From: "roger" <diogenes.jones-AT-attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Carp
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:57:29 -0800


<snip> But I do
> think that we should jointly be discussing what
> we do about this war, and I know I'm not the only
> one who thinks so.
>
>
> Dave Coull
>

agreed.  but i believe i've already pointed out a couple things, Dave:
whether you're talking about direct non-violent action (i think those
were your words to me) or some variant of it, it STILL is too little
too late.  it will not STOP this war, which is anywhere from 3 days to
3 weeks away, but no more.

if you disagree with that assessment (and please stop calling a
reasonable position 'defeatist' because you don't like it.
'defeatism' is a state of mind and you don't know my state of mind)
then please lay out ANY realistic scenario whereby bush and blair will
change their mind (between them they have at least one) and call this
off.  you can't Dave, and no one else can right now either.  the best
bet is actually north korea, but they may figure their best chance
comes on the SECOND day of the iraq war.

frankly, Dave, i think you would be better served to spend you energy
trying to figure out how far the anti-war coalition can be pushed and
how many will join.  if, for example, our worst fears are realized and
a nasty, long, oppressive occupation of iraq spurs bombings and
terrorist attacks across the uk and the u$, then in that context a lot
of liberal/social-dem types will probably be willing to engage in some
form of (probably non-violent) protests and even some direct action
designed to throw a spanner in the works.

if, on the other hand, the conflict is over quickly and the bushies
are able to give good media spin to it all and get some puppet gov up
and running ------ well, it will be harder to maintain a broad front.
either way, what is the role of 'Scottish Anarchists' for example?
how far 'out front' should anarchists be?  and how vanguardist is this
all?

whatever the case, Dave, be prepared for some to disagree with you.
the way you attack others on this list doesn't bode well for your
ability to sustain any coalition that includes those who stray much
from your view of things.  you remind me of my preacher daddy.  most
of us hillbillies got a lot of scots-irish in us.  fortunately long
exposure to africans (and getting the holy shit kicked out of us by
the yankees) has loosened up our stiff spines a bit.

and if you want to interact with amerikans, then i would make a couple
points.  your identity as a scot is ethnically based.  i do not wish
to demean it or make it seem unimportant.  but the conflation of your
ethnic identity with the existence (no matter how tenuous) of a state
is the basis of classical nationalism.  it's a fact (as you are so
fond of saying) that immigrants to european countries do not
assimilate easily if at all.

it's different here.  my ethnic identity is somewhat distinct and
different from my identity as a roman, er, i mean amerikan citizen.
it has an imperial feel for a reason.  like rome, we can gobble you up
and digest you.  you're a scot mostly when you're in scotland.  it's
tied to that land.  unfortunately, some would like an amerikan to be
an amerikan EVERYWHERE.  universal citizenship, first class.  posh
indeed.  what did you eurotrash call it in the nineteenth century --
extraterritoriality i believe.  great concept.

that's what i meant when i said you were wrong to worry about amerikan
nationalism cause we're exploring darker and more evil -isms.  when it
comes to the future of either of our states, i'm not so much a
defeatist as i am a nihilist.


roger