Skip to main content

View Diary: Just shut up about violent revolution (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed, mostly. But I still... (6+ / 0-)

    ...own guns. I've been the passive resistance route, and I'd go it again. But if the response to passive resistance were massacres, I would seriously consider shooting back, futile though that might ultimately be. Some people argue that we are on the verge of fascism - a position I do not hold - but if we actually were in the fascists' grip, would it be wise, moral even, to recommend that all us "Jews" just silently let them carry us off to the trains?

    •  Hi Meteor Blades, just becareful. What you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Danby

      actually turn out to do as an extreme last resort to protect yourself, is up to you.

      But even the hypothetical planning or anticipation of such an eventuality can put you on a suspect list.

      My hope is that our domestic survelliance agents will be wise, fair, and scholarly and pay lots of attention to the subjunctive condiditional nature of your statements.   And consider also, your other footnotes and qualifications and long history of constructive statement here Meteor.

      But your example brings up an excellent learning opportunty to discuss this vastly underdiscussed question of "why should anyone care about domestic survellence if you are innocent."

      And should we not be greatly comforted by President Bush's reasurrences that the government is only interested in those with terrorists connections.

      But now put on your creative thinking hats for just just a momement.

      Most of the preliminary datamining is done by intelligent agents which do key word counts and social contact mapping.

      If the NSA, Pentagon, and other software intelligent agents are already swarming across Daily Kos and other pubically identified social network sites, such as has been published just the fact that we have having a discussion of this topic gives us all points.

      I've already mentioned that I formerly was the CEO of an international consulting firm that has worked in most countries that have oil.   By coincidence most of these countries also have plenty of Muslims.  My company has regularly recieved international wire transfers from clients in this countries which has often included the government themeselves.

      So, in brief I have lots of suspicioun points. But for historical reason, I've already been extensively investigated and am known, hopefully, to be a good guy.  But the IA only track points.

      So now you have lots of points.

      In the proposes Total Information Awareness programs, once also called Carnivore, but now called Terrorist Monitering System after Congresss prohibited TIA, even you local police chief can tap into this system.

      You already have a gun permit, but if you decide to pass the tradition onto your son, and apply with him for a gun permit for him, in some locations my understanding is that an investigation is done. I may be wrong on this next aspect, because I've heard contradictory info, but I believe your local sheriff can be involved.  

      Depending on the part of the country you live in the Sheriff could be an elected member of the GOP.  Which in some places, could mean you excellent public service in civic here at dkos could even count against in his mind.

      My point is not to leap off into a spring board of paranoi, because everyone here probably knows how to do this.

      But, merely, consider how often we've seen things being taken out of context.

      And although I'm sure the local Republicans would never dream of doing the kind of dasdardly things Karl Rove would do, but if it were Rove, and you were one of the folks here deciding to get involved in politics by running for local or national office it is not conceivable that local GOP law enforcement official might use an ambiguous case to request the FBI do National Security Letter on you.  

      Just to intimidate you friends and raise questions about your loyalty.

      What if you employeer were considering you for promotion, and suddenly get letters of this sort?

      My point is such systems are easily exploited.

      We need to be maximally cautious.  

      Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

      by HoundDog on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:12:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All good things to remember. But, for me ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Irfo, Marc in KS, HoundDog

        ...personally, with past membership in SNCC, SDS and AIM, 13 months in prison for resisting the draft, a 200+ page FBI file and two Libyan stepchildren, I think it's safe to say I was already on a list or two.

        •  OMG, Do I know you? I don't recall seeing your (0+ / 0-)

          name before.  I don't know him everyone, I don't even know why he is sending me email.   LOL  "=)

          Oh well, my friend, if they put us in jail, maybe our cells will be close enough we can be like that old prision joke where they assigned all the jokes numbers.  You must know that one.

          But for those that don't I can't help repeating it.

          **********

          A fellow is brought into jail for his first time, and is sitting in the cell, when one of the other prisinors shouts out 37!

          And everyone laughs and laughs.

          After a while some one else says 82!  And again everyone burst out lauging.

          This goes on for ahile until the new prisoner just can't stand the curiousity so he asked his cellmate.  "What gives with the numbers?"

          So the cellmate explains, "We've all been in here so long, every one knows everyone else's jokes, so we numbered them to make it easier."

          After a while, the cellmate suggests "why don't you try it out?"

          "But I don't know any jokes," says the newman.  

          "It don't matter none," says the cellmate. " "Just choose a number between 1 and 240."

          So the newman shouts out "25!"
          But no one laughs.  Total silence.

          The newman ask his cellmate  "what wrong?"

          The Cellmate shakes his head sadly and says, "some folks just don't know how to tell a joke."

          :=)

          So Meteor Blades.  You and I and our fellow progressive co-consipirators can number our all time favorite Daily Kos diaries and shout out numbers.

          And then everyone can shout out 4 or troll depending on their vote!  

          This is going to be fun.  See you soon!

          Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

          by HoundDog on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 06:10:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One additional serious response to your excellent (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, Major Danby

          points, Meteor Blades.

          One of the most poignant of the many excellent questions you raise, I believe is the following:
           

          but if we actually were in the fascists' grip, would it be wise, moral even, to recommend that all us "Jews" just silently let them carry us off to the trains?

          I believe I agree with what I believed is your implied answer of no.

          But the alternative of engaging in ineffective or counter-productive violent opposition  must not be pursued merely  because we haven't discovered the more effective intervention YET.

          One suspicion I have in some of these extreme, and highly valuable, thought experiments, is that we tacitly fall into a strawman forced choice.  

          That overlooks the likelihood that the highest leverage interventions that may have been available or possible to create with more proactive advanced wiser implementation are left out of the equation.

          I am reminded of the quote I heard on NPR about 20 years ago by some famous WWI Pacifist when asked during the war if he would now conceed that Pacifism had been refuted.  And would he now, endorse the war.

          Much as Democrats are being asked to endorse the Iraq war and violence from both sides in the I/P conflict.

          But his thoughtful response surprised and pleased me.  He said such as question is analagous to the lung cancer patient who ignored 50 years of advice not to smoke, who now wishes to blame doctors and ask the to renounce Modern Medicine, because the cannot provide a surgical intervention that will save his life.

          So, in response to the Philsophy Class "life boat ethics" style test questions, I could probably be induced to admit that if our social order breaks down, and there are food riots and starving neigbors are about to storm my well stocked survival shelter in a way that would condemn my own children, family, or tribe, and the only way I could save them was to shoot a few of their leaders, I'd probably so okay -- I am not one of those "advanced spiritual or pure pacifists."

          And probably I'm not really a pacifist at all, as I may have been enticed to fight on the side of the colonialists against the British in the American Revolution, whose grievences seem trivial by comparison to some of those of some of the folks in occupied terroritories today.

          But my point, is that Just War Theory, (which stands in opposition to the Pure Pacifist theory) suggests that violent war is only morally justified in extreme condidtions, and as a last resort when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

          I believe morality is actually just a short hand way of arriving at what are usually the same conclusons a wiser, and incredibly brilliant strategic analysist would probably arrive out, through an exhuastive process of figuring out ones "enlighted self-interest."

          So, I'd like to put out the hypothesis, or conceptual challenge to anyone willing to take it on, in goodwill, that if we were to analyze any case studies where violence seems like the only or best way to proceed, that if we were to focus our best analyses, wisdom, and compassion, we will usually find better alternatives are available to all parties.

          But, what they actually are would require extensive analysis and explorations of specific case studies, and parties which are willing to agree in advance to adhere to certain rules of process integrity both in terms of the rules of analysis, logic, and evidence, as well as integrity of intent with regard to motivations of the key players.

          I have no doubt that in many of the most challenging case studies, for exampe the current Palistian/Israeli conflict, you will find ideological extremists on both sides, who are so convinced their own rationals for violence or the "only way" that they will act proactively to subvert attempts at peace.

          Advocates of non-violence need to agree on logical and process protocals for the rules of engagements by which failure to abide by their process protocals could result from such parties being declared "hostile to peaceful intent" and thereby subject to marginaliztion by the remaining participants in the peaceful process.

          Because, at the heart of it, my theories are that even though these are social and psyschological systems there are still advanced systems laws are metaphorically equivelent to the laws of physics.  (Post Quantum Physics not just Newtonian.)

          Gandhi victory for India against Britian was not merely passive resistence.  

          But extremely focus and "assertive" applications of an equivelently strong moral force ultimately stronger than the violence coming from the power from the barrel of the gun.

          When push comes to shove, the parties engaged in the "peaceful" oppostion need to remain ruthlessly disciplined to follow through with the destruction of the moral position of the "opposing" parties, even it they were once thought to be on the same side.  (The violent extremists on both sides of the spectrum.)

          Ruthlessly effective peaceful "assertion" or intervention but not allow itself to be subverted by "agent provacators" of the extreme who are only pretended to go along with peaceful negotiation until they discover some way to sabatage it.

          I believe iron clad adherence to protocals of "process integrity" can handle this.  But it can be an ugly and painful process that requires guts and nerves of steel.  

          Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

          by HoundDog on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 03:14:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have got (0+ / 0-)

            to write a diary on these thoughts.  Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 11:19:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Me too -- (0+ / 0-)

      own guns.

      I find it hard to imagine that they'd do anything, but as long as the law says I can have 'em, I'l have 'em.

      It just seems to me that passive resistance is the more effective route, given things like National Guard and Armies and shit.

    •  MB, if that were the case (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog

      I expect that I, like many others, would be involved in the equivalent of Warsaw Ghetto uprisings.  But I would not be planning it on DKos.  Would you?  Part of my complaint is that this is simply a ridiculous place to be calling for violent resistence, if that's what one truly believes in.  It simply discredits the site, gives a pretext for god knows what sorts of repressive responses, and has a good chance of being the work of agents provocateur.  If people want to talk about hanging Bush from a lamppost, I can't stop them; all I'm saying is Not Here.

      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

      by Major Danby on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:12:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site