cj#647> On armed resistance (a break from TWA)


Richard Moore

 Bcc: personal correspondent XX

3/12/97, XX wrote (in response to one my NWO articles):
        >...I too agree, a political solution is best, but many of my
        >compatriots realize that the lines of demarcation have been
        >clearly drawn by the ruling elite. Many of us are prepared to
        >break rather than bend. As I write you, our beloved King Herod
        >(Bill Clinton) has used every opportunity to disarm and
        >alienate firearms owners in America.

        >...Yes, I feel your basic concepts of opposition are admirably civil,
        >but these my friend are not civil times any longer.

        >Please respond at will.

Dear XX,

        This is my long-promised response to your message.  Did you have a
chance to look at any of the material I forwarded to you?  (So much to
read, so little time.)  In any case...

        Since you have posed "the problem" in, shall we say, military
terms, allow me to respond in those terms.  In facing an enemy, it is
necessary, if one hopes to prevail, to understand the strategy, tactics and
resources of that enemy.  The resources of the elite, in military terms,
are limitless; the tactics are uttlerly ruthless; the strategy is both
sophisticated and pro-active.

        You mention that the elite has clearly drawn the lines of
demaracation - but this may be an overly-static characterization of their
tactics.  You are of course correct that they are the ones mounting the
attack, they are not on the defensive - but they haven't simply drawn a
line in the sand - they're advancing constantly and launching novel forays

        Their battle-plan strategy, at root, is classicly simple: Divide
And Conquer.  Not only do they exploit existing differences (racial,
regional, socio-economic, religious, political orientation, gender,
age-group...), but they covertly expand factionalism, and especially
extremism of all kinds.  The Klan, the Christian Right, the Militia, Muslim
"terrorists", the Illegal Drug Trade, and the numerous Cults are for the
most part encouraged, infiltrated, and closely monitored by the

        This not only divides the population up into ineffective enclaves,
but it compartmentalizes ideas themselves.  Let me give one example...  In
the last election, corporate power should have been a central issue in the
campaign.  Naturally, both major parties ignored that issue, but it
remained in people's minds.  So, to drive such concern to ground, a
"Buchanan Candidacy" was contrived - he was allowed to espouse an
anti-corporate line which many of us found quite sensible, but he was such
a known fascist/racist/xenophobe (or was the media deceiving us?) that his
advocacy besmirched his platform rather than advancing it.  This is what I
call sophisticated, pro-active tactics on the part of the elite.


        The primary objective of the battle-plan, as you have indicated,
and is obvious from events, is the scrapping of the Constitution, leading
to an elite-dominated world government.  And who, in the media, is allowed
to voice this perspective?... only the Militia.  This is a longer-term echo
of the more temporary Buchanan tactic.  The scheme, which is working
effectively, is to identify the Constitutional perspective with "paranoid
gun freaks" and thereby remove it from "responsible public debate" and
cause people to doubt its validity.

        To pursue an armed response, at this stage, is to play directly
into the hands of the elite.  The number of people ready for non-civil
radicalism is so small that they are easily isolated and destroyed, along
with their ideas.  Waco stands as a metaphor for the fate of premature
armed resistance.

        Before armed resistance can be politically effective, there must be
a much broader public sympathy for the objectives of resistance.  With such
sympathy, governmental repression only fans the flames of broader
resistance - without such sympathy, govermental response is perceived by
most folks as "keeping the peace".  The necessary sympathy is far from
having been achieved at this point.

        Trotsky said, correctly in my view, that revolution is never caused
by revolutionaries, but is instead made inevitable by governments, through
the destruction of all alternatives.  If the alternatives have not been
pursued, then revolutionary conditions have not been achieved.

        Difficult as it may be, the building of a constituency - the
education and radicalization of a large segment of the population - must
precede effective resistance to, and change of, the system.  Ironically,
with the existence of such a constituency, the armed part of resistance may
never be necessary.  I personally believe armed resistance is no longer
possible or desirable in a modern state.

        Look at how governments fell in Eastern Europe.  First you had half
the population marching in the streets, then you had brutal government
repression, then you had everyone marching in the streets, and finally the
army refused to kill any longer its own people.  It wasn't rifles that
brought down the governments, it was public consensus.


        In martial arts there is a principle of aiming beyond the target, a
power-phenomenon also known in baseball as "follow-through".  One breaks a
brick with a fist by focusing ones energy a couple inches below the brick.

        In political terms, the police/military are a shield serving the
government, and the government is a shield serving the corporate elite.
The media is a shield serving that whole system.  My belief is that to
really change the system, we must aim beyond all the shields, even beyond
corporatization, and focus on the society we want to create.  Otherwise
we're sparring with guard dogs, never getting beyond the moat, let alone
into the castle.


Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 - Wexford, Ireland
  Cyberlib:  ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib        (USA Citizen)