The clip below is from The Blaze, "Dark Rhetoric: Nonviolence Is Not Always the Answer; American Socialist Leader Calling for Revolution Says ‘We Are Not Pacifists, Violence Sometimes Is Necessary’":
And check out this piece at New York Review, "We Don’t Know the Language We Don’t Know." It's a report on the March 19th White House protest against the wars. All the usual suspects were on hand, including Code Pink Obama money-bundler Jodi Evans. The "language" reference is to Daniel Ellsburg, who argues that Americans don't know Pashto, so we'll lose in Afghanistan. It's more complicated, but we'll hold off on that for another time. Anyway, ANSWER's Brian Becker was there, talking up a revolution right here at home:
Then Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition, a socialist group that sponsored some of the biggest peace demonstrations before the Iraq war, tore into the Libyan intervention, which had begun with the launch of a hundred cruise missiles that morning. “We have to learn the lessons that are so crystal clear, as Obama and the Pentagon and France and Britain prepare in the next few hours to start dropping bombs on the people of Libya in the name of democracy,” Becker said. “Let’s know this: Libya is the largest oil producer in Africa, and there’s no possible way that if the US goes into Libya that it’s ever going to come out.” Libya must be the masters of their own destiny, he continued. “We ourselves reject the idea, fed to us once again, that US imperialism, with all of its guns and bombs and missiles, is going to help an oppressed people. The only help we can give to the people of Libya and Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen is to make our own revolution right here!” (Whooping and cheering.)
3 comments:
Violent progress... depends on your definition of progress. The violent part is easy to understand.
When one lacks the ability to present a viable alternative with intellect, skill and rational thinking then one is left with violence.
One wonders if the Left thinks this is Europe where others will just sit by and allow the kind of violence they seek to perpetrate? This is American where we we allow free speech and a small amount of violence to property where it makes the perpetrator look foolish, but I would suggest that at some point one should be careful not to wake a sleeping giant.
If one is paying close attention many of the groups, like unions, et al, that think they have power are not as powerful as they believe. One should be careful what they ask for because they may get what they want, but not in the manner they might think.
We are a tolerant country, but it does have its limits.
Yes, the media is selective about the violent rhetoric it publicizes, but frankly leftist politicians often help them out by not saying what they really mean. Since Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron have declared Qaddafi must go--a fact that has received little attention at home (I'm in London)--the president of the EU has come out with my favorite statement so far. He said that NATO should "act in a way that [Qaddafi] goes." Bombing, boots on the ground, invasion--none of that. NATO is just acting in a way that transfers power. I'm with Phocion on being careful what you wish for, especially when you have unclear wishes.
Post a Comment