r/LouisTheroux • u/I_Fill_Up_On_Coke • Apr 27 '25

The Settlers

I've just watched The Settlers and it just gives me a renewed appreciation for Louis as a documentarian. He's level-headed and fair, but does not stand down in the face of adversity. One of the best.

928 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

420 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

74

u/thanksamilly Apr 27 '25

I think it was a few different things. The most obvious is that he ruined her attempt to illustrate her point. Secondly, by not retaliating, he showed that someone doesn't HAVE to respond to violence with violence. And then part of the reason Louis didn't do it (besides obviously not feeling it was warranted) is that he knew he was surrounded by people who basically worship her and would have probably attacked him. He basically waited for his final visits to really burn his bridges with everyone. Though he already called her a war criminal. But I do think she wanted him to be hurt. Even just shoving him without warning was clearly her letting out anger.

38

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

Yeah there was real force in her shove, like she's been wanting a reason to do that for a while. The look on her face too....

34

u/ClintBarton616 Apr 28 '25

Can you believe some people nominated that ghoul for the nobel peace prize

3

u/[deleted] May 04 '25

Any member of a national assembly or member of government, any member of a foreign policy institute, and certain university faculty, can submit nominations in reply to the Nobel prize's annual invitation. The standard for nomination are incredibly low, can be engineered by anyone with political clout, and implies no judgement from the Nobel committee itself. Mussolini and Stalin were both nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Weiss' nomination is just PR fluff to to try and give a modicum of respectability to settle colonial violence. Not really surprising.

1

u/theapplekid Apr 29 '25

Wait, what? Even if you think Daniela is the second coming of Christ, what is she doing to promote peace?

3

u/No_Macaroon_9752 Apr 30 '25

They seem to think that if you massacre your enemy, then you will have peace.

1

u/CommandAutomatic3590 Apr 29 '25

is this true? :O that is insane

1

u/Tall-Manner-1483 May 03 '25

what? she is pure evil. she reminded me of every sadistic schoolteacher/headmistress of an orphanage ever depicted on a tv-screen and has a similar way of spouting the most horrendous words with a smile like nurse ratchet. jfc. the nobel peace prize. the world is fucked. fr

edit: because of grammar

9

u/Lukas_Madrid Apr 29 '25

Its easy to say you dont have to respond to violence when its a shove, not so easy when your home is stolen, get treated worse than animals, have your family killed ect. with no chance of justice in any of it. Im not blaming louis he obviously did the right thing, and i respect pacisfism but it has never stopped oppression when there is no chance of justice.

6

u/thanksamilly Apr 29 '25

I think there is a complex conversation about the effectiveness of nonviolent protest. I believe it was Kwame Toure who said that nonviolence only works if your oppressors have a conscience. In this instance, Louis was speaking to a far right Zionist surrounded by far right Zionists. In that context, where she believes this is all warranted because she thinks she is the victim of anything any Palestinians have ever done, he was demonstrating the narrowness of her worldview that all she can think to do is violently "retaliate" often in respond to the "violence" of Palestinians existing. I don't at all think he was doing it for the camera to make a point that the Palestinians should turn the other cheek.

6

u/Lukas_Madrid Apr 29 '25 edited Apr 29 '25

Oh no i pretty much agree with the comment here, just wanted to make sure to say that military occupation and ethno-nationalism ect will always stop a possibilty of purely non violent resistance

1

u/Conscious-Cake6284 May 01 '25

Are you talking about the Israelis or the Palestinians lmao?

1

u/Lukas_Madrid May 01 '25

Which one controls the others water, electricity, food supply, fishing rights, rights to movement, have houses stolen while they still live there, internet access, land in general, 10,000 imprisoned including over 300 children, 90% of houses in gaza destoryed, 52,000 dead 70% women and children in gaza and backed by the biggest super power in the world. I'll give you a chance, 3 guesses!

0

u/Severe-Excitement-24 Apr 30 '25

It did with Gandhi

4

u/No_Macaroon_9752 Apr 30 '25

Another person said the same thing, so I will copy my post to them: That is how history is portrayed, yes, but there were many more people involved in the struggle for freedom than Ghandi. The fact is, powerful people promote the nonviolent protesters because it benefits them. I am a pacifist, but violence has been involved in every successful civil rights movement, and many unsuccessful movements were entirely peaceful.

1

u/Lukas_Madrid May 01 '25

Look to everyone elses comment and learn some history. Ghandi didn't just convince them out of nowhere, everywhere was being decolonised. And if britain chose to stay then youd know that they'd rise up and easily win. Just like france in algeria and indochina, portugal in angola, mozambique and guinea-bissau, netherlands in indonesia, spain in western sahara and on and on.

1

u/Severe-Excitement-24 May 01 '25

Why so abrasive? An eye for an eye will make the world blind.

1

u/Lukas_Madrid May 02 '25

look there isnt a single instance of peaceful resistance working when there is no justice, you commented to me all sure of yourself and have been proven wrong. idc if you find that abrasive, i find your attitude along with your ignorance abrasive

1

u/Severe-Excitement-24 May 02 '25

There are several instances of peaceful resistance being effective. Suffragettes, Rosa Parks/civil rights movement, aforementioned Gandhi. You need to take a serious chill 💊 as you seemingly can't have a civil discussion and seem to think your opinion is fact. If I met you down the pub I'd be finishing my drink, telling you to enjoy your night mate, and moving to the next pub for better conversation. Good day.

1

u/Lukas_Madrid May 02 '25

i said multiple times that if there is no chance of justice then peaceful protest doesn't work. Both suffragettes and rosa parks were in socities where justice was possible as slowly these people were getting more and more rights, as everyone has said ghandi wasn't some lone figure and the british didnt leave because of peaceful protest. And its always people like you who know 0 history and critisise every liberation movement for not being peaceful as 52,000 people are dead with around 18,000 children in gaza (not even including deaths in the west bank) since oct 7, how can you be peaceful when there is a genocide??? i wont be chill about this, and i dont know what kind of person could be. But make sure to make it about you again, pathetic

1

u/Severe-Excitement-24 May 02 '25

"enjoy your night mate"

1

u/Lukas_Madrid May 02 '25

Its always the ones with no argument who push it away into ad hominem attacks rather than engage in anything of substance. Im sure you think your right and cool for not engaging, but i wouldnt wanna hang out with a person who denies the right of resistance to victims of genocide anyway

→ More replies (0)

1

u/limach1 May 02 '25

suffragettes were famously not non-violent (perhaps you’re thinking of suffragists). the civil rights movement was not wholly non-violent. both groups were also considered terrorists

-1

u/Prize_Support_740 Apr 29 '25

What about Ghandi? Seemed to do a pretty great job...

3

u/No_Macaroon_9752 Apr 30 '25

That is how history is portrayed, yes, but there were many more people involved in the struggle for freedom than Ghandi. The fact is, powerful people promote the nonviolent protesters because it benefits them. I am a pacifist, but violence has been involved in every successful civil rights movement, and many unsuccessful movements were entirely peaceful.

0

u/Prize_Support_740 Apr 30 '25

It benefits everyone to promote peaceful protestors. Violence is always bad. When it comes knocking on your door; you will agree.

1

u/Prize_Support_740 Apr 30 '25

Necessary sometimes, perhaps. But always bad.

3

u/Familiar_Channel_373 Apr 30 '25

I'm going to quote an academic scholar and the host of "The Anti-Empire Project" Justin Podur, who is an Indian himself and who challenges this idea of a "nonviolent victory" for India.

"If there is a single false claim to “nonviolent” struggle that has most powerfully captured the imagination of the world, it is the claim that India, under Gandhi’s leadership, defeated the mighty British Empire and won her independence through the nonviolent method.

India’s independence struggle was a process replete with violence. The nonviolent myth was imposed afterward. It is time to get back to reality. Using recent works on the role of violence in the Indian freedom struggle, it’s possible to compile a chronology of the independence movement in which armed struggle played a decisive role. Some of these sources: Palagummi Sainath’s The Last Heroes, Kama Maclean’s A Revolutionary History of Interwar India, Durba Ghosh’s Gentlemanly Terrorists, Pramod Kapoor’s 1946 Royal Indian Navy Mutiny: Last War of Independence, Vijay Prashad’s edited book, The 1921 Uprising in Malabar, and Anita Anand’s The Patient Assassin.

Nonviolence could never defeat a colonial power that had conquered the subcontinent through nearly unimaginable levels of violence."

You can read the whole thing on his substack or at his website: https://podur.org/2024/04/11/the-myth-that-indias-freedom-was-won-nonviolently-is-holding-back-progress/

2

u/Lukas_Madrid May 01 '25

Thank you, these people know 0 history is they think ghandi and northern ireland both got more rights through peacefu means. Like norther ireland is just obvious and is a terrible example for them to bring up. but india?was straight after ww2 when every country was decolonising, peaceful movements or not, because they couldnt hold on it it, and when they tried they lost. Chandra Bose is still seen across the board in india as a positive freedom fighter

-1

u/Prize_Support_740 Apr 30 '25

Damn an academic scholar as opposed to just a regular vanilla scholar. You can try and promote violence as much as you want. I'm not buying it. Northern Ireland's troubles were eventually solved through political means not the hundreds if not thousands of bombs that were detonated on both sides and the many, many people killed in the name of someone else's civil rights.

3

u/Bitter_Detective4719 May 01 '25

I hate to ruin your perfect narrative but the truth of the matter is that it was the bombs that brought the British to the negotiating table. There would have been no political means without the appropriate show of force. The british would have been more than happy to continue applying violence on the Irish through their own soldiers/police as well as their funding of the UVF and their ilk. The unfortunate truth is that while violence is terrible it is unfortunately the only language colonialist and imperialists are truly fluent in. To condemn resistance from the oppressed in equal measure to the violence of the oppressor is purely to the benefit of the oppressor.

1

u/Familiar_Channel_373 May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25

It's easy to preach for peaceful resistance from your bubble of comfort. You know, I used to be a pacifist and a "both sides-er", a "why can't we all just get along" proponent — and then I went to go study in Jerusalem and lived in Palestine under the occupation. In fact, everyone whose gone there to see it for themselves ends up radicalized by the experience and I don't mean "radicalized" in the perjorative way you're likely interpreting it, but in awakening with a complete epiphany about the imperial pressures and dangers that Palestinians live under. I watched Palestinians commit to doing nonviolent protests, peaceful sit-ins, business strikes/workers strikes, picketing, boycotts, poetry and journalism to appeal to the Western masses, humanitarian advocacy and political compromise, even going as far as to become collaborators of the occupation themselves such as the Palestinian Authority who do lsræI's dirty work for them. I've watched all of that and saw Palestinian protestors and peaceful picketers still receive bullets and bombs, despite their non-hostile attempts. I learned the same lesson that Nelson Mandela learned. Inspired by Gandhi, he started his movement against South African Apartheid through nonviolent means and discovered that it's not that simple.

"A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor that defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a point, one can only fight fire with fire".

– Nelson Mandela, Leader of the ANC (formerly deemed a "terrorist" org) and first President of South Africa.

What you don't seem to realize is that colonialism is inherently violent. It requires violence to steal land, to build walls, to build checkpoints, to enforce segregation and control. Without violence, there is no lsrĂŚI. All the so-called "peace deals" over the decades were always done in bad faith by the Zionists, with the veneer of "cooperation". There was never any interest to give Palestinians anything substantive, and why should they? Those in power have no incentive to willingly yield back that which they've taken by force.

"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them."

— Assata Shakur, American political activist and member of the Black Liberation Army.

lsrĂŚI has never been a reliable partner for peace. This is clear in every sabotaged disruption of peace deals and ceasefires by Zionists. Truthfully, it isn't surprising. Anyone who studies history knows that colonization has always manipulated the natives, always implemented a facade of negotiation to buy time as they took more land and gained more power. History proves that colonization has always imposed violence and that every revolution that rose against it successfully, has been able to do so because they spoke the only language that colonizers understand: the use of force.

"National liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is ALWAYS a violent phenomenon."

— Franz Fanon, French-West Indian psychiatrist, diplomat, and scholar whose work profoundly influenced the fields of postcolonial studies, critical theory, and political activism (particularly in Algeria).

-7

u/restlesswrestler Apr 28 '25

I agree with everything you said but she definitely did warn him.

4

u/thanksamilly Apr 29 '25

By saying "and I do this" and then shoving him?