Meatspace,

[Faustine]

Faustine wrote:

>
> >Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such.
>
> Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it
> actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame
> MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart
> (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't
> espouse violence continue to this day.
>
 >    What? You are really a bit ignorant -- there are plenty of SDS and
>Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail.


Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their organizations were 
torn apart by operations conducted against them, I'm sure I don't need to 
give you a lecture about all that. Maybe the Panther party is making a 
comeback, but you can't deny they're a long way from where they were before 
the intel community went to work on them. Look what's happening to the 
radical environmentalists today, they're up for exactly the same kind of 
treatment. You declare open war on the state, and the state is going to 
declare open war on YOU as "a threat to public safety."


> And while
> >Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for 
the
> >rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi).
>
> Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn.
>Ghandi was also pissed because the Brits had confiscated all the privately
>owned firearms, and spoke out against this -- and from the sounds of it, 
>would have advocated using those arm to fight the Brits.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's a side issue when youre talking about what made 
his tactics a success. 


> Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it.
>      Who do you think it was that kicked the Brits out of the most of
>Ireland, with a *lot* of violence? If it weren't for Irish picking up the 
>gun, the whole country would still be a Brit colony. And they will succeed 
>in driving the Brits out of the rest, and hopefully their progeny, the
>"Protestants" along with them.

Of course!! Proof that violence only works when it's more than symbolic. I 
should have been more clear about what I meant: if they really engaged in 
an all-out prolonged conflict (the way the original Irish Republican Army 
did)it would have been a totally different issue than a march here, a bomb 
there etc. The government never just "gives in" out of the goodness of its 
heart in recognition of superior "spirits" or something vague like that. 

And at the very least, you have to admit they aren't relying on bloc noirs, 
vinegar hankies and catapults.  


> Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and 
the
> vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above.
> The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to
> mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you
> want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story.
>    God, what bullshit. MLK preached civil disobedience, not just
>"nonviolence" -- if he were doing this in today's repressive political
>climate, he would be getting exactly the same treatment as the WTO 
>protesters.

But he wasn't an anarchist. My point is if you're out to overthrow the 
state (as opposed to fighting for your rights within the system like the 
causes above) you better have more than turtle suits and golf balls. 


>What stopped the war was explicity the growing violence (SDS's Bring the 
>War Home campaign) and the fact that returning combat vets were joining the
>protests in throngs, and new draftees were fragging and shooting their
>officers and NCOs in Nam. 

I still think it's too complex to boil it down to a single element like 
that. Have you heard the newest batch of Nixon tapes? The Kissinger 
transcripts from the National Archives? Worth a listen.


>What does Bobby Kennedy have to do with it? 

I can't believe you don't think he had an impact...


>He and his brother were just another couple of politrixians who got what 
they deserved.

How can you even talk about civil rights (or rights at all) when you think 
something like that.


> >The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun
> >'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing
> >that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the
>    The thing stopping them is knowing that they are vastly outnumbered,
> and if they escalate into using deadly force against the protesters, 
> there aremore than enough people who would come back with guns the next 
>day and wipe them out. 

Dream on. This isnt the 60's anymore...read about preparations for urban 
operations (keyword MOUT) and see what you're in for. It's a whole new ball 
game. 


>If Kent State had happened, for instance, at Berkley or Madison,
>there is no question of what would have happened next, and probably that 
>very same day.

But it didn't. These days, people get a little pepper spray in the face and 
the next thing you know they're on TV gasping and whining about those nasty 
old cops. What the hell did they expect? Some revolution, when they think 
it's worth crying around about the terrible injustice of getting non-
vegitarian baloney sandwiches in jail. Ten years from now, those weakminded 
fuckers are probably going to sell out just like their pothead stock-
options smug yuppie parents did.

Everybody pats themselves on the back about how great the 60s were, but 
things didn't fundamentally change all that much. If they were so 
successful, than why is the state more bloated, more repressive and more 
intrusive than ever?  We got out of Vietnam, but turned right around and 
sent the same special ops people into Central America and a hundred other 
places we don't even know much about. And so it goes. 

Committing violence in the US isn't the answer, working within the system 
to change it from the inside is. What came out of the Church Committee in 
terms of congressional oversight, the creation of the Freedom of 
Information Act, writing PGP and developing other privacy enhancing 
technologies--they all made a difference. Wouldn't you rather look back and 
know you spent your time on something real?


> Geez, just look at the what those Pakistani kids are doing to the cops
>in England. And they have no access to guns.

Not only is there a big difference between the US and the UK, there's a 
difference between local and federal approaches to handling conflict. And 
given the huge push toward federalizing law enforcement, there's nothing at 
all to rest easy about. 

~Faustine.