Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The Girls (a story of revolution) 28

(Read from the beginning Here)


Israeli Knesset, Jerusalem. Another representative steps up to the podium

"I'll begin quoting a speech Noam Chomsky made in 1967:
If violence could be shown to lead to the overthrow of lasting suppression of human life that now obtains in vast parts of the world, that would be a justification for violence. But this has not been shown at all, in my view. 
As to the question of looting, I myself wouldn't regard that as violence. I don't see why it's more violent for a person to go into a store and take what's there than it is for a person who has money that was achieved by violent methods to go into the store and take what's there by handing over the money. I think one can give a good argument that looting isn't violence at all. In a sense, most of us are looters, or at any rate we are benefiting from others' looting. 

"I've entitled this speech "We The Looters", honoring the words that begin the American Constitution. America, in case anyone has forgotten, is a country that begin with a revolution.

"As our American Allies like to say, Let's be serious, and talk about looting.

"We have a story here of looters and looted.  A looter takes away property, maybe breaks a window, a looter doesn't hurt people.

"The looted threatened violence against the anyone who'd loot, and they got looted anyway. The looters now threaten the looted with violence if they try to take it back.

"Like ape to ape, the looters makes faces at the looted, one ape threatening the other. Threats, but no violence. Threat balances threat.

"If we are all criminals, and must stay criminals until the looting ends, engaged in the non violent looting of all by all for the benefit of the few, the only non-violent solution is to end the looting by imposing principles that prevent it from re-occurring. We know those principles, and we have applied them: no wage slavery, no ownership without use. If the looted want to use violence to reapply the old rules, we have the right to use violence to "overthrow that lasting suppression of human life".

"We have the right to meet violence with violence in self defense. What is self defense? Easy to say: it is defending what we have. Defending what you would like to have, an ideal society, raises the question of whether the end justifies the means. And how long will the future society last, how good will it be, and when will it come?

"But we don't need to ask those questions. We act in self defense.

"Aren't the looted acting in self defense to recover their lives of unlimited property ownership? Certainly, but remember self defense is a principle. Principles are rules to replace violent actions with reasonable actions. Looting of all by all for the benefit of a few is a constant application of threats of violence. We are never right to apply reason in the service of violence, do good in the service of bad.

"So far, we the looters are justified, are right. Looting is legal. Threat of violence has fought threat of violence, and won. The looting of all by all for the benefit of few is over.

"No, we will not be corrupted by our defense against violence. No, our defensive violence will not show itself in the society we establish.

"Our present question is, Can We the Looters win? Right in principle, but practically speaking, are we doing a good thing? Are we uselessly leading the world to suffering and destruction?

"Will we succeed? Will we be able to hold onto the looted property, to distribute it according to rules which will end the looting by all for the benefit of a few?

"So far, our police are not fighting to give back the houses and free food we gave them.

"What about our armed forces, and the armed forces of our American allies? Will they leave us alone?

"These are tactical questions and will be discussed in closed session.

"We The Looters welcome you to the new world, and thank you for coming."

(To be continued)