You are herecontent / Don't You Know That You Can Count Me Out - In

Don't You Know That You Can Count Me Out - In


By David Swanson

Ted Rall's new book "The Anti-American Manifesto" advocates for violent revolution, even if we have to join with rightwingers and racists to do it, and even if we have no control over the outcome which could easily be something worse than what we've got. We have a moral duty, Rall argues, to kill some people.

Now, I much prefer a debate over what radical steps to take to a debate over whether it's really appropriate for President Obama to whine about people's lack of enthusiasm for voting. Should we try to pep people up for him or gently nudge him to appoint a new chief of staff who's not a vicious warmongering corporatist? Decisions. Decisions.

Rall's book is packed with great analysis of our current state and appropriate moral outrage. I highly recommend it for the clear-eyed survey of the tides in this giant pot of slowly boiling water where we float and kick about like frogs. To an Obama proposal to create 17,000 jobs, Rall replies:

"The U.S. economy needs to add one hundred thousand new jobs a month to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate even. At this writing, in March 2010, it would require four hundred thousand new jobs each month for three years to get back to December 2007.

"Seventeen thousand jobs? Was Obama still using drugs?"

I recommend Rall's manifesto as a call to action. The only question is what action?

There, the book is much weaker. As people come to terms with the need for radical action, we need to provide them with a serious debate of the alternatives. Many will drift inevitably toward violence, unaware of any choice. To not present the alternatives, whether to argue for or against them, is less than helpful.

According to Rall, "no meaningful political change has ever taken place without violence or the credible threat of violence." And, "without violence, the powerful will never stop exploiting the weak." From these statements, scattered throughout the manifesto, one would have no idea that anyone else believed there was a third choice beyond violence or doing nothing. There is no indication here of the role of nonviolence in evicting the British from India or overthrowing the ruler of El Salvador in 1944, or even in ending Jim Crow in the United States and Apartheid in South Africa, in the popular removal of the ruler of the Philippines in 1986, in the largely nonviolent Iranian Revolution of 1979, in the dismantling of the Soviet Union in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, in the resistance to a stolen election in the Ukraine in 2004-2005, and in hundreds of other examples from around the world.

Now, Rall could try to argue that many such movements have violent as well as nonviolent components. He could claim that nonviolent activism can constitute a threat of violence. That is, even though the actors themselves may prove their willingness to die rather than use violence, the understanding of those in power as well as of activists like Rall who think only in terms of violence could be that violence is being threatened. But Rall attempts no such arguments, so we don't really know what he would say.

Rall does make the following claim about U.S. political struggles: "[P]acifism has been the state religion of the official Left since the end of the Vietnam War. Can it be a coincidence that progressives cannot point to a single significant political victory since the early 1970s?" It could be a coincidence, yes, or it could be that what we have lacked since the early 1970s has been serious resistance to power -- which does not answer the question of which would have been more effective and which still could be, violent or nonviolent resistance.

The two points I found most persuasive in Rall's case for violence were points he may not have intended as planks in that argument, an argument that -- again -- he does not so much make as assume. The first point is that, even as people are refraining from killing CEOs and politicians, they are not refraining from killing. In increasing numbers, they are killing themselves. They are losing their homes, their healthcare, their savings. They are being forced into debt-slavery, humiliating misery, and hopelessness, and -- for lack of any other approach -- are killing themselves. It's not clear that assassinating the powerful wouldn't make things even worse, but it is worth noting that people are killing the innocent and not the guilty.

The second point is that people are not just killing themselves. They are killing random innocents as well, former coworkers, family members, and strangers. We are perfectly capable of ending such violence. Redirecting it is not our only available option. But in contemplating violence, we are not starting from a nonviolent state.

And, of course, the impoverishment of millions of people has resulted in a shortened life expectancy in the wealthiest place on earth, a place where some are able to indulge in the greatest and most wasteful luxury ever seen. But Rall makes no argument for his root assumption that our choices are to kill people or "sit on our asses." Rall wants jobs created at a rate that approaches the actual need. He wants corporations nationalized and brought under control. He wants an end to eight-figure bonuses on Wall Street. His solution is "a hundred thousand angry New Yorkers armed with bricks (or guns)."

Now, I'm not suggesting you have to know something will go perfectly before you try it, but shouldn't you try the approach most likely to work the best? And shouldn't we know what has and has not worked before? Rall claims that the 1999 Battle of Seattle slowed corporate globalization because a few people broke a few windows. Yet, many people who were there and engaged in that struggle point to the nonviolent blocking of the streets that prevented the conference from being held, and the moral force of the broad coalition that took over the city and won allies even within the halls of corporate power. This was done despite, not because of, a few jerks smashing windows.

I share with Rall his concern that people think they have no choices and his conviction that something must be done. If it were impossible to organize committed, independent, uncorrupted nonviolent resistance with the dedication necessary to succeed, if violence were our only option, we'd certainly have to look into it. But I suspect organized violence would be even harder to bring forth than organized nonviolence. Rall attempts no argument to the contrary. He predicts a hellish nightmare with or without his violent revolution. I predict peace, sustainability, and justice if we nonviolently resist. A deeper debate is needed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Anything we do must be peaceful.

What's silly in this country is watching multiple, small, ineffective protest groups who all oppose the same corrupt concentrations of corporate and military power all refuse to talk to each other. And actually each seems to spend more time trying to smear each other than in finding common ground. You can see this above in the vague smears towards 'right-wingers'.

In a winner-take-all election, the last election was absurd. The opposition in this country all ran five separate campaigns. Paul, Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, Barr. All the candidates seem to agree on some very broad principles. That money has too much power in our elections and our government. That the wars abroad are wrong. That constitutional rights must be restored and respected.

As a political agenda, that's plenty to do in a two year term between elections. And those are all things that all these separate groups would largely agree about.

But, instead of one unified opposition movement that might actually have the power to build some real support, we got five separate and ridiculously ineffectual campaigns none of which could make much of an impact.

And, since the right was a bit more unified that the left, it was the Paul campaign from the right that had the biggest impact.

Finding allies on the right is a very good idea. We have a great deal of common ground. All we have to do is to agree to put aside the things we don't agree on. We agree to say that if we take power, we spend two years fixing our elections and restoring our constitution. We agree to spend two years going after the people who've done criminal acts while in power. We agree to spend two years restoring constitutional rights in this country. That's plenty to do in a two year term.

And we agree to not touch the places like health care where we don't agree. Those issues we put off until we have free and fair elections and a non-corrupt government. We can't do anything about health care until we do that anyways. So, why not agree to politely disagree until we fix these more fundamental problems? Then we can have a free and fair debate and vote on these other issues.

On violence, I believe we have to be fundamentally non-violent. For very practical reasons. We live in the most intense surveillance state in history. Worse than the Soviet Union. Which means, whatever we do and say, we have to be proud of it and stand behind it. If we act politically. If we act non-violently, then we can operate in such a world. If we try to act violently, odds are the watchers will know about it anyways. Heck, most of the time it seems as if the person planning the violent acts are an FBI agent to start with.

And, the days when a bunch of farmers could go and grab their muskets and fight the King's men who have their own muskets are long gone. In any violent confrontation, we'd be seriously out-gunned. Swat teams with automatic weapons. Most police forces seem to have armored cars or the like. Certainly helicopters. A governor could call out the national guard, so now you are fighting fully armed military units. In today's American, the regular army would quickly be on the streets gunning us down.

Philosophically, I'm non-violent. But beyond philosophy, any sort of violent resistence is futile. They'll likely know about it before it happens and they have the firepower to crush anything we do.

We'd have to have a mass mob of millions to overpower them. But, if we can build that sort of popular support, then why not just go win an election? If you believe in a free country after whatever change that occurs, then you'd better be willing to do the education work required to convince a majority to support this. And if you are going to do that work, well, that majority can take power peacefully.

Ghandi and King showed us the way. To me it seems the right way to go. And it also looks like the only practical approach.

Any time of change is chaotic. Any revolution is chaotic.

The people at the start of the revolution can never control its course or its outcome. It doesn't seem to happen that way. Instead, when the old forms are removed or weakened, that opens the door to all sorts of outcomes. Very few revolutions seem to end up with what they wanted to begin with. The French revolution and drive for freedom and liberty ended up with Napolean as Dictator/Emperor of France.

This is why, in the memorable phrase of the Declaration of Independence, people are often adverse to changing the forms which are familiar to them.

To me the key is this. Change builds upon itself. The outcome that is reached comes not from plans of the people who began the revolution, but from the way the revolution was conducted. To me, if you want a peaceful and just world, then you can only get there by a peaceful and just movement for change. You can not create a peaceful world through violence.

This is the myth of the militarists. They always claim that their exhibitions of violence will lead to a peaceful world. But it doesn't work that way. Violence leads to more violence. Michael Franti's famous line applies. You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace.

The same applies to us. We can't bomb the world to peace either. We can't violently force the world to peace. The only way to achieve peace is to act peacefully.

We won't know what the end result of any change will be before we start. We really only have two choices. We can accept the world as it is today, and the course its on that seems to make things worse and worse for most of us. Or we can try to change it. If we try to change it, we can't guarantee the outcome. But we can acknowledge that our actions in how we try to change it will effect the outcome. If we want peace, we have to act peacefully. If we want justice, then we have to be just.

I agree.

According to Rall, "no meaningful political change has ever taken place without violence or the credible threat of violence." And, "without violence, the powerful will never stop exploiting the weak." From these statements, scattered throughout the manifesto, one would have no idea that anyone else believed there was a third choice beyond violence or doing nothing. There is no indication here of the role of nonviolence in evicting the British from India or overthrowing the ruler of El Salvador in 1944, or even in ending Jim Crow in the United States and Apartheid in South Africa, in the popular removal of the ruler of the Philippines in 1986, in the largely nonviolent Iranian Revolution of 1979, in the dismantling of the Soviet Union in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, in the resistance to a stolen election in the Ukraine in 2004-2005, and in hundreds of other examples from around the world.

True enough. I also disagree with Ted Rall according to what's quoted from his book in the above paragraph. However, the examples cited to illustrate that he's wrong don't wholly illustrate this when we consider more than what "mainstream" media tells us.

It's true that Gandhi's peaceful revolution worked to expel the British rule, but we lose sight of important facts if we don't consider the India that exists since then. India hasn't really become a good place. Many in India b*tch about the Muslims of Pakistan and claim that Pakistan belongs to India, as Indians do about Kashmir, of which a high majority is Muslim. And this is when much of the population of India is Hindi or Hindu and hostile towards Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, such as the Dalits. Gandhi lead the expulsion of the British, but didn't make India a good place. And making the history even worse, India is allied with the U.S. in immoral ways, and rejects the nuclear NPT very much; allowing inspections of some nuclear facilities, but not of critically important ones to inspect. The Indian elite are criminally complicit with major and predatory U.S. and possibly other western corporations, criminally acting against the people of India to favor the predatory imperialists, capitalists, corporatists of the West.

A good country of India he did not make. The peaceful revolutionary campaign that he lead had an initially great and needed outcome, but the good of it didn't really last long, at all.

There was perhaps a correction in the Philippines in 1986, but it still has a very corrupt government that's complicit with the imperialist, capitalist, corporatist elites of the West and is very unjust towards many people of the country.

Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979, and it seems that the U.S. may have had or else did have something to do with this, for the Shah, who was basically put in place by the U.S. by covertly organizing the overthrow of the excellent Iranian leader in 1953, had come to be less than adequately cooperative with the imperialist, capitalist, corporatist elites of the West. And as bad as he was, it evidently was not always bad.

A an excellent animated film documentary I recently viewed and which is by an Iranian woman who lived with her family and other Iranians under the rules of the Shah and then the Iranian government controlled by the Ayatollah of today; him and his associate rich "conservative" elites of Iran. And this change evidently was [not] a good change at all. The situation became worse, not better, than before, when the Shah was the leader; believe it or not. The Iranians wanted to get rid of the Shah for good reason, but didn't end up with really better government, and in it's been worse in terms of civil liberties. This is according to the documentary, but we should also know by now that legitimate civil liberties aren't in good hands in Iran, with the Ayatollah et alia being the people who really hold power there.

That film is entitled, "Persepolis". People can read about it at IMDB.com as well as in Roger Ebert's following review of January 17th, 2008.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/REVIE...

I'm definitely against western belligerent, hypocritical, et cetera, politics and actions against and inside Iran, but it doesn't have a [good] government and that's thanks to the Ayatollah and the gang of rich "conservative" Iranian elites he's a member of. It's not due to President Ahmadinejad, who has to do as he is told. President Ahmadinejad attended some women's beauty or swimsuit pagent or modeling show a few years ago in, I believe, Jordan, and he was reprimanded for this and won't be repeating this sort of liberty that is a truly non-offensive kind.

Iranian women and other citizens had more freedoms under the strict rule of the Shah than they have had since. But neither government or rule of government is of a kind to welcome.

Re. "dismantling of the Soviet Union in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany":

None of those countries have good governments today as far as I know of. East Germany might be an exception, since it no longer exists and is under the same federal government as the rest of Germany, but that's also a corrupt government.

Poland, Latvia, Czech. have pro-western government rule, and this isn't good for the populations there. Some Eastern European countries that were formerly part of the USSR or under USSR rule, until 1991 and since anyway, have populations with very significant numbers regretting ever having moved to get rid of the governments they previously had in exchange for western capitalism, which has skyrocketingly driven up poverty, political corruption, as well as general violence. Violence is significantly up and whereas the former governments of some of these countries would not tolerate these crimes, they're tolerated since western predatory capitalists have corrupted these countries' governments.

Like in India, the Philippines and Iran, the populations of these or some of these above countries conducted peaceful revolutions and got change alright; change that is regretable in many respects, even if prior governments needed to become better in some respects. Some of these countries of Eastern Europe have real and great hardships, whereas their populations previously didn't worry about being able to clothe, house and feed their families.

That's from what I have read, but the authors are very knowledgeable people, instead of western news media pundits.

Re. the UKRAINE in 2004-2005:

I'm not sure how David Swanson is meaning to refer to with the "stolen election in the Ukraine in 2004-2005", but if what is meant that the revolution, the "Orange Revolution", prevented a stolen election, then I don't think that this is what happened.

The colored revolution there was a revolutionary electoral movement that's one of the several color revolutions the U.S. was behind orchestrating through the NED, which has one hell of a hypocritical name or title, when fully spelled out. The NED has stepped in where the CIA ceased covert ops for overthrowing government or political leaderships, et cetera, apparently because it became too well and broadly known that the CIA did this; if I'm recalling the reason correctly for the switch from the CIA to the NED for trying to control elections in other countries.

Anyway, the following author is one among several who [know] a lot about what really happened then in the Ukraine and what's been happening there since. And when reading his following article, readers who have also read enough from Rick Rozoff about U.S. and NATO militarism and politicking in Eastern Europe or Eurasia should see enough similarity between what both of these authors tell readers.

"Ukraine Geopolitics and the US-NATO Military Agenda: Tectonic Shift in Heartland Power
Part I"

by F. William Engdahl, March 16, 2010

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18128

I'll quote from the following copy, since the above one is copyrighted GR and, if I understand the copyright there correctly, then GR-copyrighted articles can not be excerpted from; they can be fully copied, or not, but no excerpts. Maybe I misunderstand the copyright, but the following copy doesn't have a similar CR.

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2010/03/25/ukraine-geopolitics-and-the-us-nat...

On February 14 Ukraine’s Election Commission declared Viktor Yanukovych the winner in that embattled country’s Presidential runoff vote, defeating former Prime Minister and Orange Revolution instigator Yulia Tymoshenko. Contrary to the positive spin Washington is trying to put on the events, they mark the definitive death of Ukraine’s much-touted “Orange Revolution.“

(snip)

To understand the long-term significance of the Ukraine vote for the future global geopolitical balance of power we should go back to the original Orange Revolution of 2004. Viktor Yushchenko was the hand-picked candidate of Washington, and especially the neo-conservatives around the Bush Administration, in their attempt to split Ukraine from its historic and economic ties to Russia and bring the country, along with neighbor Georgia, into NATO.

Ukrainian economic and political geography

A look at the map will indicate just how strategic Ukraine is for both NATO and for Russia. (snip)

(snip)

... In short, capture of the Ukraine in 2004 was a prize of strategic geopolitical importance for Washington in its bid for what the Pentagon terms ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ — control of the entire planet: land, air, oceans, space and outerspace. As the British father of geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder wrote in his seminal 1919 book, Democratic Ideals and Reality:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.
[5]

The Ukraine is rich in oil, gas, plenty of different profitable and needed minerals, and plenty of very fertile, rich agricultural land. Western big agri. or food business would evidently be desperate to get control of that rich agri. land; or if not control, then certainly to exploit for their profit, anyway. So plenty of American industries, BIG ones, would want "their shares" in Ukraines rich natural resources.

But Eastern Europe, or even all of Eurasia is also strategically important to the [ruling] elites of the U.S. They have long wanted to make the U.S., of which they control the government, the sole superpower, one as unchallengeable as possible, so they have long worked on weakening Russia and continue to work on this.

That's putting what F. Wm Engdahl says in the above part of the article in very, very brief terms. Reading the article is definitely far better.

(snip)

Significance of the Orange Revolution

The “revolution” [7]that swept Viktor Yushchenko into power on a wave of US dollars and support from US-backed NGO’s, was initially conceived at the Washington-financed RAND corporation. RAND had studied the swarming pattern of bees and similar phenomena, and applied these to modern mobile communication, text messaging and civil protest as tactics for regime change and covert warfare. [8]

(snip)

That might sound like "conspiracy theory" to some readers, but I've read about computer networks being treated in considerably analogous terms with natural, biological networks more than once; and that was from knowledgeable people. The scientific experts on Nature's networks didn't need to know the details about "tweaking" configuration parameters of computer networks. All they really needed to have was developed understanding of the concept(s). With their scientific knowledge or understanding of natural networks, these people were considered as very qualified for consulting on computer networking, for R&D anyway.

As I describe in some detail in my book, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, the transformation of Ukraine from independent former Russian republic to a pro-NATO US satellite was accomplished by the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ in 2004. It was overseen by John Herbst, appointed US Ambassador to Ukraine in May 2003, just months before the events were set off. (snip)

(snip)

The man Washington decided to back in its orchestrated regime change in Ukraine was Viktor Yushchenko, a fifty-year old former Governor of Ukraine’s Central Bank who had been the point man in Ukraine for the savage IMF “shock therapy” deindustrialization of the country during the 1990’s. Yushchenko’s IMF program had devastating consequences for his countrymen. (snip)

(snip)

The central focus of Yushchenko’s slick campaign for President was to advocate membership for Ukraine in NATO and the European Union. His campaign used huge quantities of orange colored banners, flags, posters, balloons and other props, leading the media inevitably to dub it the ‘Orange Revolution.’ Washington funded ‘pro-democracy’ youth groups to play a particularly significant role organizing huge street demonstrations that helped him win the re-run of a disputed election.

In Ukraine the pro-Yushchenko movement worked under the slogan Pora (‘It’s Time’) and they brought in people who had helped organize the ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia: .... (snip)

(snip)

When Yushchenko lost the 2004 election to Viktor Yanukovych, several elements worked in concert to create an aura of fraud around the results, and to mobilize popular support for a new run-off. (snip) The US State Department reportedly spent some $20 million to secure a US-friendly outcome in the Ukraine Presidency. [14]

(snip) According to Ukrainian reports, the US-based NGOs, along with the conservative US-Ukraine Foundation, were active across Ukraine, ....

President Viktor Yushchenko, Washington’s man in Kiev, moved immediately to disrupt economic links to Russia, .... This move was used by Washington to try to convince EU countries, especially Germany, that Russia was an “unreliable partner.” (snip) Yushchenko also worked closely with US-backed President Mikhail Saakashvili, Washington’s man in neighboring Georgia.

The final result of the 2010 Ukrainian elections was an overwhelming rejection by voters of Yushchenko, the “hero” of the Orange Revolution, who received barely 5% of the vote. (snip)

Western media depictions of incoming Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as some kind of Moscow puppet, however, appear wide off the mark; his major industrial backers want harmonious economic relations with the European Union as well as with Russia.

(snip)

And bet on it, the ruling U.S. elites aren't happy about the new Ukranian President working for "harmonious economic relations with the" EU and Russia, because they want global dominance and have been clearly working for years on Eurasia.

The following is Part II for the above article.

"High-stakes Eurasian Chess Game: Russia’s New Geopolitical Energy Calculus
Tectonic Shift in Heartland Power: Part II"

by F. William Engdahl, March 20th, 2010

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18129

And the following is a related 2004 piece by him.

"Washington’s interest in Ukraine: Democracy or Energy Geopolitics?"

by F. William Engdahl, Dec. 20th, 2004

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=325

Now, I'm not suggesting you have to know something will go perfectly before you try it, but shouldn't you try the approach most likely to work the best? And shouldn't we know what has and has not worked before? Rall claims that the 1999 Battle of Seattle slowed corporate globalization because a few people broke a few windows. Yet, many people who were there and engaged in that struggle point to the nonviolent blocking of the streets that prevented the conference from being held, and the moral force of the broad coalition that took over the city and won allies even within the halls of corporate power. This was done despite, not because of, a few jerks smashing windows.

I agree with that. One thing people should know about is that, sometimes or often anyway, when there are violent "anarchists" acting, then they are planted by the state to try to discredit the anti-war, -injustice, -corporatist, -globalist, et cetera activists who are far more numerous and peaceful.

People who know about the historical Operation Gladio would already know about this. People who know about the violent "anarchists" in the by far mostly peaceful demonstrations in Toronto this past June against the summit elites and their associate alites of capitalism, and so on, and followed up on the reports would know that the "law" enforcement forces knew very well about this violence and instead of acting to stop them, some of them attacking police cars and setting some on fire, the "law" forces came down hard on the far more numerous peaceful activists.

People who know about the anti-SPP (so-called Security and Propserity Protocol) summit that was held in Montebello, Quebec, Canada between the then Canadian PM, Bush and the then President of Mexico in (I believe) August 2007 or 2008 would likely know about several violent "anarchists" who were present there. They confronted uniformed police, threatening to throw rocks at them, while only the true activists, who were far more numerous again, were entirely peaceful. It was [proven] that these actors of violence were phonies and actually undercover Quebec provincial police officers.

It's like false flag attacks, but on a lower scale than people would normally think of when anyone says "false flag attack".

I don't know about the relatively few violent actors in 1999 in Seattle, the WTO, but they could very well have been plants by the state.

And anyone not taking that into very careful consideration could potentially be working for the ruling elites, as well. I'm not saying that Ted Rall is, but it is humanly possible that someone promoting violent activism is working, secretly, for the ruling elites, who should know by now that they're not going to succeed in trying to turn true believers of peaceful activism into accepting to become violently active. True, "hard core" believers in only peaceful resistance, or none at all, are not likely to accept to become violent activists.

I think "there's a time and a place for everything" and that it could be argued in some cases that taking strong physical action is necessary, but if and when that's done, then it should only be done according to needed force; not excessive. And smashing windows, attacking police, setting their cars on fire, et cetera is not going to get any peace and justice movement anywhere in a forward direction. I believe in the concept of truly "just war", but that can only exist when referring to the side that is aggressed with war and fights for only defense; and then they should abide by the Geneva Conventions, et cetera, which the aggressors don't do. Copycatting the aggressors is not going to help the side fighting for defense, while respecting good protocols of the Geneva Conventions, et cetera, will only strengthen the side fighting defense, if and when they win anyway. If they lose, then it will not have helped them to not respect the Geneva Conventions, either.

He predicts a hellish nightmare with or without his violent revolution. I predict peace, sustainability, and justice if we nonviolently resist. A deeper debate is needed.

I'm not sure that "a deeper debate is needed" or that one can really be organized on a sufficient scale. Instead, the peaceful peace and justice activists perhaps only need to keep working on building up this movement and getting activists who are focused on different issues that need to be addressed to join together, to strongly unite their forces or numbers. Taking time to stop for a "deep debate" is, I think, unnecessary. It's not time to philosophize; it's time for massive and united peaceful action, instead.

There's an old concept, "Lead by example". Truly doing that is worth more than thousands of words and debates. If we lacked sufficient laws, conventions and treaties to support the peaceful peace and justice activists, then it would surely be important to get such laws, et cetera, established; but they're not lacking. What's been lacking over all of these years was real solidarity and, therefore, the joining of activist forces. Another weak point was not having a sufficiently well-defined approach. Many street marches were very insignificant, superficial, while massive unity of activists well understanding what needs to be achieved, and well understanding that all political candidates running in elections need to be surgically vetted, are what's been needed and is still needed.

It's cute to be a peace and justice activist and then turn around and vote for unvettable political candidates; real cute. Sickenly cute. Many "activists" did just this.

Time to wake up, get organized and united in numbers, and get organized in terms of understanding what needs to be achieved, as well as of things to not repeat; like irresponsibly voting for candidates who are unvettable.

Debating whether violent or peaceful activism is the right approach would surely be just a waste of time while many thousands of innocent people continue to be killed, countries continue to be further destroyed, and so on. No time for philosophical debates is this; I believe, anyway.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.