"Radical" is associated with violence. But violence is only a possible facet of "radical." Radical understands that our atrocities (like the Vietnam War) are the product of an entrenched system. Radical's opposition is to the "root" of the atrocities, that is to the system that continues to churn out aggressive war.
The authors are correct that the nonviolent protests against the Vietnam War (of which I was an ardent part) were instrumental. But what's very sad is that said movement failed to stem the power of the war machine. The Radicals were correct that dethroning the war machine requires systemic change.
Forgive me, it does not seem right to say this to Mark Rudd, but this posting seems complaisant. As if our current struggle has any chance of swaying the criminal war machine.
The very least we must do in our activism is to acknowledge just how criminal (murderous, sadistic) has been our power structure. Mr. Loeb continues to demonstrate a naivete. Illustrative is the reference in his posting to the killing of Charlie Kirk which he accepts was "perpetrated by [a] lone and disconnected individual." The internet is replete with considerable evidence that this killing involved Israel. At the very least, the official account attrubuting the killing to a lone nut named Tyler Robinson has been torn to shreds on the basis of uncontested video evidence. Does Mr. Loeb harbor an allergy to conspiracy theory? Welcome to the real world.
Speaking of real world, I wonder how you could issue your posting about eschewing activist violence in the midst of the current precipice. The imminent attack on Iran by Israel and its assistant the U.S. promises a different result than in previous wars of conquest. For the first time, missiles will rain down on Tel Aviv and our nearby military bases. Write about what to expect next, incorporating the fact that both Trump and Netanyahu are gangsters.
Really appreciate the firsthand perspective here. The poin about Nixon using the radical violence as political cover to extend the war is something that gets overlooked in a lot of activism discussions. I saw something similiar play out at local protests where aggresive tactics just gave authorities the justification they needed. The discipline angle is tough but seems pretty critical.
Pacifism is not passivism. Nonviolent activism has never needed more to be our common commitment.
"Radical" is associated with violence. But violence is only a possible facet of "radical." Radical understands that our atrocities (like the Vietnam War) are the product of an entrenched system. Radical's opposition is to the "root" of the atrocities, that is to the system that continues to churn out aggressive war.
The authors are correct that the nonviolent protests against the Vietnam War (of which I was an ardent part) were instrumental. But what's very sad is that said movement failed to stem the power of the war machine. The Radicals were correct that dethroning the war machine requires systemic change.
Forgive me, it does not seem right to say this to Mark Rudd, but this posting seems complaisant. As if our current struggle has any chance of swaying the criminal war machine.
The very least we must do in our activism is to acknowledge just how criminal (murderous, sadistic) has been our power structure. Mr. Loeb continues to demonstrate a naivete. Illustrative is the reference in his posting to the killing of Charlie Kirk which he accepts was "perpetrated by [a] lone and disconnected individual." The internet is replete with considerable evidence that this killing involved Israel. At the very least, the official account attrubuting the killing to a lone nut named Tyler Robinson has been torn to shreds on the basis of uncontested video evidence. Does Mr. Loeb harbor an allergy to conspiracy theory? Welcome to the real world.
Speaking of real world, I wonder how you could issue your posting about eschewing activist violence in the midst of the current precipice. The imminent attack on Iran by Israel and its assistant the U.S. promises a different result than in previous wars of conquest. For the first time, missiles will rain down on Tel Aviv and our nearby military bases. Write about what to expect next, incorporating the fact that both Trump and Netanyahu are gangsters.
It's a good movie and I worried about this too. As long as there is any semblance of democratic hope nonviolence is the best path.
excellent work! Thanks for reaffirming that patience, peace and persistence are the key. I like
singing protests myself. It's good to stay clear of violence and hate to reconnect with those who are still human enough to hear and feel.
Really appreciate the firsthand perspective here. The poin about Nixon using the radical violence as political cover to extend the war is something that gets overlooked in a lot of activism discussions. I saw something similiar play out at local protests where aggresive tactics just gave authorities the justification they needed. The discipline angle is tough but seems pretty critical.
thanks for writing this - very well-appreciated
Glad you liked it.. Hoping to get it somehow to the Hollywood folks who made the film