portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

political theory

New Free Arissa Poster... I am for Peace...But

"I am for Peace... But as of lately, I have become, well, a bit frustrated.
Arissa Poster
Arissa Poster
Arissa released a new poster today inspiring people to look beyond the exhausted tactics practiced by today's political and social movements. It is available online and is free to download in either 8.5 x 11 or 11 x 17 sizes. For a direct pdf download go to:

Text of poster below.

"I am for Peace... But as of lately, I have become, well, a bit frustrated.

I mean I am just wondering why nothing is working. I have listened to my conscience tell me that I can't let this war go on without getting involved. So I became involved. I have listened to the leaders of the peace movement tell me how to go about stopping this war. They told me to take part in their peaceful rallies and protests and to speak out against the war. They told me that if I remain peaceful and take part in state-sanctioned activities, the war will end. These "movement" leaders told me that this is how the Vietnam War was stopped. So I have listened to these leaders and believed that if I followed their guidance, I would be part of a successful movement that brings peace to the world. Unfortunately, I was not told by them that the Vietnam anti-war movement was unsuccessful in stopping the Vietnam War. I wasn't told that although millions of people were involved in that movement, it still did not come close to forcing the US government to pull out of Southeast Asia. So why are the leaders of the peace "movement" telling the masses of people that the 1960's anti-war movement succeeded? Why are they telling people that if the same peaceful methods are used today there will be success in stopping the current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? Why are they giving caring, compassionate people false hope, that by following their lead things will actually change? Do these peace leaders actually expect to change anything or just consciously or subconsciously hope to appease their own personal consciences? It is so unbelievably obvious that the various tactics implemented by the anti-war movement today have no possible chance of pressuring the US government into stopping the current military conflicts. The peace parades, the rallies, the petitions, the teach-ins, the puppets, the picketing, the radical cheerleading, the civil disobedience, does nothing but make those involved feel better about themselves. Meanwhile people internationally continue to suffer and die at the hands of the US government due to the peace movement's refusal to confront the US political system. Well I for one cannot feel good while I am being ineffective and allowing the war to continue. I cannot feel good about myself while this political structure continues intact and unchallenged.

For once I want to really change things... Don't you?

Building a Revolutionary Movement in the United States of America
(503) 972-1140

homepage: homepage: http://www.arissa.org
phone: phone: (503) 972-1140

nice! 28.Mar.2004 18:29

thanks for your clarity.

Thanks for addressing such a pressing question amongst today's dissenters. I hope we'll come up with more strategic ways of addressing the genuine need in this country for revolution. I was severly disillusioned at that last peace march- I don't understand what is going on, but I sure don't like it, either.

Sign me,
totally fed up with marching in circles
over and over and over
and over.

Get off it, Arissa ! ! 28.Mar.2004 22:56

politics as possible


I went to your web site and I got just one thing: your name "ARISSA" in big letters and nothing else ! ! !

Whoever told you that "the Vietnam anti-war movement was unsuccessful in stopping the Vietnam War" maybe wasn't lying unless a lie includes leaving a big part of truth out ! ! The protests in the U.S. were not in and of themselves sufficient to stop the Vietnam War, but they were an essential and important part of the international movement that did succeed in stopping the war. When all these movements converged to result in B-52 pilots and crews refusing to fly missions over Vietnam, the war was over. It took a while until the orchestrated "fall of Saigon" --- but that war was ended by popular reaction to its insanity more than by any other single factor. Get out of here with your "I wasn't told" crap --- yeah, you poor innocent THING you. Oh, those terrible "leaders of the peace movement" --- such evil people! And "Why are they telling people that if the same peaceful methods are used today there will be success in stopping the current wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? " Maybe it isn't a case of the leaders telling the people at all ! Maybe it's a case of that the "leaders" --- if there really are such in the peace movement --- are being told how to "lead" by the followers. "Why are they giving caring, compassionate people false hope?" Maybe truly caring, compassionate people are not so deceived with "false hope" as they are that burdened by a realistic sense of desperation ! Why don't you name some of "these peace leaders"? --- Could it be that they are nuns doing time in prison for protesting against the school of assassins at Fort Benning, Georgia? "The peace parades, the rallies, the petitions, the teach-ins, the puppets, the picketing, the radical cheerleading, the civil disobedience, does nothing but make those involved feel better about themselves." Well, you are doing great at your job (how much are you paid by the shadow government, by the way?) of making everybody feel crappy about themselves. "I cannot feel good about myself while this political structure continues intact and unchallenged." Well, CHALLENGE IT THEN --- AND LAY OFF "CHALLENGING" PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING AND WHO WILL, WITH PATIENCE AND PERSEVERANCE, OVERCOME THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE, that, frankly, I believe you represent ! !

The word "troll" comes to mind, as do several other even less appealing epithets.

you are not correct about how Vietnam ended, PAP 28.Mar.2004 23:39


More than anything else, the soldiers revolted against their commanders so that they could live to see another day. Violently. That was how the Vietnam War was ended. US officials genuinely believed that anti-war protests here in the US were run by foreign agents, professional enemy agitators and instigators. That was not true, of course.

Fragging is the killing of your superior officer. It is what brought the US army in Vietnam to a standstill. Pools of cash were collected, to be paid as a bounty to the soldier who killed that particular officer. Bounties were higher the more uncaring and bloodthirsty an officer was. Soon, officers were conferring with their troops over every order, and even then the grunts would refuse any dangerous order. Occasionally bounties were called off when an officer demonstrated common sense. Eventually they stopped counting fraggings in Vietnam because they became so commonplace. Officers started killing their own soldiers at times, as well.

One flyer during Vietnam read "Don't burn your draft card! Join up and kill your CO!"

No one knows how many officers were fragged, but after Tet it became epidemic. At least 800 to 1,000 fragging attempts using explosive devices were made. The army reported 126 fraggings in 1969, 271 in 1970 and 333 in 1971, when they stopped keeping count. But in that year, just in the American Division (of My Lai fame), one fragging per week took place. Some military estimates are that fraggings occurred at five times the official rate, while officers of the Judge Advocate General Corps believed that only 10 percent of fraggings were reported. These figures do not include officers who were shot in the back by their men and listed as wounded or killed in action.

Most fraggings resulted in injuries, although "word of the deaths of officers will bring cheers at troop movies or in bivouacs of certain units." The army admitted that it could not account for how 1,400 officers and noncommissioned officers died. This number, plus the official list of fragging deaths, has been accepted as the unacknowledged army estimate for officers killed by their men. It suggests that 20 to 25 percent -- if not more -- of all officers killed during the war were killed by enlisted men, not the "enemy." This figure has no precedent in the history of war.


Richard Moser, The New Winter Soldiers: GI and Veteran Dissent During the Vietnam Era (Perspectives in the Sixties) (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1996), p. 48

Christian G. Appy, Working-Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), p. 246.

Colonel Robert D. Heinl, Jr., "The Collapse of the Armed Forces," Armed Forces Journal, June 7, 1971, reprinted in Marvin Gettleman, et al., Vietnam and America: A Documented History (New York: Grove Press, 1995), p. 328.

Terry Anderson, "The GI Movement and the Response from the Brass," in Melvin Small and William Hoover, eds., Give Peace A Chance (Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1992), p. 105

a fascinating article about the Soldiers' Revolt in Vietnam;

Ho Ho Ho 29.Mar.2004 00:42

Chi Minh

Charlie was kicking their asses too.

I guess people just don't like me 29.Mar.2004 03:07

politics as usual

I go to the trouble of pointing out some real crap posted here at pdx.indy and what do I get? Anybody saying, oh yeah, thanks, that Arissa was blatant? No, the responses were the first one about how cool Arissa is. Then my comment. Then two comments --- one long and one short --- to tell me that I had neglected facts that U.S. military presonnel had actively resisted the war and that the Vietnamese themselves had something to do with the way the war went. Well, duh, I kinda thought that the Vietnamese influence on the Vietnam War was obvious. As for the idea that I ignored the importance of resistance by U.S. military personnel, I did write, and I quote myself:

"The protests in the U.S. were not in and of themselves sufficient to stop the Vietnam War, but they were an essential and important part of the international movement that did succeed in stopping the war. When all these movements converged to result in B-52 pilots and crews refusing to fly missions over Vietnam, the war was over."

GRINGO STARRS: Saying to me that I was "not correct about how Vietnam ended, PAP," you go on to write that "More than anything else, the soldiers revolted against their commanders so that they could live to see another day." What did you think I was saying? Or did I overemphasize the Air Force over the Army and the Marine Corps? What do you think was the motivation of the B-52 pilots? B-52's were being downed by the SAM's supplied by the Soviets, and those fly-boys wanted to "live to see another day." But during World War II, such refusals to fly did not happen despite much heavier casualties suffered by flight pilots and crews. Why? I think it had something to do with the political conditions that the protesters helped so greatly to create, don't you? And the Vietnam war did drag on even after the fragging had started: the U.S. troops on the ground became much less agressive in prosecuting the war, but the war limped on and on until the last straw which was when the B-52 crews refused to fly. The U.S. military cannot fight any war without total control of the air and overwhelming "air superiority." It's the only way they know to prosecute war. As for the role played by the anti-war movement, think about it: the U.S. Air Force was powerless to prosecute the pilots and crews that were refusing to fly missions. So all I was saying was that when the B-52 crews refused to fly, that marked (not solely caused) the end of the war. Shortly thereafter the U.S. withdrew its ground forces.

On the other hand, I appreciate the reseach and the link, the references to published books. Yeah, GRINGO is absolutely correct that it ended as it began --- violently. But non-violence also played a role in the history of the violence. Lest we forget Kent State, the violence and death by gun fire wasn't limited to Vietnam. Non-violence isn't the right word for what non-violence really is all about. It is really a systematic and thorough-going confrontation of violence. Remember the demonstrations a year ago? Non-violent? So an aspect of any peace movement is that regardless of the non-violent methods preferred by anti-war protesters, if things go on for very long, the violent character of warfare spreads. 9-11? All I can say is "War is Hell" and I think we are really in agreement about the history of the Vietnam war. As for "Ho Ho Ho" and Charlie, yeah the Vietnamese had a whole lot to do with it. And those same US officials who "believed that anti-war protests here in the US were run by foreign agents, professional enemy agitators and instigators" even today continue to believe that it was the anti-war movement here in the U.S. that gave the Vietnamese the determination to keep fighting. Could be, or maybe not, but maybe those govenment guys got that one right.

I suggest further study, PAP 29.Mar.2004 07:20


Read the article I linked to above. The working-class grunts served twice as long per tour than the middle-class officers. The officers sacrificed enlisted men's lives in order to get promoted. The resistance at home was only after serious casualties happened and average people were sick of losing loved ones. The resistance at home in the US was not a direct factor in the soldiers revolt in Vietnam. I think you'd like the article if you read it.

that last link didn't work when I tried it just now, so... 29.Mar.2004 10:08



I'd be interested in knowing what you think of the soldiers revolt article, PAP.

My point in the above comment is that when your life is threatened, dissent back home is NOT a deciding factor - your safety is. The officers were intentionally ordering "their" men to do dangerous (to the point of suicidal) missions, all to rack up killed enemy body count, which was the official objective.

Similarly, if the US wasn't the power that is was, and some other much more powerful and populous country (visualize a much-more-technologically-advanced China for thios mental exercise) invaded and established a military objective of killing as many resistance fighters as possible (with the inevitable outcome of killing innocent American civilians to boost their body count), do you think that the resistance would be fueled by self-preservation OR do you think that the resistance would be inspired by dissent over in China? Self-preservation would be the DECIDING factor, I would imagine. As well as wanting to bring to justice the troops that killed/raped your mother/father/sister/uncle/niece etc. And although dissent over in China would be encouraging, it would provide no real support for your struggle other than sympathy. Gee, thanks.

I think many activists (perhaps subconsciously) play up the role of nonviolent marching in the portrayal of various historical struggles. That is certainly a much more comfortable way to confront the state. It's interesting that the state now encourages such marches, granting them permits.

Thanks for further study suggestion and the link to www.isreview.org article 29.Mar.2004 20:57

politics as possible

GRINGO STARRS: OKAY, now I know where you're coming from and I concur with your remarks and with Joel Geier's analysis. (Maybe, unless it's a different Joel Geier, I have spoken personally with the author some years ago.) The officer/enlisted point that you make is especially relevant since the apparent purpose of that military class structure, since time immemorial, is to ensure that the military never becomes available to any "slave revolt" but can be counted on to, for example, fire on the veterans' march in D.C. back in 1929 or 1930. (I forget the exact date and it's mostly remembered for the man who gave the order to open fire with machine guns on the veterans --- General Douglas MacArthur.) About the influence of the anti-war movement on the Vietnamese, I guess I erred on the side of overstating that, but mainly I was just continuing your remark about the way our military/political establishment takes a distorted --- you could say "paranoid" --- view of things. As to your final statement: "I think many activists (perhaps subconsciously) play up the role of nonviolent marching in the portrayal of various historical struggles. That is certainly a much more comfortable way to confront the state. It's interesting that the state now encourages such marches, granting them permits." About the psychology of "activism," I would just note that certainly there is a kind of romanticism in much of what the "movement" does. But this romanticism has its functional side. For one thing, if it weren't for that kind of popular history, most Americans wouldn't have an inkling of what revolution is all about. I am thinking of how most (North) Americans, I believe, accept as valid the distorted view of Cuba as a repressive Communist society. On the other hand, all the propaganda has been unable to eradicate a kind of romanticism that is embodied by Fidel. This romantic view of "resistance" sells movies and books, like FOR WHOM THE BELLS TOLL and CAPABLANCA or the more recent HAVANA. And, after all, maybe human beings need certain illusions in order to proceed. If you look, for example, at the tree-hugging movement, it is deeply steeped in romantic mystique --- and yet they are injured, killed and imprisoned like any old-fashioned Communist or Anarchist. Plus, those tree-huggers have been able to make a mark and to put something into the global unconscious mind. As another example of how we should not underestimate or misunderstand what some have ridiculed as the "candy-coated and flower-scented revolution" --- I can assure you that many "hippies" back then did not hesitate to shield and merge "in solidarity" with draft evaders and military deserters. Now, about the way the March 20 stuff went down so peacefully, I think that "softness" is a very temporary phenomenon tailored for an election year and that, especially if Bush wins in November (by whatever means), 2005 will be more like what the veteran activists from 2003 expected 2004 to be, based on their experiences as recent as Sacramento and Miami (latter half of 2003), as well as the hard repression (electric shock fish-hooks) of the anti-war resistance about one year ago. I even think there is a very good chance that the Ground Zero RNC in September could be as bad as, or worse than, the infamous Chicago DNC in 1968. So I take nothing from the protesters at M20 of this year: take whatever candy-coated flower-scented enjoyment that you can get when you can get it. It won't likely last forever, I think you are aware of that. I also think that there is a lot to the concept that, while it isn't up to "us" the people whether the resistance and suppression thereof take a nasty turn, still non-violence must always be tried because it is probably as true as it is sad, considering history, that non-violence is the only way to make any real progress. As noted in earlier comment, "Non-violence isn't the right word for what non-violence really is all about. It is really a systematic and thorough-going confrontation of violence." It's just that it's very hard to make non-violence work and it takes more guts than I have, else I would be doing time. You have made a good study of the hard aspects of the "resistance" phenomena of what I take to be this "transitional" stage of history --- working out of what I guess could be called "late capitalism" (or should it be the "late Planet Earth"?) into whatever we prefigure the goal to be. For one of my posts --- "Revolutionaries working within the system?" --- I received several interesting responses about what was just my effort to put a question forward for discussion, but I received no response to what I thought would probably be about the only thing that would rouse any interest, namely, my review of the movie MEN WITH GUNS. I realize that the "buzz" on this film is a couple of years old now, but I think of it as a great artistic statement of the hard realities versus the soft "resistance" undertaken by middle (or even softer probably for upper-middle) class people becoming interested in, and sympathetic to, the plight of the masses. Don't know, GRINGO, if you have caught MEN WITH GUNS or not, but just on the chance that you haven't seen it yet, I am recommending it as the best I can do by way of reciprocating for your linking me to the Joel Geier article. Here's my review: This dilemma --- in Hegelian or Marxist terms, a "contradiction" --- is well brought out in the movie MEN WITH GUNS (Spanish with English subtitles). The protagonist, a medical doctor and professor, goes into the mountains to try to track down whatever happened to the "barefoot medics" that he trained and sent out to the people years before. In the end, he suffers from shock as his illusions about the country-side are destroyed by seeing close-up how the country-side is being destroyed by the militaristic infrastructure of his own culture. The doctor finally pursues, with a small rag-tag band gathered on his wanderings, the illusory ecosocialist village where people live in harmony with the earth under the radar of the militaristic infrastructure and in a community where basics are shared by all. Maybe he even finds that illusive village. You have to watch the movie and form your own opinion.

Sounds like a good flick 29.Mar.2004 23:19


I'll probably check that out. Thanks for the suggestion.

My main point is that political violence is a necessary component of making real changes. As long as officials have no conscious, using ONLY nonviolent tactics will only succeed in propagandizing converts to the movement. But we do not live in a democracy. We live in a plutocracy. Money decided who gets elected or nominated and how political decisions are made. I wish we lived in a democracy, but we must make do with a violent plutocracy instead. As long as the state will defend itself against reform by using brutally repressive violence, violence will be required to force the state to change.

Gandhi and MLK were both successful because each could rely on the violent components of their struggles to apply pressure on officials. This pressure resulted in India and the US being forced to deal with the nonviolent activists, out of fear of dealing with the alternative: violent activists. There were lethal outbreaks in the Indian independance movement, and there were at least 70 riots in black neighborhoods of major cities across the US in the 1965 alone.

We need to approach change with a variety of tactics. As long as one of those components is violence, the movement will make progress.

That's a dangerous idea 29.Mar.2004 23:30


To think you can withdraw to some secret Shangri La
and re-emerge later, when the time is right.

As a tactic,
when confronted by superior force run like hell (carefully),
it is essential.

As a strategy,
abandon the war,
it favours the enemy.

dear pap 30.Mar.2004 11:50


Firstly, I clicked on the link too, and this led to a page that said ARISSA and then if you click on that, you'll enter the site. So, just so you know, there's a lot more to the site than the outside of its doorway...

Also, I might be misreading the intentions of the poster, but the poster says that the non-violent peace movement was a failiure. Does this mean that it didn't contribute anything, well no. It just means that it didn't end the vietnam war. Many leaders of the peace movements then and now, claim that a pure path of non-violence is the ONLY way to success. They marginalize and tear down the evolving efforts that come from other viewpoints, especially viewpoints that realize that "any means necessary" is the only way to achieve anything. If fragging, or marches, or guerilla warfare are necessary, well, they're necessary. It is in the nucleus of this issue that much of the disillusionment of the current so-called "movement" is coming from: we hear from self-enforced "leaders" of the peace parades and such that what we need to do is follow their program- and this is a program of walking in circles to make some kind of symbolic point- and we will be making a difference in the world.

Most people see through this, one way or another. We want to have an actual effect. I feel that this is what the poster is talking about.

Strange, how even the concept of thinking beyond the revisionist passivist activist histories is taboo...

Ah, Jemma 30.Mar.2004 19:36


If you were a regular reader here, you not find it strange that activists of various religious convictions misrepresent and demonize each others taboos.

In reluctant defense of 'pap', if you disable JavaScript, as any security-conscious activist ought, the Arissa site is indeed a frontpage with no content.

In Mozilla, Edit | Preferences | Advanced | SCripts & Plugins
click OFF all the checkmarks on that page then click OK at the bottom.
If you are using MSIE, get Mozilla from  http://www.mozilla.org

Arissa no doubt knows how to edit their code to eliminate JavaScript.

Ah, Dio 30.Mar.2004 22:51


If you were a regular reader here, you would know that jemma is a regular reader here. Alas.

Although condescending comments from peace police are not uncommon, it is uncommon to find people at this site speaking of "dangerous ideas" which would be antithetical to the ideal of an open marketplace of ideas, which is one of the objectives of this site.

Just an idea.

Ok, Jemma 31.Mar.2004 00:16


If what Gringo says is true, that you are a regular reader here,
why did you lie?

Don't forget 31.Mar.2004 01:15


Disable JavaScript!

huh? 31.Mar.2004 15:56


I did not lie. I don't really understand what you are talking about.

If you mean, that if I am a regular reader here, I would not find it strange that even opening up a conversation about strategy is taboo; well you're just flat out wrong. I DO find it strange. I don't find it suprising, but I do find it very, very strange.

It is strange to me that activists, even self-proclaimed "radicals" who claim to work against the roots of oppression, will levy their animosity at other radicals who are disconteted with marching in circles. It is strange that there is a bigger focus in the left on making a spectacle than on making a difference.

It is strange to me that even as climate change is acclerating and with it extinction, as class divides are widening and more people are being slammed into prisons, it is still a question of the moral highground between and among activists. It is strange to me that we question the legitimacy of our inherent right to fight for a good world for future generations to live in.

I respect a diversity of tactics, and that includes marches when they are strategic. But at this point, marches don't need me to stand up for them, because what I hear from all kinds of activists is that marches and other forms of so-called "non-violent" protests are the ONLY forms of protest that are effective, and "non-alienating". This is a tragedy to me, because I DO feel that revolutionary change does need to be made, and I know it won't be made by marches alone.

I find it strange, that one tactic has been mistaken for a strategy.

Yeah 31.Mar.2004 22:05


I should not have said "lie".

You said, "Strange, how even the concept of thinking beyond the revisionist passivist activist histories is taboo..."

I wouldn't find it strange, since lots of things are taboo, here.

However, "thinking beyond ..." is not taboo, here.

For example, in this very thread, Gringo has (shall we say) reported favourably on GI grunts who mutiny and 'frag' their officers. He says, among other things, "My main point is that political violence is a necessary component of making real changes."

At this very moment, Tre Arrow and what he represents is prominent in the 'features' column.

And what appears to be a citizens' investigation of the murder of James Jahar Perez.

The Womyn & Trans Action Camp was noted recently, as always, in the features column.

After every major march that I can remember, even after some of the Critical Mass rides, there is always discussion on the efficacy of marches. The debaters tend to be heated, disrespectful, and often dishonest; however, the debate itself exists and (optimistically) seems to be moving forward. It you pick through the featured reports of the recent Iraq aniversary protests, or the more recent feature 'Marching to Nowhere?', you will see what I mean.

Certainly, opening conversations is not taboo.

I'm glad that you are open to a diversity of tactics. Other people (I have never seen you do this), who propose more confrontational activity, when the bourgeois baby-buggy crowd reply, fine you do your thing let us do ours, have been quite abusive.

The animosity is expressed just as venomously by those who are jaded as by those who still find fulfilment in a consentual circle-march.

I find none of these human reactions strange.

i said taboo 01.Apr.2004 10:47


I said taboo because any conversation about a diversity of tactics, or the need for a coherent strategy (that by necessity encompasses a diverstiy of tactics)is met by a knee jerk reaction of "non-violence works, it is the only way". Now I'm not saying that P.A.P said no more than that, but we all work on idealogical frameworks, and it SEEMED to me, (not knowing in depth what P.A.P really thinks), that s/he was defending non-violent protest as a primary organizing strategy, as well as those "leaders" of the peace parade scene who constantly advocate non-violence as the only way to change. I thought that was why s/he reacted so defensively to the poster, and said "GET OFF IT, ARISSA".

Maybe I think too much, but the words, "GET OFF IT" seem awfully patronizing. They sound like "shut up". I know that it is easier to build a protest, a shallow but apperently united front, when differences are made invisible. That I think is why bringing up anything that challenges that apparent united front of the "left" is taboo and there is such a thing as "peace police".

Maybe all who dissent are not a united front. Maybe there are real idealogical and strategic differences that could be discussed and perhaps respected if they were discussed with the intention to actually build a movement of many autonomous parts. As it is though, there is a distinct power dynamic between segments of the so-called movement. If there was no power dynamic, how would it be possible for PEACE POLICE to exist? The fact that passiv-ists have this enforcing power at public events, and use it whether their specific group organized the event or not,and on indymedia whenever anyone advocates revolution, direct action, or a diversity of tactics just goes to show that there is a totalitarian impulse in this group of people.

I guess that's what I meant by taboo- people want to stop other people from talking about it.

Yes 01.Apr.2004 18:51


"there are real idealogical and strategic differences that could be discussed"

But respect is a two-way street.

'pap' even went to the trouble of visiting the Arissa site. That Arissa violates elementary security precautions is not pap's fault. She/He also said a lot more than "Get off it", in three posts, above, in conversation with Gringo.

In the flurry of posts after Mar 20, a number of people explained why they could/would not participate in more confrontational activities. They were ignored or cursed.

Pity. I think, if ones listens closely, under many of those explanations one can hear whispered, yes, violence, as in fire and blood, death and destruction, may be necessary. They are just not ready to attend the Holy Marxist Catholic Church with you, yet. Saints Lenin and Mao both taught that workers and peasants must be met where they are and led by example. Imagine what if either had listened to his own sermons!

PPRC (or whoever) have not been reticent about their wishes and, apparently, the wishes of those who attend permitted marches. Yet folks with more confrontational attentions continue to disrespect their wishes and to crash their parties. And complain afterwards that they are not respected. Certainly some of those cretins are saboteurs, provocateurs, pigs. However, some are dedicated activists such as your self.

How would you feel, if you announced a direct-action, and PPRC showed up to interfere?

There are knee-jerk reactions against violence. And knee-jerks for. There are insane fools on both sides, too. Some are so insane, and others so cleverly deceitful, that I wonder who they are. No doubt there are those, conflict junkies and disrupters (who may be conflict-junkies too) who consciously polarize... escalate whatever discomfort is present.

However, if you ignore all them, and don't insist immediately on correct analyses according to your favourite scriptures, there are people who will respond politely to polite questions.

It depends, of course, on whether your goal is to convert people to the cause or demonstrate your superior rhetorical skills. Our society, both corporate and activist, rewards flashy shock and awe rhetoric over effective persuasion, cowed resentful opponents over loyal independent comrades. I think there is a reason for that : our failure.

Getting back to 'pap', probably the best way to persuade him/her is to remark and to ask about those issues wherein he/she seems to agree with you, or at least to disagree weakly or tangentially; instead of inviting instant opposition by concentrating on the greatest differences.

Also, I think you will find that, because of our dysfunctional learning skills (find one of Gringo's posts on Gatto), many people attack when they really mean, please tell me more. Perhaps 'pap' is one of these. She/he even tells us she/he looked for more information at the Arissa site. And if you read her/his diatribe, calm down, read it again, most of those aggressive assertions are so close to being questions that they cry out to be answered. Perhaps as a series of (potentially feature) articles.

You catch more flies with rotting corpses than vinegar, but honey works too.