Q. How many liberals does it take to ward off a potential attacker in a dark alley? A. Ten
One to blame Fox News; one to chant or meditate; one to blame the anarchists; one to build a website; one to blame patriarchy; one to recognize the attacker is a human and tell him that we all love him; one to blame Ralph Nader; one to remember that excellent saying about non-violence we got from our Pilates teacher; one to blame the Republicans; and finally: One to draw his attention downward and promptly whip out a finger jab to his eyes. When he brings his hands up (too late) to protect himself, kick him in his balls, doubling him over. Then follow-up by grabbing him by the hair and bringing his face down into a powerful knee blow before getting the fuck out of there as fast as you can.
Moral: We don't need more conferences, subcommittees, elections, etc. We need bold steps and drastic measures.
Derrick Jensen sez: "One of the good things about everything being so fucked up—about the culture being so ubiquitously destructive—is that no matter where you look—no matter what your gifts, no matter where your heart lies—there's good and desperately important work to be done."
If you don't like what's going on, do something serious about it. Those who profit most from this corrupt and inhuman system are standing on our shoulders. If we squirm and shrug and flail our arms, it could get mighty wobbly up there. But make no mistake about it, the system as it stands must change or be brought down...and that will require an incredible commitment on our part. More than most of us have been willing to do so far.
As you prepare for your fifth (sic) anniversary protests, remember this: This "war" didn't begin in 2003. It began when the US told the Security Council to impose sanctions against Iraq on Aug. 6, 1990, 4 days after Iraq invaded Kuwait—and has continued unabated since...thanks to Bush and Clinton. So, if we want to be part of a movement with the potential to provoke social change, we must remember that "anti-war" doesn't just mean "anti-this-war" or "anti-Republican."
Che Guevara sez: "Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." If Che was right, comrades: It's time to start showing the world some radical love.
When asked why he performed at a concert just two days after an attempt was made on his life, Bob Marley explained: "The bad people trying to make the world worse never take a day off, so why should I?"
This kind of focus and persistence and perception is what we desperately need. If you choose this path, you may find yourself called a "radical"—as if it were an insult. I say: Wear that label with pride. The Latin origin of "radical" is the same as the word "root." A radical is one who gets to the root of things.
Plus, as MLK sez: "When you're right, you can never be too radical."
read or heard of the book “How Nonviolence Protects the State”? It was written by Peter Gelderloos.
I don’t believe it goes further than your article implies. If it does, I apologize.
I posted this very comment to an article entitled “Failed Fascist States”. Your article implies, as does “Failed Fascist States”, that pretense begets pretense and time has well passed pretense.
So, one more time with feeling:
Even though Obama’s new in Washington, he’s an insider. Otherwise, he would have missed the cut by now. The lamestream media would have marginalized him as they marginalized Kucinich and Paul and will marginalize any candidate that they think will make the government and, thus, the nation, look different than it’s looked for that past twenty, thirty or forty years. There can not exist the smallest dollop of a doubt that McCain and Clinton are insiders.
These are mannequins. They don’t live in the world which they promise to fix. They hear the words, “outsourcing”, “uninsured”, “working poor”, “corporate greed”, “the shrinking of the middle class”, “the price of fuel”, “renewable alternative energy”, “global warming” among others and they even use these words while collecting an obscene amount of money for the right to speak those words into a TV camera.
They can learn the words and then speak them just as dogs can learn to “speak”. But, just as with a dog’s bark, the noise that emits from the mouths of these plasticized people sounds the same, no matter what words they speak.
Politics is a game played by very wealthy people whose lives don’t depend on whether they win or lose their elections. Consequently, and this was proven by the pablum which was John Kerry’s 2004 concession speech, they don’t really care if they’re chosen to fill the meaningless vacuum which is euphemistically called President of the Untied States of America. The president’s responsibility is no longer to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. In 2008, the president’s responsibility is to preserve, protect and defend their corporate donors and to honor and obey the demands of those donors.
These people come from the ranks of very wealthy people who spend their lives playing politics and in whose hands any beneficial modification of this methodology lies. No barrage of phone calls we make, emails we type or letters we write on paper with pen will negate the rote think by which this group of aristocrats maintains the life style to which it’s become accustomed.
Micky, you call out the reality it will take to create the reality needed to morph theater and exclusionism into a genuine, legitimate democratic republic.
Thanks for attempting to pry open the otherwise hermitically sealed American eye.
Michael Bonanno
by
Michael Bonanno (85 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 9:17:46 PM
...without saying anything "illegal." We could go a skeense further by saying that if we subjected the perps to their own "home-grown terrorism" laws, we'd get to the bottom of all this right quick!
by
waldopaper (11 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 426 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 9:28:52 PM
Yes we must fight back. No we must not be cowed. And yet, we must do it in a way which is humane and appropriate.
Activists have the reputation of being too "out there". Why tag that image to not just activists, but to liberals specifically, as in this article?
No thanks dear author. That was a jab, in inappropriate and ill-informed one.
Let's not forget that this country was founded on liberal philosophy. Why jab at it now? Why contribute to the reputation of liberals as violent kooks? Again I have no objection to the message that we must stand up for ourselves and our principles. But the way in which this article proposes it, and the negative fall-out from that, is distasteful to me and seems rather pointed in its aim. Thanks a lot (NOT!)
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM
Undercover agents working for the government are inclined to stir people up to agitation, in order to create trouble and turn them in. No I am not being paranoid: In fact, someone who used to be a government undercover agent confirmed for me that this is routine government practice.
Mickey, will you please tell us why you would choose to devote the subject of your article to gouging peoples' eyeballs, kicking them in the head in a dark alley, etc...by way of "rethinking rebellion" ?
Mickey, are you wanting to "Study" the "homegrown terrorism" here on this forum and "make recommendations" to the government based on those "Studies" ?
Why on earth would you choose to promote violence...and specifically tag that on to LIBERALS? Isn't that an act of discrimination on your part? Isn't that a rather pointed jab? Sorta like the way Jews were tagged in Nazi Germany. Okay that's an exaggerated example, but it's still the same mentality at work.
How many liberals do you really believe, Mickey Z, are actually likely to "fall for" your suggestion that we get physically violent in self-defense, by way of "rethinking rebellion" and "you can never be too radical"?
Mickey, I believe your motives here are very clearly confessed.
I believe you have openly stated, not in direct words, that you work for the Department of HOmeland Security or the CIA and are planted as a spy.
No I am not paranoid. I am realistic. After all, it is left-wing activists who are being targeted by the FBI in post-911 America, and the ACLU's website is full of such statistics. See below.
And after all, the Violent Radicalization/Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act sends out infiltrators to "Study"----better known as "spying on"----supposed "homegrown terrorists" ----like people who uphold the US Constitution.
I suggest that readers keep their eyes open and be watchful of infiltrators on this forum. After all it is the second most-read on the Web, and therefore is bound to attract such kooks who frankly themselves belong in jail.
Got it, Mickey? We know you for who you are. We are not stupid. How dare you! The lack of ethic, horrors, shivers! Ugh! How could you do it??
"Since when did feeding the homeless become a terrorist activity?" asked ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "When the FBI and local law enforcement target groups like Food Not Bombs under the guise of fighting terrorism, many Americans who oppose government policies will be discouraged from speaking out and exercising their rights."
www.aclu.org/spyfiles/index_old.html the ACLU's summary of who is being spied on (which cultural cross-sectors, such as environmental groups, religious and peace groups, etc)
an actual FBI document showing the FBI investigation of the Thomas Merton Peace Center, because of being "a left-wing organization.....advocating, among other political positions, pacifism". Seeing is believing: Check out this document for yourself!
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM
a reader wrote me, concerned re this article. I reply
a reader sent me this email:
I have a few concerns.
And since you, Bill, have been an undercover agent for the government previously, I wanted to cc this correspondence to you and ask for your experienced input.
Here is my concern/question:
~Why does the author suggest that liberals specifically should resort to violence in order to protect ourselves? Why does he suggest that instead of legal actions, we need "bold steps and drastic measures"? Yes of course those are called for at this point in time and no we must not be cowed. But in what form do those "drastic measures" take? Gouging peoples' eyeballs and kicking them in the face in a dark alley, as he suggests? And as he says LIBERALS do?
~Is this guy here to "Study" the responses to such "homegrown terrorism" and to target individuals based on those responses, making "recommendations" to the government? ~Is he trying to stir up "violently radicalized ideologies" to get people in trouble with the government?
I just can't fathom why anybody would suggest that any one social cross-sector, in this case aimed specifically at liberals, should resort to violence and to condone such matters as "rethinking rebellion".
WHAT IS THE MOTIVE HERE? IS THIS GUY TO BE TRUSTED OR IS HE ON A MASQUERADE? IS HE TRYING TO STIR UP TROUBLE? I have to wonder.
Bill, what do you think, given your background?
Rob, may I respectfully point out that activists, as you know, have the bad reputation of being insolent, rude and sometimes violent. Or at least, "out there" in some way. I suggest the last thing that we need is to promote such an image even further, especially by headlining such an article. I shouldn't tell you what to do with your forum---sorry Rob---but as it struck me as rather distasteful I really did at least want to point it out. What you do from then is up to you. Just a mention, out of concern for the whole.
First of all, Kathryn, this country was not founded by liberals. It was founded by REVOLUTIONARIES who carried out AN ARMED REBELLION against George III.
Second Ms. Smith, if the government should ever refuse to abide by the results of a majority vote that elects people who really intend to change this social system and removE the wealthy who are living off the labor of the rest of us from their privileged position, it will not be the people who fight the government's refusal to abide by the results of a majority vote who will be trying to violently overthrow the government but those governmental and military officials who will be refusing to recognize the results of a democratic election. The same reasoning also will apply if Bush-Cheney and the neo cons carry out another false flag attack and use it to cancel the elections and declare martial law. And by the way, the Supreme Injustices have already carried out the equivalent of a military coup by five generals when they ordered us to stop counting the ballots from the 2000 elections and appointed Bush President. This meant that George II had no more democratic legitimacy than George III. And of course, the 2004 elections were also stolen through hacking the computers that we used to record the votes. In situations like these it is not only the RIGHT of citizens to fight those who are attempting to overthrow the government; it is their DUTY.
Incidentally, revolutionary socialist organizations have used this formulation for at least sixty years without being banned by the government. When such cases came before the courts, the courts have ruled that the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech allows people to discuss the general necessity to overthrow the government as long as they do not urge an immediate armed uprising against the government. Hopefully, by the time that sittuation arises, too many people will have realized and become educated about the need to fight, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, an attempt to abrogate the results of a majority vote or to overthrow the government by something like a military coup.
Rob Kall has stated several times on OpEdNews that he does not censor any views and he could have mentioned that in his answer to you. But your advocacy of censorship and baiting Mickey Z with accusations of being a government agent is appalling. Incidentally, EVEN IF your position on nonviolence WERE right, Mickey Z and I could merely be wrong and not paid government agents. Of course we are not wrong and you need to be careful about calling people government agents unless you can prove it in court. Mickey Z could sue you for what you have already said. And by cavalierly calling people government agents, you are performing the roll of a policeperson in the left, quashing any person or group on the left who threatens to gets out of bounds and really become dangerous to the ruling class. If course I am NOT alleging that you are being paid by the government to perform this role; you could be sincerely convinced in your ineffectual, gutless liberalism!
And finally, while someone has the right to be a pacifist when their well being is on the line, it is immoral if you have the opportunity to fight off someone who is attacking someone else and you don't come to their aid by using whatever means are necessary. By the way, ten liberals can not foil an attacker; even an infinite number would not be suffcient. Because when the liberal uses whatever means are necessary to fight off an attacker, he or she is no longer a liberal.
I agree with Rob -- except that violence is really not a joking matter.
We do need to get and stay tough by never letting the the opposition frame the debate. We must continue to state the truth no matter how much they try to lie or deflect from the crux of an issue.
The FISA bill, attorney general firing scandal, 911 Investigation, torture and the "success" of the surge are examples of stories where the truth is being distorted by the doublespeak of BushCo and his minions.
Rather than giving them violence as another distraction, lets keep focusing on reality and truth. Don't let them change the subject.
The American people (thanks to sites like this, Air America Radio and shows like Countdown) are beginning to see the light.
by
Rainbow Law (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 42 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM
First of all, please know that we are on the same page. America needs to be protected. By all means necessary. And yes, I have talked often with my husband, for years actually, stating that I can see a revolution coming, at the rate things are going.
But that does not mean that we should advocate violence as a way of life for activists, and specifically for liberals by way of branding us all as a group.
Do I easily or lightly accuse people, in public? Never. I take such matters very seriously, and don't eagerly defame someone's name, as I find that appalling.
So why did I accuse Mickey Z?
Because there ARE government agents "Studying" "terrorist" (activist) thought models, and because they DO work by stirring up trouble, lighting a fire underneath the people they are targeting even while posing as one amongst them.
Was my conclusion premature? I still am not convinced that it was. It seemed very clear to me when reading the article.
But for the event that I misunderstood the intention, I do want to say that I owe you, Mickey, a public apology.
Would I back down in defending the rights and well-being of the Liberal----or for that matter any reasonable and right------cross-sector? No way. Will I back down in defending the American cause? Absolutely not. To call that "censorship" "Gutless" and "appalling" Is way off the mark. I don't even take that in, because I know much better.
I do want to say that activists in general are dubbed as "out there" and sometimes even violent, wrongly so in most cases. To joke about it, Rob, I suggest is adding to the fires of branding us all, wrongfully. I am sure it was an oversight: Your work is too good to think otherwise, Rob.
Again if my conclusion was wrong based on misunderstanding the intention of the article, I do apologize to Mickey. Publicly.
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM
Mickey Z made a legitimate argument. How long are people going to cower in fear? Fear of the Homegrown Terrorist Act, this and that. Let us challenge these people that implement these laws against free expression. You people are "Censoring" yourselves. Even if Micky Z. was an anti-terrorist agent, so what? You can't write how you feel for fear of persecution from this government? How sad these comments are. This is one reason it takes 1000 Progressives to do the work of 100 neo-cons.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM
There has been a violent revolution underway in this country since 1968. Its aim has been to undermine and destroy constitutional government in the United States, and it has been fought on the battlefield of the enemy's choice, using the weapons that they find to be most effective against us.
The enemy is the Republican Party, with transnational corporations as their allies. The battlefield and the weapons that they choose to deploy are economic.
It is a mistake to think that because we haven't heard an explosion or the report of massed rifle fire that there is no threat. Their weapons, when used to ill effect, are as destructive as a nuclear weapon, but with a much greater scope. The fact that the victims are not recorded as shadows on a sidewalk does not leave them any more alive. The abandoned streets of formerly vibrant downtown areas are not better off for not having been razed by a radioactive blast.
Indeed, the value of these weapons is in doing their destructive work slowly, much slower than normal perception, so that we only appreciate the effect in its aftermath.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 1158 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM
Please do not lump the Republican Party into one boat as it is only elements of the Republican Party that has sold us out just as elements of the Democratic party has as well. In order to make this country work we will need everybody to change the evil that has infested our lives.
by
Michael Morris (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 299 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 6:00:23 PM
Democratic corporatists, by and large have been destructive as well, as Clinton was with his deregulation, NAFTA, and welfare reform, and there was a small amount of deregulation under Carter, primarily in the transportation sector.
It has been a primary agenda item of Republican governance, however, from Nixon floating the dollar, to Reagan's union busting and stagflation, Bush Sr.'s oil war and Dubya's mindless destruction of everything before him.
Perhaps I was remiss in not noting the Democratic allies with the prominence they deserve, but Republicans have clearly taken the lead.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 1158 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 11:21:48 PM
In the dictionary, the first definition of radical is "of or going to the root or origin; the fundamentals."
The trouble is, arrogantly proud and militant right-wing Christians, Muslims and Jews, who claim to know the fundamentals of their religion, do not.
So, in that sense, we do indeed need a radical approach to solving our problems.
We need a radical approach with regard to government, which in America means we need to return to the root intent of the founding fathers, and then update and expand on that.
We also need a radical approach with regard to religion, and that means we must realize true divine intent. And I know of no author who addresses that so thoroughly as the author of this web site:
I do believe, I do believe, I do believe there are "monitors on the web". I have been filtered by them. Many, like I, have been repressed or our emails have been blocked, filtered or changed and sent through a separate ISP "ware".
Don't think for a minute that we haven't been wire-tapped in the cyber world sense. My ISP warned me that "everything online is public and permanent". Literally, it splashed on my screen during the sending of a post. They reject my posts on my AOL sites many times. I question it not, as I know that what I say is against corpstream media. As far as ppl poising as this or that, but being agents, that is happening as well. Air Marshalls on planes, hellooowweee. Heard of InfraGuard?
It's a new world with order of an unconstitutional kind. I was wondering if the article was sort of satire; however, it's the desperation to restore the rule of law coming through.
I would very much love it if 30 million ppl marched upon Washington hill, doing the "walk" as in Nixonian times, and order a resignation of the King--President-- and all his men, and Lady Rice. 30 million ppl doing "the walk". Whatcha think?
Dialogue is all the author intended, right? We all know violence wasn't what accomplished the MLK rights movement. It's violence that SHUT HIM DOWN. Americans don't need to resort to violence to accomplish their goals. We can outwit any Government officials with 300 million brains. We just need to INFORM more brains.
I really think flit will hit the shan when Scott McClellan's book FINALLY gets released in April. Notice the dragging on that release. Stay tuned in on that...
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 309 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 1:10:04 PM
To those who learn of the occurrence of a great uprising and, out of doubt, do not come running, or come late and the riches of the wealthy have all been burned to ashes... do not in any way bear a grudge against us afterwards and whisper that we are bandits who destroy such stores; for we have given notice to all in order to prevent this... This can only be thought of as an act of deep consideration which has the intent of saving the people from great suffering.
-Oshio Heihachiro, "A Call to Arms."
With the emergence of a new coalition of protests surrounding issues of globalisation, technologism and capitalism there has been much hand-wringing, assertions and manifestos - or codes of conduct - regarding the role of violence in social protest. These incessant commentaries issue from a multiplicity of political perspectives - from self-denigrating 'anarchist' thugs who are essentially violent according to the vernacular of the day, to strategists who believe that progress cannot be made unless all actions are non-violent in order to somehow penetrate the consciousness of the middle class, elites and passives not participating in the 'movement,' and apologists for the system who throw their hands in the air and back away at the mere mention of a destructive act. But is violence the pariah it is made out to be? Is it always an imperative to undertake non-violent actions regardless of changing contexts?
First, let us dispense with those who apologise for the system. They sit quietly on the sidelines believing that they have nothing to do with violence. But let us remember, as a most obvious example, that we have now endured Reaganomics and its bastard brethren for over 20 years. In that time we have endured an incessant protest from the media and middle-class for tax cuts and the rollback and elimination of social services.
The second group of people to dispense with are those that use violence as a means to denigrate any message that 'serious' protesters may attempt to transmit. Selecting but one of many editorial comments on protest violence from the Vancouver Sun, [in this case, regarding Genoa, July 22], they assert, "[a]ll serious protesters lost, because the messages they're trying to convey were drowned out by violence propagated by a minority."
<snip>
Firstly, that property rights and their enforcement are a violent repressive regime, and he exposes attempts at alignment with this system as absurd. As Malcolm X states, "[s]o all we say is this: We feel we've waited long enough. And we feel that all this [non-violence] hasn't gotten any meaningful results," thus leading to his often (mis)quoted concept of 'by any means necessary.' There is to be no respect accorded to a violent system, and we are too quick to apologise for that which the dominant culture finds offensive.
Since these forces are not our allies/friends, then there is no need to accept violence passively; one should respond in kind. It is Stokely Carmichael who warned, "this is not 1942. And if you play like Nazis, we're playing back with you this time around. Get hip to that." Just as Fiona Flanagan, in the July 30 Vancouver Sun utilises Webster's to assert that democracy is the "will of the majority," the dictionary also defines Fascism as "encouraging militarism and nationalism, organising the country along hierarchical authoritarian lines." The system, its discourses and the actions that perpetuate it, are violent, and if in taking back or confronting issues of that system one encounters physical violence then it is reasonable to respond in kind.
Some will say that this 'stoops' to the level of the brutish militaristic forces. However, whilst our erstwhile friends remain above these tactics - where, in a tree?, there must be reliance on rational conversion of the other. This vestigial remnant of Christianity turns protesters into propagandist missionaries. This non-functional residue asserts its own kind of violence in discourse and one may convert some but will, according to historian David Noble, "exaggerate possibilities, and underestimate the realities of social power that continue to shape the...future."
"Whether evil masquerades as good in the public eye, or whether evil is cowardly and sneaky in its murderous ways, it has been and still is very powerful in its ability to kill and destroy those who would deny it power to rule over the people. That’s the main problem in the world today." – Joseph J. Adamson
However, Adamson emphasizes that words of truth and non-violent demonstrations are the only thing that will turn things around so we may progress forward.
Adamson agrees with the quotes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
