Determine how your goals will be accomplished.

Betty Reardon, in one of her books on peace education, delineated three levels of social change activity:

1. Reform: changing existing practices within existing structures and institutions
2. Reconstruction: changing and redesigning the social structures and institutions themselves
3. Transformation: multi-level change, including the domain of human values, attitudes, and beliefs

The world revolution is intended to effect progressive social change at all three levels: reform, reconstruction, and transformation.

How will it do this? The basic plan is this. The world revolution will build upon the work of already existing movements, programs, organizations and institutions throughout the world that are involved in progressive social change efforts (at all three levels of the Reardon scheme). The role of the world revolution in relation to the existing projects will be multifold. Listed here are some of the basics, as initially conceived:

a. Attempt to unify, consolidate and coordinate the various existing programs into a larger collective movement of much greater social, political and cultural force.

b. Consolidate an initial world revolutionary constituency -- with sufficient numbers of people so as to be able to influence the values of the rest of the populace as well as to effect national opinion and policy.

c. Enhance the efficacy of existing programs by (a) providing a vast, efficient communication network and activist infrastructure for the sharing of information, ideas, and tactics, and by (b) monitoring the most effective strategies and social change methods/programs and disseminating this information to others in the same field.

d. Bring the work of researchers and scholars together with the work of activists, together with the work of policy-advocates and policy-makers, together with the work of educators, together with the work of writers and authors, etc. -- so that the power and efficacy of each is considerably enhanced.

e. Provide a holistic, comprehensive conceptual framework and context for various programs of social activism.

Both above quotes came from here: World Revolution.

In short, as noble or whatever "fighting back" may be, most opt to "not fight back" because of unity, diversity, and commonality issues, then the actual getting it done....not as easy as some here seem to think it is.






seekerof

Not to sidetrack, but I have been a bit of a Malcolm X disciple for a few years now. History has kinda swept the guy under a rug because he was so uncompromising. "Freedom for everybody, or freedom for nobody."

Go pick up the book Malcolm X Speaks. Its a collection of speeches from his last year or so. A few are before the trip to Mecca, but most after his leaving the nation. All of it should make you immensely proud to be an American. He was one of the greatest ever, even though he didnt consider himself one.

Anyways, just wanted to plug the book. Also check out The Black Panthers Speak. Not all speeches, but a good collection of everything.

Carry on.

Originally posted by Boatphone
If you want a change try voting. I did and it worked for me.

-- Boat

Exactly HOW did voting work for you? Has voting worked at all in the past 30 years? If so, I fail to see where. It's a long-dead system of election, since it doesn't matter who's elected; they're all bought anyway. They have this thing called "lobbying", which is just another nice word for bribing that they use to get congressmen to vote the way they want.

As for presidential voting, our votes don't even count anymore. Take the Bush/Gore election of 2000 for example. Gore got more popular votes than Bush did, but because Bush hit the most populated areas and got more support there, the Electoral College voted him in. When it comes to the Commander and Chief, he's already elected by the very elite few that hold positions in the Electoral College. My solution would be to eliminate the EC and put into place a system where all US citizens could vote every day on every single bill that passes through Congress. That way, everyone has an EQUAL say in what gets made into law and what doesn't.

Just my few cents.

TheBorg

P.S. I would like to clarify something I mentioned in my above post. After having reread it a few hours after writing it, I may have come across a bit too abrasively. For that I apologize. All I want is a change back to what my founding fathers said they wanted this great country to be. I think a government-wide reform is in order, but by no means do I recommend any kind of violent action, nor do I condone it. As far as I'm concerned, that would only make those of us seeking truth and a better life as bad as those we're trying to stop. Not a good deal.

So to everyone I say, please be wise to what goes on around you, and if you see something even STARTING to get out of hand, stop it then. For if it gets out of control, you may not be able to stop it later.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by TheBorg]

Lol TheBorg, how would anyone get anything done if the public had a say in every measure that went through Congress?

I agree this you, but there will come a time when the only way to make a difference will be violence. The government is getting so pushy, so brave in taking away our rights and freedoms that one day something will have to be done. Today? No, probably not for years and years, but it will eventually come if things don't change.

Something that iv never understood is the fact that we're allowed to cast out any government we feel isn't right, yet all through history everyones complained about the government being corrupt and unjust, yet no one at all has tried to change it.

Wow. This thread has gone dead for some reason. Makes one think all sorts of wierd things...

TheBorg

No, its not dead. We're just out doing something.

This thread was a good thing to bring up and hopefully folks will continue to contribute to it so that it stay with peoples line of sight.

Reading through these pages, there were a lot of knowlegable people writing things that opened my eyes and others.

ATS is not an action site. It is a learning and debating site. I have looked at many sites that do believe in action and found a couple that fall in line with what I believe to be right and what our forefathers would want. I have joined a couple and am hoping for action soon.

I have also decided to start small and get involved in my towns city hall.

It is something.

delerious: i couldnt agree with you more that the gov't is taking away more and more rights, and that they dont really even care if they hide it anymore. i do, however, need clarification on your opinion concerning when and if people will ever care. you say that it'll be a long time before the people take the intitative, but when they're already scared to death of the gov'ts power, how logical is it to believe that they'll stand up for themselves later when the gov't has become MORE powerful? what about when speaking out becomes ILLEGAL? when the responsable person obeys mindlessly because it's become civily responsable to do so? judging from the exponential loss of freedoms under the patriot act and the corrosponding growth of gov't power, there will SOON come a time when speaking out is not only hard to do but downright impossible, and in the long while you speak of it will have become the new set of sociatle values: the civil servants will become the civil Masters, in a sense, and we will work for them instead of the other way around, how it used to be.

what is making us not fight back is our own timid nature. we've let the gov't sit behind the wheel so long that we have convinced ourselves that we've forgotten how to drive and unless we reaquire our rightful place at the forefront of politics as the most important government of a sociaty, the people will become a new class of serfs while the men and women that we've put into office will become our new breed of nobility. theres a giant rift opening between politicians and private citisens and that rift is only growing deeper and wider. so, when is it going to be enough?