From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 17 Oct 1992 04:36:13 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

pauls@icecreambar.css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
>Leading by example only goes so far.  At a certain point I think you
>have to sit down and define your _enemies_.
>
>... then you have to do something with them.
 
What you say here really scares me.  Define your enemies... what does
this mean?  It means pick a certain trait that you do not like in other
individuals, and dehumanize all individuals who have this trait.   It
doesn't allow for the chance that there might just be someone who has
this trait, who really is a decent, caring, person.  I would guess that
your enemies are the rich.  You should not place your emphasis on
_RICH_ person and _POOR_ person.  You should place the emphasis on
_PERSON_.
 
This define your enemies and then you have to do something with them
is very scary.  Hitler defined his enemies as the Jews.  What he did
with them is something I hope we never forget.  But suppose you want a
current example.  Bush defined our enemies as the Iraqis.  He ordered
the deaths of 100,000 people, and had so dehumanized them that the
papers said whoopie!  Less than 100 people were killed.  Iraqis were not
even considered people by the media.  They were swept under the rug.  They
were non-entities, they were non-human.. they were _enemies_.  Yet I am
not so niave to not see that underneath the demonic costume that Bush
wrapped these human beings in, there were real people, who had families
and who loved.  The suffering in Iraq goes on, but who cares?  They're
the enemy.
 
>Well that's a good way _not_ to do it.  Your spurious examples only show a
>lack of priorities.  Why would I give a fart one way or another about
>smokers?  Smokers, as a group, do not drop bombs on people.  They do not
>force poor people to work at subsistence wages, or take away their land.
 
>The distinctly first-worldist nature of your philosophy is precisely what
>makes it so bankrupt for the majority of people on this planet.  Your
>prescription for (in)action, if implemented by the oppressed, would only
>end up with them being dead.  So while the alienated and pampered first
>world youth can jack off about how easy it is to love everyone, no amount
>of loving their oppressors will free the third world.  If a philosophy for
>liberation fails for over 80% of the humans on this planet, you can cancel
>my subscription to it.
 
First-worldist, pampered?!?!  Damn that pissed me off.  Why?  Because
you are right.  I may be poor by American standards, but considering
how most people in the world are faring, I am VERY well off.  I have
never known what it is to go hungry despite the fact that my parents
were always poor by American standards.  (When my dad was working, he
never made much.  Even today my dad nets $80 a week after paying $86 a
week for health insurance. I remember spending a great deal of time at
the unemployment office as a child, and we used to rely on food stamps
to get us by.  Pampered by world standards, but by American standards,
I wouldn't say that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth either.
I remember the Christmas my mother had to sell my toys to my aunt and
uncle to give to my cousins so she could buy food.  It was kind of
weird.  I was just kind of confused at the time.)  You seem to be
condemning me for being pampered.  I wonder if the situation you grew
up in justifies your condemnation of me.
 
I agree that the needs of all people should be a priority.  But,
just what exactly do you propose we do to meet these needs?  Violently
take all the property from the rich and divide it among the poor?
Yeah you're a regular robin hood.   Why don't you work in order to
help the poor?  You want the easy way out.  And you call me pampered.
Blame someone else, and make them pay!  With their lives if necessary.
But help feed the poor only by the non-violent sweat of your brow?
No that would be too difficult.  It would take too long.
 
Would you seriously suggest using phyiscal violence to end economic
violence?
 
I am sure you know this (mis)quote by George Orwell: "If you want
to see the future of mankind, picture a boot stomping on a human
face forever."  All you propose is changing who gets stomped on.
 
It's time you wake up to help those who get stomped on.  Stomping
on the rich isn't going to solve anything.  They are just going to
stomp back, harder.  Do you claim that you can do nothing to help
the poor and the oppressed that doesn't involve stomping on
someone?   I cannot believe that you are that narrow minded.
 
Why is the only solution that comes to anyone's mind is retaliation?
Sure you want compassion, but only for those who you do not call
enemy.   Quit blaming other people for the world's problems.  Use your
creative mind to come up with a solution that does not involve
retribution.  You have to come to accept the fact that no, you by
yourself are not going to be able to help meet all the poor people's
needs in the world.  So you do the best that you can, and you don't
waste any of your energy stomping on other people.  And maybe I'll
lend a hand.
 
If the problem is that people are getting stomped on, why does your
solution involve stomping on people?  Why not be honest with yourself,
your number one priority is not to meet human needs, your number one
priority is revenge.

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy