the following material has been cross-posted in this commentary thread at WAAGNFNP
I now, without too much hestitation, paraphrase from three posts that seem to have encouraged others to shoot me with incredible flaming textual arrows. (Disclaimer {in snuggling parentheses} Alas, the views are mine and mine alone, and should not reflect those of any others with whom i may or may not be associated, whether in or out of this specific blogsphere.)
a) Political assassination is an extremely efficient and effective method for enacting substantive political change in the short term. It is so useful that most powerful political forces, corporate security apparati, and others, find themselves drawn to it on a regular basis (our own local law enforcement have been retrained to use head shots rather than center of mass shots to bring down suspected felons). It is my view that such tactics would facilitate necessary and fundamental change in the US, both at the governmental, and at the private corporate level (the Hydra notwithstanding).
b) Ted Kaczynski was a crappy strategist who misused his talents by targeting unimportant individuals, and inflicting (given say the US military in Fallujah, or Afghanistan) minor damage when all is considered. His considerable skill at packaging woulda/coulda/shoulda been better used to interdict at key structural points in the financial and utility stream. Not being specific (yes that might trigger threat alerts wouldn’t it, which would be bad for centrist thinking types), the list of those who charismatically lead organizations that are pathologically dangerous to the soul of America is not long nor obscure.
c) The PDF (you all know the correct acronym, but it automatically triggers one of those special tags leading this thread to “them” who want to violate our constitutional rights) wastes inordinate resources on trivialities; they could much more impactfully have chosen targets that would make profound substantial differences. Car dealerships, housing developments, a few miscellaneous pieces of equipment—these just don’t carry the message, nor the import, of something deeper and more direct. Wayback in my Mr. Peabody machine when i was in the Navy (late 1960’s deskjob, as i was already considered a troublemaker–hey the Navy paid for me to go to the Monterey Pop Festival, not my fault i ran into that Senator’s son there), i did a little work on developing plans to protect US infrastructure from internal attacks. To this day, the systems are ever more vulnerable to casual malicious and vandalizing attacks, and not at all secure from potentially deeper, more-focussed threats.
My motto for the last 40 years has been: “Moderation in the extremes of excess is intelligent!” Of course that had more to do with the sixties than anything else, but over time it lent itself to ever more expanded realms and connections in my life.
That said, my point regarding political violence is that unless one is prepared to do it, mentally and physically, they will not be prepared when the police states manifest there own version (and they do so all the time as we are doing so as a nation against other nations). Those on the other side usually end up in cattle cars heading down the tracks to the next reservation. State-sanctioned political violence is still political and violent, and considerably more deadly. The US has historically been a nation bent on using political violence to achieve its agendas, especially quests for territory and resources. Kent State and Jackson State were not anomolies in the long run of the use of physical force to instill coercive order. Corporate use of violence is also a mainstay of this great nation; we need only revisit attacks on mine workers and their families for that one (and too many other such events sadly said). I always keep this short list handy to remind me of just how often the tactic of political assassination is used. Perhaps knowing so many families of disappeared in Chile and Argentina has twisted my thinking.
The US is the number one purveyor of physical violence on the planet, we sell more weapons to more people than the next 12 nations combined (and that ratio is becoming even more unbalanced); large purchasers include China, Egypt, and India. The far right, right, and most of the center, seem to have no problem with this. Indeed, they embrace it as part and parcel of their version of what is patriotic and righteous. From where they view, it is great for business, great for the economy, and great for the country.
It has always been the nature of the advocates for liberal democracy and human rights (the left) to oppose this. The essential problem in opposition is that the right has no problem using weapons to defend their use of weapons. Most of the center and most of the left refuses to do so. As a population, this country is excessively innured to violence; witness MSM entertainment programming that celebrates it. That in and of itself seems to me to be a form of political violence.
Indeed the left tolerates all manner of coercive threats and behaviors, particularly in our public education environments and in our law enforcement/criminal justice system. When i moved away from LA in the late 1970’s, my friends and i already understood that the streets of that cosmomegapolis were merely a battleground between gangs, some in blue or khaki uniforms, others in red or blue bandanas. It would not be too far off the mark to suggest that had the gangs in uniform acted less like gangs and more like civil servants, less gangs would have been developed. Recent FBI and DHS studies say LA County has more gangs per square mile than any other metropolis.
I don’t think there is any real answer at the moment. It will come down to the battles over water, safe havens from climate disrupted environments, access to food and energy, and the struggle to make it to another day. And all that will be happening in the US, as it will across the planet.
