3 thoughts on “October2011.org

  1. I totally disagree, Suze. First, I think it would be a bloodbath and discourage many folks from participating. Secondly, violence, or a statement declaring the possibility, would only give the rightwing nutjobs fuel to bring out the militia and beat the cowboy shit out’a everybody and feel they are right in doing so. Let’s let the asshole cops who have a daddy complex (like Balony, or whatever the hell his name is) shine a negative light on themselves for their own unnecessary bad behavior!

  2. The Tree of Liberty At Times Must Be Watered With The Blood of Tyrants.

    I want to agree with you, dandy, but I am both a student of history and veteran of both Viet Nam and sixties and seventies protests – some of which did indeed turn violent. The AIM march on DC of ’75 stands out as I was severely injured when I was both badly beaten and stepped on by a horse (which is weird because I spent much of my formative years on a cattle ranch). I have also been bean-bagged, fire-hosed, corralled, arrested, re-arrested, bones broken and my hair forcibly cut, all at the hands of the police and National Guard. We didn’t initiate the violence, but we didn’t get anything done until we fought back. I want to agree with you, dandy, but it’s just realistic.

    I am oft reminded in these conversations of the book Doctor Zhivago, where the white middle-class relatively well educated people sat around sipping wine and discussing what’s to be done in the abstract, until they were so impoverished they were left with no choice but to act out of the abstract and in the real world. Not unlike our pot smoking acid eating “hippies” of the sixties and seventies who talked a great talk but when it came time to get bloodied were home in Mama’s basement blogging.

  3. I can see both side of this.
    How about two resistance movements, one non-violent and the other one open to the possibility of violence?
    Give people a choice, and thereby involve greater numbers of them.

Comments are closed.