ilmdge posted:

to go back to kaczynski, he killed and bombed enough people to get his manifesto published, and he was successful. but nobody really cared about his philosophy. he didn't win converts or start any armies. was it a miscalculation? assuming his cause was righteous, was it a gambit worth taking? or was it only more pointless violence, an attempt to stop a train by placing some pennies on the tracks, to use a metaphor i think the rhizzone will appreciate

i know i got Unabomber Jokes and all but

Nor does the leaflet eschew the theory of excitative terrorism. “Each time a hero engages in single combat, this arouses in us all a spirit of struggle and courage,” we are told. But we know from the past and see in the present that only new forms of the mass movement or the awakening of new sections of the masses to independent struggle really rouses a spirit of struggle and courage in all. Single combat however, inasmuch as it remains single combat waged by the Balmashovs, has the immediate effect of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout. We are further assured that “every flash of terrorism lights up the mind,” which, unfortunately, we have not noticed to be the case with the terrorism-preaching party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. We are presented with the theory of big work and petty work. “Let not those who have greater strength, greater opportunities and resolution rest content with petty work; let them find and devote themselves to a big cause—the propaganda of terrorism among the masses [!l, the preparation of the intricate... ... terrorist ventures." How amazingly clever this is in all truth: to sacrifice the Life of a revolutionary for the sake of wreaking vengeance on the scoundrel Sipyagin, who is then replaced by the scoundrel Plehve—that is big work. But to prepare, for instance, the masses for an armed demonstration—that is petty work. This very point is explained in No. 8 of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya, which declares that “it is easy to write and speak” of armed demonstrations “as a matter of the vague and distant future,” “but up till now all this talk has been merely of a theoretical nature.” How well we know this Language of people who are free of the constraint of firm socialist convictions, of the burdensome experience of each and every kind of popular movement! They confuse immediately tangible and sensational results with practicalness. To them the demand to adhere steadfastly to the class standpoint and to maintain the mass nature of the movement is “vague” “theorising.” In their eyes definitiveness is slavish compliance with every turn of sentiment and ... and, by reason of this compliance, inevitable helplessness at each turn. Demonstrations begin— and blood thirsty words, talk about the beginning of the end, flow from the lips of such people. The demonstrations halt— their hands drop helplessly, and before they have had time to wear out a pair of boots they are already shouting: “The people, alas, are still a long way off....” Some new outrage is perpetrated by the tsar’s henchmen—and they demand to be shown a “definite” measure that would serve as an exhaustive reply to that particular outrage, a measure that would bring about an immediate “transference of strength,” and they proudly promise this transference! These people do not understand that this very promise to “transfer” strength constitutes political adventurism, and that their adventurism stems from their lack of principle.

ilmdge posted:

these guys killed one soldier and then sat back and chatted with civilians and didn't harm anyone else, but because they were so brutal and open in their manner of slaughter it's become more sensational...

v cool post, i love my dead gaey earf. "i have a friend who posted on facebook the following: "u wont meet a more anti american, anti capitalist than me. Having said that, i recognize animals." damn, i wish i was still friends with more whites. they get so real in times of "crisis".

i spent about an hour yelling about this back and forth with someone last night and they were all "what was the point? it's not going to make people sympathetic with them regarding our imperialism!!!" not everyone is some pr hopeful though. maybe it's just exactly what he said. an eye for an eye. they recognized that people wanted an explanation but he and his bud weren't there to sign people up for the One True Mission. also, i liked what tinyrevolution guy said

SariBari posted:

ilmdge posted:
these guys killed one soldier and then sat back and chatted with civilians and didn't harm anyone else, but because they were so brutal and open in their manner of slaughter it's become more sensational...


v cool post, i love my dead gaey earf. "i have a friend who posted on facebook the following: "u wont meet a more anti american, anti capitalist than me. Having said that, i recognize animals." damn, i wish i was still friends with more whites. they get so real in times of "crisis".

i spent about an hour yelling about this back and forth with someone last night and they were all "what was the point? it's not going to make people sympathetic with them regarding our imperialism!!!" not everyone is some pr hopeful though. maybe it's just exactly what he said. an eye for an eye. they recognized that people wanted an explanation but he and his bud weren't there to sign people up for the One True Mission. also, i liked what tinyrevolution guy said

Yeah one white "Obama Is Just As Bad As Bush" guy I know insisted the guy was "obviously clinically insane" and i asked why he thought that, since in the video he seems to be just explaining his actions to people. and he says "Yeah, it's exactly that, he's just calmly talking while covered in blood holding a machete after having murdered someone publicly in the street, that's not normal."

so he's insane because he's not acting insane lol. That's literally one of the catch 22s in the book Catch-22. Not to mention that description could probably describe what the dead troop was like after he wasted afghans publicly.

then his other reason was the British troop wasnt given a fair trial before he got executed lol

Edited by tentativelurkeraccount (May 23, 2013 19:53:07)

tentativelurkeraccount posted:

Yeah one white "Obama Is Just As Bad As Bush" guy I know insisted the guy was "obviously clinically insane" and i asked why he thought that, since in the video he seems to be just explaining his actions to people. and he says "Yeah, it's exactly that, he's just calmly talking while covered in blood holding a machete after having murdered someone publicly in the street, that's not normal."

so he's insane because he's not acting insane lol. Not to mention that description could probably describe what the dead troop was like after he wasted afghans publicly.

then his other reason was the British troop wasnt given a fair trial before he got executed lol

! this shit really brings home the embarrassing/disgusting nature of our n. american/uk populations and our video game wars. EWWWW, ALL THAT BLOOD ALL OVER, WHAT AN INSANE ANIMAL. i really wish it was like vietnam war days and we had to see dudes getting carried out on stretchers and people talking about their village's bombings that day at the top of every evening newshour. it's always far off shots of car fires for 13 seconds, some first responders running in, and then nothing. poof! the other day a family member was trying to guilt trip me about the AP leak thing. and i just got exasperated and yelled I DON'T CARE, I HOPE EVERY U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER IS ENDANGERED BY EVERYTHING FOREVER. now they're just gonna treat me like tamerlan.

tentativelurkeraccount posted:

then his other reason was the British troop wasnt given a fair trial before he got executed lol

“Killing is no murder,” wrote our old Iskra about terrorist acts; we are not at all opposed to political killing (in this sense the servile writings of the opportunists in Vorwärts and the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung are simply revolting), but as revolutionary tactics individual attacks are inexpedient and harmful. Only the mass movement can be considered genuine political struggle. Only in direct, immediate connection with the mass movement can and must individual terrorist acts be of value.

. . . which i don't think goes against anything said in this thread really. L goes on to point out that the specific terrorists he's speaking of weren't around for the mass movement, and there's no guarantee of that here