Thursday, December 04, 2014

The Revolution Will Not Be Digitized



As I said in an earlier post, the Ferguson case provides an unacceptable precedent. We've had grand juries for a long time, but never before have they been used in this way -- as a way to avoid prosecuting those whom the Establishment does not want to see prosecuted. The grand jury trick allows the Establishment to say "justice has been done," even though justice has been prevented. Without an adversarial process -- without cross-examination -- there is no justice.

It has happened again:
This encounter was recorded at close range on a cellphone camera, the fact that kept many on Wednesday asking: How? Why?

“You can see the video,” said Diane Moss, 63, of Staten Island, her voice strained with disbelief. “It’s one thing if it’s ‘he said, she said,’ but when you see the video — the guy wasn’t resisting.”
And yet, we have this reaction:
"While the death of Eric Garner was tragic, all New Yorkers should respect the decision of the Staten Island grand jury not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said.

"During this tense time in New York, it must be noted and remembered that no organization has done more to safeguard the lives of young African Americans in New York City than the NYPD," he added.
Here's the libertarian reaction:
He carried no weapons. He did not shove or attack any police officers in such a way to be considered an imminent threat to their health and safety.

No, his apparent crime was selling cigarettes without paying taxes on them. And for that, he was killed.
(When quoting a libertarian, we must always remember that in the corporate state they favor, private police forces will have even more power, and citizens will be able to seek redress only in civil court proceedings against a battery of high-priced lawyers).

We need to rebel.

Protests are valid, but do not delude yourself into the belief that protests will work. Usually, they do not.

We need to rebel.

Rioting is not valid. Rioting is what the Establishment wants all potential rebels to do.

True rebellion takes planning. It is done according to a long-term plan, in cold blood, not out of passion. Some forms of rebellion are legal and some are not. Some forms of rebellion involve violence and some do not. I can think of a number of non-violent methods. I am a non-violent person by nature and will always favor peaceful means over the alternative.

Rebellion requires the articulation of specific goals and the careful selection of targets.

Being a rebel is like being a boxer: You win by punching the other guy, not by punching yourself. (I speak metaphorically, of course.)

I can come up with a number of ideas regarding tactics, although I am not going to discuss those ideas here. Neither will I talk about them in private.

To be frank, I cannot be an effective participant in any insurrection. For one thing, I'm white, which may or may not be a relevant factor. Rebellion is a game best played by the young and vigorous, and I'm heading rapidly toward the other side of middle age. Most importantly, a rebel needs allies, and I am spectacularly unsociable, having no friends at all.

Thus, my ideas will always remain locked within my brain. The only reason I am writing this post is my hope that someone reading these words will take the hint and formulate a some ideas of his or her own.

A few readers will try to prod me into offering more specific advice regarding methods of rebellion. Get real: Do you actually think that I would ever be foolish enough to discuss such matters here? Or even in email?

Only ratfuckers working for the Establishment would press me (or anyone else) to do something like that.

And even if you're not a rat, the fact remains: Anyone who needs a blogger to spell things out online is so fucking stupid as to deserve oppression.

The first duty of the revolutionary is to get away with it.

You cannot get away with it if you discuss your plans on ANY electronic communications device. That's why a rebel cannot be an anti-social loner: Insurrection requires face-to-face associations. No Facebook, no Twitter, no text messages. 


Gandhi may have led a non-violent rebellion, but he wasn't foolish enough to let the British know his plans.

The Revolution Will Not Be Digitized.
Comments:
Duty to win. We are winning.
 
Not sure how you fuel a rebellion without passion. Passion fuels; reason guides. But I take your point, Joe.

I found the Fox News set fascinating. Many conservatives agreed with the outrageous nature of the Grand Jury's decision. Even Krauthammer said it was 'inexplicable.' Which makes me wonder if the status quo righties see this as a push too far, a preventable death added to all the other 'inexplicable' cases tipping the balance out of whack, demanding reform. Or else.

Btw, Peter King in addition to applauding the police, said that this wouldn't have happened if Mr. Garner had not been obese or had asthma or a heart condition. Really?? So it's okay to pull this stunt on a healthy man?

These people are deaf and blind to their own ignorance.

In addition, we now know that the cop who gunned down the 12-year old in Cleveland had multiple behavior/performance problems--weeping, lying, lateness, dicey professional records and rotten gun skills--before the incident. Why was he on the force? Garner's killer had two previous run-ins--a $30,000 judgment and another yet to be decided. Where's the training/accountability for these men?

I agree on the misuse of the Grand Jury procedure. No transparency, no responsibility. This has been going on for some time. Now it's been exposed for the miscarriage of justice that it truly is.

It's a sickening reveal and the endless excuses do not work anymore.

Peggysue
 
->
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/cleveland_police_officer_who_s.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Via http://blog.fefe.de

 
Peggysue...I've been wondering why on earth the talking points are this time, the cop should've been indicted. Why not stick to the usual game plan of backing the police? I noticed a few people saying "this one should've been indicted but the 'correct decision' was made in the Michael Brown case." I can't help but believe this one was a pressure valve or test. At any rate, both of these decisions were made at holiday time, just as the Supreme court gave Bush the presidency in December. People are too stretched and distracted at this time to do much organizing.
 
Joseph, I wrote about this story on my AlexLOGIC blog. It is very short but raises a point that no one has raised. AlexLOGIC Eric Gardner article.
 
Actually, Gandhi did tell the British authorities what he was going to do. Why wouldn't he? He relied on the British authorities to respond to non-violent protest with something other than slaughter, adding the element of surprise could only increase the risk of violence breaking out.

Of course not all revolutionaries have such mild overlords.
 
This post borders on the paranoia, and the tease. All in all, a good shchizo presentation that sounds like french deconstructionism playing out in the halls of the analytical department.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?






























FeedWind












FeedWind