Skip to main content

View Diary: Timothy McVeigh, the Radical Right and Glenn Beck (391 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "another group of social misfits"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Not really a valid comparison. The radical dissenters of the '70's were seeking (and eventually bringing about) the end of a war that ultimately caused the deaths of about 6,300,000 people if you total up military personnel deaths and the civilian population losses of North and South Vietnam and combine American losses. It was a war which was arguably fought because it enriched the military/industrial complex and for no other valid reason. Your statement indicates you believe there is never any reason to take up arms against your own government. I disagree with you.

    •  Not all had altruistic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      reasons --- the SLA, for example.

      Your statement indicates you believe there is never any reason to take up arms against your own government

      Actually, I have never felt any reason, and can see no situation, to take up arms against my government -- other than legal arms. The courts,peaceful protest or the ballot box.Any or all can be on someones agenda. Agree or disagree, that is their right. And that is why I condemn so strongly those that would. They get no support from me.

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 07:17:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree not all were altruistic and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I hope you would agree some were. I think there is rarely an occasion when it is morally justifiable to resort to violence to effect change, but I also think there are times when that is exactly what is called for. I knew people in SDS who went on to join the Weather Underground and they were among the best and the brightest. The people who run our government have no qualms whatsoever about using violence to achieve their ends and they are the ones who are currently running things.  

        •  Must agree to disagree... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          babajimbob, tkwasny

          it is never the correct route in a Democracy. Even a flawed one. A totalitarian state? Perhaps. But America has never been that. Perhaps, at worst, a blundering Democracy, very much in error. But still a Democracy. An evolving Democracy. With a rule of law.

          it tastes like burning...

          by eastvan on Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 07:43:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or possibly a decaying Democracy (0+ / 0-)

            ruled and manipulated by an oligarchy which controls opinion through ownership and control of the mass media and giant corporations which have enormous influence over the course our democracy takes and the ability to corrupt the entire political system. It's how we evaluate the current situation which leads us to different outlooks on what is acceptable. I appreciate the discourse and thank you for your opinion.

        •  "premature escalation of tactics" (0+ / 0-)

          We had two stolen elections (Y2K and 2004), a Supreme Court that was in supreme cahoots, a Congress that was muzzled, and media that were fawning.  

          By the 2nd such election, it would have been arguable to go into revolt mode.


          Cooler heads prevailed.  We made enough progress in the 2006 election to put the brakes on the Regime via Congress.  And then came 2008, and here we are today.

          The hot-headedness of 1960s radicals arguably contributed to Nixon's victories in 1968 and 1972.  Thereby also launching quite a few careers that came to a head under Bush.  

          Sorry folks, but history shows that the 1960s revolutionaries were an epic failure.  If cooler heads had prevailed in those days, we would not have ended up with two terms for Nixon, eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush I, and eight years of Bush2, total of 28 years of Republican rule compared to 12 years of Democratic rule between 1968 and today.  Those numbers: 28 years to 12 years:  prove the point beyond any reasonable doubt.  

          •  Your comment is both true and beside the point. (0+ / 0-)

            This thread began with

            Look back to the '70's--we had the Radical (sort of ) Left groups that set off bombs and partook of other anti social behaviour. The worm has fully turned now and we can expect a whole mess of trouble from another group of social misfits. This time from the right.

            My comment was that this was an unfair comparison. I agree the 60's and 70's unrest scared voters and the older segments of the population into supporting the right wing of the political spectrum. It's possible that the half-hearted attempts at revolution by the few were counter productive however if there had been a real revolution at that time it's also possible we would have avoided the spoiling of our land by big oil and giant corporations, would have turned to alternative energy long ago and stopped global warming in it's tracks. We could have turned into a sustainable economy.  It's possible we would have saved democracy and taken money out of the political process.  These were all things those revolutionaries championed.  So you could say that history shows when you know your country is headed down the wrong track, don't hold back but engage in revolution fully. Devote yourself to it and the pain you cause will be a small thing in comparison to pain that will come without it. That is the lesson learned by successful revolutions.

            •  the probability of... (0+ / 0-)

              ...getting the masses to revolt in, say, 1968, was about zero.  For most of America, times were good, and for oppressed minorities, civil rights were now written into the law so the future looked better.  

              As for the outcome of said revolution:

              I was a little kid when Woodstock happened.  I saw footage on the news on TV.  What I saw was a bunch of people zombied-out on drugs and sleeping amidst piles of garbage.  Piles of garbage!  

              And I thought, My God! these people don't even understand basic sanitation!   If they ever take over, it'll be the end!  

              Some utopia that would have been.  Let's all eat dirty food and come down with dysentery.  Bleh.    

              •  Well, I didn't think the time was right (0+ / 0-)

                for revolution back then either. On the other hand, the disruption caused by the anti war portions of the population did eventually lead to the ending of a stupid, wasteful war. To judge people by footage you saw at an open air rock concert which attracted many more people than the promoters expected is a little bity crazy. The people there understood santitation, they just had no control over it. It's true hippies used more illegal drugs than the rest of society. I've seen drunks at soccer matches do way more stupid and distructive things than hippies did at Woodstock but I would never call soccer fans assholes based on that. And by the way, they didn't take over, the people who were running things kept ruling and by all appearances, it is the end. We are headed for ecological doom. Wake up.

    •  the circumstances under which it's appropriate... (0+ / 0-)

      to take up arms against our own government are when all of the following occur:  

      One, an election is canceled or overtly stolen.

      Two, Congress and the Courts provide no redress.

      Three, attempts at lawful political organizing and nonviolent protest are met with massive violence.

      And to be quite clear, the only legitimate purpose of armed revolt is to defend the United States Constitution and re-establish lawful government.

      Note that (1) and (2) occurred twice; in Y2K and in 2004.  However, despite the whining of certain anarchists whose idea of "protest" is to randomly smash windows, and whose idea of "met with massive violence" is when the cops use tear gas on rioters, the fact is that (3) did not occur.  

      Instead, we lawfully organized and nonviolently protested and gained enough of a victory in 2006 to put the brakes on the Regime's worst plans. And then we had a major victory last year.  

      So if we had reacted to (1) and (2) by going into revolt mode after the 2004 election theft, that would have been wrong on principle and wrong in the practical sense.  The fact that we chose instead to keep using every lawful tool at our disposal, has in the end made for not only a stunning victory at the polls, but an undeniable historic mandate for change.  

      •  Those are NOT the only times taking up arms (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marja E

        are appropriate. At this time, money is what wins elections in this country and what rules this country. Money is what shapes the minds of the populace, money is what determines the decisions of our politicians. Money is what determines when we go to war and who we fight. Money is what determines who goes to jail and who doesn't. If Obama removes the undo influence of wealth on our electoral process, I think we will have a chance at returning to a real democracy. If, on the other hand, the rich continue to lead us around by our noses and no changes are made then all this talk about change is a charade and we are just viewing another play meant to mollify us. I pray for the former and expect the latter.

        •  so what are you saying? shoot the rich? (0+ / 0-)

          Lot of good that'll do /snark.

          If we want to overthrow the aristocracy, the way to do that is by withdrawing consent.  Don't buy their shit.  Don't vote for them with your dollars.  And if that means doing without, then do without.  

          •  Shooting the rich doesn't appeal to me. (0+ / 0-)

            On the other hand, I don't see how it will be possible to get a significant amount of the population to do without anything. If the oligarchy has as much power as I suspect they may have (kinda hard to tell from here) and if any real threat to their authority is evident they have the ability to limit what we see on the internet, read in the newspapers, see on TV, hear on the radio, and they can intercept any electronic communication, and can use private armies and the military against an unruly population. So, with those thoughts in mind, I'd like to keep the option open. Not recommending violence right now, but I just think one of the great things about our democracy is that it was set up to keep that possiblility in our hip pocket. History is rife with examples of wonderful, historic and beneficial changes brought about by violent revolution.

        •  Yes you are right! (0+ / 0-)

          Money will always control Government.  Money has its undeniable characteristics.  It doesn't discriminate.  Money only respect those with more of it.  Money is Evil.  A neccessary Evil!  Money is something ALL OF US WANT!  And all of us NEED!  It brings with it the Promise of Wealth and Death.  Because if you don't know how to handle it, it will kill you!  You will be devoured by it!  Money is Dangerous!  It LOVES AND HATES AT THE SAME TIME!  It doesn't think!  It doesn't think rationally it is implusive and reacts to the current situation.  It is neither Republican or Democrat or Independent.  It sides with All three and it is against ALL THREE!  Money is the Closes thing on earth to Satan!  Yet our Churches demand more of it every Sunday!  What a sick World we live in!

      •  So torture and assassinations aren't reason enoug (0+ / 0-)

        reason enough?

        Look, I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in violence, whether that's the violence of the state, the violence of elections, or the violence of armed revolt.

        Remember Duanna Johnson. Tortured by the Memphis PD for being black and trans. Killed by the Memphis PD for speaking up.

        by Marja E on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 07:41:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with both of You (0+ / 0-)

      Although I agree with you about the comparison or lack there of.  I don't agree that there is a time to take up arms against the Government when all you have to do is vote them out.  That is the beauty of Democracy.  Eventually it works!  And the Bad Guys get put out of Power.  Violence only brings more violence.  And DEATH only brings Pain. Pain Brings HATE!  Once we have gotten towards HATE it is hard to stop the TIDE from their. The only thing that can KILL HATE IS LOVE!  Love takes time!  Sometimes a very LONG TIME!  So lets hold off on the armed rebellion guys.  We need to follow in Martin Luther Kings foot steps and do it through Peace!

      •  In my opinion, a substantive and thoughtful (0+ / 0-)

        reply. What I would say is that if there's a chance democracy is still working than I'm with you. If it has been corrupted and it becomes apparent elections are bought and politicians are being totally manipulated then it's time to try non violence. If those who attempt change through that method are jailed and/or slaughtered, then I think it's time for violence. Trust me, it's at the end of my list.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site