Zack De La Rocha continues to call for revolution

Kraven

Tiki Barber wrote:

okay okay. you're missing the point. the point is if we've learned anything about this war it's that violence doesn't solve anything. whether bush is executed after a trial or just assassinated, it's not gonna solve anything. no one will benefit from that, it will just be another casualty linked to this senseless war. his terms almost up anyway, so if zach de la rocha wanted him to be executed, it would've been a good idea for him to do something about it 3 years ago...not that he would have or could have anyway. oh and yeah, i'm sure that would work out well for him with dick cheney taking over office for the rest of the term. i guess we'd have to kill him then too. this guy is basically promoting and calling for american terrorism....whether you agree with the current administration or not, at least admit that this revolution zach speaks of, if carried out successfully would ruin our country. luckily there's no way that could ever happen in our lifetime.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, assassinating Bush would just really put the man who is running this country at the forefront. It wouldn't solve anything because it would be the same administration.

Whats your definition of a terrorist? That word is thrown around so much, were American's terrorist when we threw that tea overboard in Boston? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am not condoning any type of terrorism by any means but you can't just label someone a terrorist, they need to be a terrorist to something like a terrorist to a nations security, or to civil rights not just a terrorist.

A terrorist is not the word I would use to describe Zack De La Rocha, more of an extremist or a radical.

I don't think a violent revolution is the solution to the nations problem, I think more people need to come out to vote and have a revolution that way. The people should never be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people. The Democrats did it in the Congress the last election in '06 hopefully they can do it again in '08.

Also the polarization of the government is the worst possible thing. The politicians need to work together to solve the nations problems not veto everything, politicians should be looking out for the best of the country, and its people, not what they think some deity thinks or what their party thinks.

Lifted

Kraven wrote:

I wasn't disagreeing with you, assassinating Bush would just really put the man who is running this country at the forefront. It wouldn't solve anything because it would be the same administration.

Whats your definition of a terrorist? That word is thrown around so much, were American's terrorist when we threw that tea overboard in Boston? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am not condoning any type of terrorism by any means but you can't just label someone a terrorist, they need to be a terrorist to something like a terrorist to a nations security, or to civil rights not just a terrorist.

A terrorist is not the word I would use to describe Zack De La Rocha, more of an extremist or a radical.

I don't think a violent revolution is the solution to the nations problem, I think more people need to come out to vote and have a revolution that way. The people should never be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people. The Democrats did it in the Congress the last election in '06 hopefully they can do it again in '08.

Also the polarization of the government is the worst possible thing. The politicians need to work together to solve the nations problems not veto everything, politicians should be looking out for the best of the country, and its people, not what they think some deity thinks or what their party thinks.

well to answer one of your questions, i meant a terrorist to our nations security. because i think the violent revolution he's calling for could be considered a form of terrorism. i'm not really calling zach de la rocha a terrorist, but i think his words could possibly incite terrorism. anyway other than that i have nothing to say to you because what you said was very well put and i actually agree with all of it, so i guess we're on the same page.

Alex_Coe

I read this thread with really high expectations.

By the end, my IQ dropped sixteen points.

I may have to go to a new school for mentally handicapped children.

This sucks.

Damn.

Let me just finish by saying, I like dogs.

OutZ

hippiemom

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!

You'd have been disappointed if you had been there. My daughter just got home from New York ... she said RATM was great, the only disappointing thing was the near-total lack of response from the audience to Zack's political talk. Everyone was like, "Yeah, yeah, whatever .... play some more music."

wavescamecrashing

i thought people were like that at the wembley gig when ed played no more and talked about terence young...no one really gave a shit, one guy actually yelled: shut the fuck up to ed!!!

people dont like hearing what isnt easy and safe. sad fact.

i think zak is an inspirational figure because he is eloquent and has used his medium to raise the profile of a cause...but at the same time a hypocrite. what does he do with his millions exactly?

jsaso

here is the video of zach talking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxFW8kJ5IhA

binauralsounds

yieldtome wrote:

If the government and economy that allows Zach to not only "continue to call for revolution," but also make millions of dollars while doing it, is so bad, let Mr. De La Rocha lob the first grenade. The mob mentality is bullshit, and Americans in general have had their asses powdered for so long that to hear a U.S. citizen call for revolution smacks of an absurd cry for relevance. So here's a challenge for Zach: Put your money where your mouth is. If you want to preach about some idealistic utopian socialism that only exists in a political vaccuum, that's fine, knock yourself out...God knows it's your right. If you want to represent your cause through charity, go right ahead, it can't hurt anything. However, if you are going to call for a bloody revolution (and glorify guerilla tactics), don't stop at rhetoric, and don't rely on a mob of your fans to do the dirty work. March your free ass to Washington, and make the morning papers. Otherwise, shut the hypocritical hole in your face.

YUP!!!!!!

soulsinging

Cheguevara6 wrote:

sure ed encourages people to get informed and involved, but he makes a ton of money while doing it. I think its great that Pearl Jam is a so politically active. Its great that some money from each ticket goes to a local charity or organization. Its great that ed and the band are so giving with the ten club. Its a great band, and it feels great that they are actually out to make a difference.

But even that is somewhat hypocritical, and it would be ridiculous to not delve into this issue, just because we all love this band.

They charge a pretty penny for tickets, despite the fact they could charge alot less, given they are all set financially for life.

They are all activists and genuinely care about the disenfrancished among us, yet will that poor person they care about so much be able to afford a ticket to their show?

They continue to make money via all the live cd's, studio albums, dvd's, and shirt and merchandise, and alot of that stuff costs quite a bit of cash.

Take a show at a big arena. Assuming they get a crowd of maybe 20,000 they are getting a TON of money via that ONE SHOW alone. Yet ed will likely stand up their and talk about politics and activism, and advocate for helping the poor among us.

I dont feel I have to defend my love of this band. They are special and magical, and amazing. But lets not act like ed and the guys are playing for free and are charging 5 bucks for their shows or the new dvd or the new gorge box set. They make a lot of money off political advocating.

Again, its fine to critique zack but lets not act like ed and the guys are the equilivant of christ. They make money. They have nice cars. They have fancy guitars. They have guitar techs. They have bodyguards, they have fancy houses. They probably have multiple houses and multiple fancy cars. They can afford to take trips to ANYWHERE in the world etc...

And thats fine with me. But lets not act like they are "one with the people" at least in terms of financially and quality of life

i never acted like they played for free or that they were christ. they make money. but they also don't build their entire band's image around violently overthrowing capitalism. so there is nothing hypocritical in them making a good living when the core of their message is simply to try and make a difference. the core of RATM message is "let's kill innocent people in the streets to bring down the rich people." RATM are rich people, and they've never lifted a finger to kick start any sort of violent revolution in america. thus, they are full of shit and they are hypocrites.

soulsinging

Cheguevara6 wrote:

sorry markymark, your wrone. If that was the beef people had with zack via this thread, why did references to his lack of committment to activism, the fact that he is a millionaire, that he is a hypocrite, get spewn on this thread?

You really think Zack wants everyone to follow him and not think for themselves?

the references were to the fact that he is calling for violence, yet has never used violence cos he's too chickenshit to risk his own neck. he calls for a socialist society and bringing down corporations, yet he is a millionaire thanks to his band and benefits plenty from the capitalist system.

pearl jam has never advocated for anything onstage that they have not already done themselves. there is a difference. and im not using pearl jam as the be all end all, just a good counterpoint everyone will know.

soulsinging

Cheguevara6 wrote:

it was continually brought up that zack called for revolution while being paid millions. My whole point is that one needn't look any further than our favorite band Pearl Jam to see another example of this.

pearl jam has never called for a violent revolution. ever.

Kann

soulsinging wrote:

i never acted like they played for free or that they were christ. they make money. but they also don't build their entire band's image around violently overthrowing capitalism. so there is nothing hypocritical in them making a good living when the core of their message is simply to try and make a difference. the core of RATM message is "let's kill innocent people in the streets to bring down the rich people." RATM are rich people, and they've never lifted a finger to kick start any sort of violent revolution in america. thus, they are full of shit and they are hypocrites.

That's bs. First of all, ratm never suggested killing innocent people. And they would be hypocrites if they faked their anger/rage against the current system just to win a little more money.
I'm still wondering how do you doubt their anger isn't real?
Some said (not necessarily you) that they reunited now to jumb on the antiwar/bush bandwagon to make some money. Why can't they be genuinely pissed off like many of their fans?

And yes they have money (though much much less than pj since this is the example that is used) and... they even were signed on a major. Does this make their message less accurate? They are not happy with something and express that frustration.
The fact that Zack isn't currently serving lifetime in prison for killing the assistant director of a corporation doesn't affect the honesty of his message, he believes bush is a criminal (and he isn't alone) and that he shoud have a death sentence a la Saddam. I think he believes it => he is honest about his message.
Only fair in his view, and I heard the same by non musician as well but they weren't asked to sacrifice their lives to prove they really really meant what they were saying.

CaterinaA

ryan198 wrote:

Finally I always like how when the empire of neoliberal corporate capitalism (the real term for what you might like to call free market democracy, because it sounds nicer), is rightly criticized for being inhumane, indecent, and generally terrible for nearly every single person in the world people point to the fact that socialist systems failed in other countries. Yet you do this without stopping to think that sometimes these systems were democratically elected (for example Chile), yet b/c a socialist democracy is a danger to America was wiped out by a bloody revolution sponsored by the United States (Peru, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). We are not a nice country, we are not a safe country, we are a selfish, pillaging, war mongering, bald faced lying country that IS NOT working for the many in its own 50 states (evidenced by the fact that nearly 30 percent of our children will live in poverty conditions during this year and the number consistently rises), that Cuba has a better voting record, and literacy rate, that socialist medicine works for the many in every country except Canada - which has taken on some "free market" tendencies, that CEO's make 500 to 1 in large corporations over their employees, that we spend 1 billion dollars a day on a war to benefit the rich (see: Halliburton, Oil Companies) we can't even send our kids to schools with running water, new books, and good lighting. Thus dissent in this country is silenced in a far worse way than threatening jail time, it's removed before we even get the chance.

I disagree a lot with the US' current foreign policy. But if there's a thing I find more annoying than Dubya are those persons that think the US is root of all that's evil and wrong with this world. You mentioned my region, Latin America, and I know you mean well, you have good intentions, but you fail to see that your way of thinking is just the other side of the coin. You, like Bush and the Neocons, are thinking your country is allmighty and capable of interfering wherever and whenever it wants, the only difference is that you think the US do it to fuck up countries, whereas Bush is "spreading freedom and democracy". Well I don't see a difference between this way of thinking and Bush Jr. thinking, you know why? Because it considers us poor souls from the Third World as morons or robots with no will whatsoever. I'm not neglecting US (and the USSR) influence during the 70's. But, you really think that everything that happened during that era was due to the sole intervention of the CIA? Come on! Give us some credits, allow us to own our fuckups!! You mentioned Chile. Well, I am Chilean and besides the fact that all my family was in Chile, I've studied a lot and read a lot about those years, I also read a lot about Argentina's politics and I'll tell you this, which is an almost unanimous consensus among political analysts, sociologists and among everybody. The Coup d'Etat carried out by Pinochet (Chile) was succesful mainly because the people, the citizens from both countries, were OK with it. In Chile people really were desperate and extremely unhappy with Allende's government. A few days prior to the Coup his government was declared unconstitutional by Congress. People would go to military facilities and beg them for an uprising rise. Of course, nobody knew how bloody Pinochet's regime would be. My point is: even though there's US (and European) influence in our region we're the guilty ones for our history and if we don't understand that we'll never change it.

About Cuba, come on! You can't be serious about the elections, everybody knows it is a huge facade!

Peace from Latin America
Caterina

ryan198

CaterinaA wrote:

I disagree a lot with the US' current foreign policy. But if there's a thing I find more annoying than Dubya are those persons that think the US is root of all that's evil and wrong with this world. You mentioned my region, Latin America, and I know you mean well, you have good intentions, but you fail to see that your way of thinking is just the other side of the coin. You, like Bush and the Neocons, are thinking your country is allmighty and capable of interfering wherever and whenever it wants, the only difference is that you think the US do it to fuck up countries, whereas Bush is "spreading freedom and democracy". Well I don't see a difference between this way of thinking and Bush Jr. thinking, you know why? Because it considers us poor souls from the Third World as morons or robots with no will whatsoever. I'm not neglecting US (and the USSR) influence during the 70's. But, you really think that everything that happened during that era was due to the sole intervention of the CIA? Come on! Give us some credits, allow us to own our fuckups!! You mentioned Chile. Well, I am Chilean and besides the fact that all my family was in Chile, I've studied a lot and read a lot about those years, I also read a lot about Argentina's politics and I'll tell you this, which is an almost unanimous consensus among political analysts, sociologists and among everybody. The Coup d'Etat carried out by Pinochet (Chile) was succesful mainly because the people, the citizens from both countries, were OK with it. In Chile people really were desperate and extremely unhappy with Allende's government. A few days prior to the Coup his government was declared unconstitutional by Congress. People would go to military facilities and beg them for an uprising rise. Of course, nobody knew how bloody Pinochet's regime would be. My point is: even though there's US (and European) influence in our region we're the guilty ones for our history and if we don't understand that we'll never change it.

About Cuba, come on! You can't be serious about the elections, everybody knows it is a huge facade!

Peace from Latin America
Caterina

Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).

verb_to_trust

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!

"we need to rise up like the youth in Iraq and bring these fuckers to their knees"

And he said the band and he refuse to back down from calling for Bush to be tried and hung

There are very few people I agree with more in the world than Zack

Its a question of what we as a generation decide to do. Are we willing to graduate, get married have kids, buy our white houses and white picket fences. Or are we going to refuse that, and say "hey thats not how it works"

Bush is a murderer and killer and a war criminal.

And the only way to stop the goddamn war, isnt to go gaga for Obama or Hillary. They aint gonna end it folks.

As Ben Harper said "there are two ways things change. 1)people say "hey I aint going to stand for you putting your boots on my chest any more, and rising up or 2) manhattan being submerged in water due to global warming, or a similar crazy event. And he further stated, its past time for reform.

We need to rise up. Rise! RISE! This system doesnt give a crap about you. And if you think Obama and hilary give a damn about you you must be high on meth.

RISE!

You take the rantings and posturing of musicians far too seriously. Why do you have all these romatic notions towards a rap artist's pleading for a violent revolution?

Can you not form your alligences and world views based on things other thank rock musicians who can't put their money where their mouth is but spout rhetoric indescriminantly anyway?

Its a fucking rock band dude.......relax.......and listen to the music. If you have to crack open a bio of your little buddy Che while you have your headphones on listening to MUSIC so as you don't convulse.......please do so

tybird

ryan198 wrote:

Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).

I don't believe that the Taliban were a legally elected government. Afghanistan as an example for your statement is only good if you reference the Soviet Union as a destroyer of a legal government.

Jerzdevil

Violent revolution for the purpose of overthrowing a government has always brought about positive results!

The French Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, hundreds were beheaded and Napoleon came to power leading to the worst war in European history up to that point.

The Russian Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, Stalin came to power and was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own citizens.

The Chinese Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, they have a regime far more corrupt and abusive than America's and their people have no right to even criticize their government and their lives are micromanaged by a few Communist Party bigwigs in Beijin.

So we need to rise like the youth of Iraq? We should start beheading people in our own country? We should destroy any sense of security in our own country? Hey, that's a brilliant idea! Let's destabilize our country and its government, which will, as history proves (I'm able to provide multiple examples upon request), lead to a brutal dictatorship like Germany in the 1930s and 1940s or complete anarchy like we see in Somalia.

The problem with all this extremist talk of violent revolution is that those who support the revolution make the same exact mistake Bush made in Iraq. They think their idea is great without thinking of the consequences of such a scenario. Yeah, Bush is a problem, but destabilizing our country through violent revolution would cause the development of problems much worse than our country faces today.

Jerzdevil

ryan198 wrote:

Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).

I agree that it sucks that America involves itself too much in other countries' business. The problem is in at least some of those cases, if we didn't get involved, the Soviets would have. That fact alone reduced some of those cases to having either a Soviet supported or American supported government in those countries. Unfortunately, our leaders didn't have the foresight at the time to realize this shit would come back and bite us in the ass in the future.

Bush won in the Electoral College in both elections, so yes, unfortunately (or fortunately, I don't think Gore or Kerry could have done much better) he did win. The Electoral College exists for a reason (although it does need reform).

ryan198

Jerzdevil wrote:

I agree that it sucks that America involves itself too much in other countries' business. The problem is in at least some of those cases, if we didn't get involved, the Soviets would have. That fact alone reduced some of those cases to having either a Soviet supported or American supported government in those countries. Unfortunately, our leaders didn't have the foresight at the time to realize this shit would come back and bite us in the ass in the future.

Bush won in the Electoral College in both elections, so yes, unfortunately (or fortunately, I don't think Gore or Kerry could have done much better) he did win. The Electoral College exists for a reason (although it does need reform).

The electoral college, and this is a true statement, was originially created to 'fix the errors of the citizens' and make sure the most worthy candidate was elected, and that happened how? Also Soviet intervention during the cold war has been grossly overstated, we always had more bombs/missles etc.

lucylespian

ryan198 wrote:

Also Soviet intervention during the cold war has been grossly overstated, we always had more bombs/missles etc.

Tell that to teh countries who suffered 50 yrs of Soviet occupation.

You are probably too young to remember that teh Berlin Wall ever even existed.

jsaso

i cant believe you guys are talking about this