----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:59:23 EST
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rn- re: PGA
Why is it that violence is always so much more attractive than non-violence at
first gloss? Perhaps it is because violence, in word and deed, gives us a
rush, a thrill, an over the top primitive charge, a denyial of our connection
to the other ,that makes it so attractive. It is always the easier, less
inventive, clumsiest way to respond.
I regret that Richard is probably right in keeping his distance. Even if
the PGA has nothing but the highest of goals and are funded from the pockets
of the working poor, they will only succeed to bringing those who diagree
with them into becoming their enemies. And we should be senstive to the
reality, that if your enemies have 98% of the fire power, it is probably not
much of an advantage that you are in the right and that you intend to fire
first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:56:12 +0100
From: "U.P.secr." <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
CC: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••,
•••@••.•••,
activ-l <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rn- re: PGA
1. Our planet cannot afford to skip ANY contribution toward
terminating corporate rule.
2. Although Sergio Hernandez is a very central figure within
PGA, we therefore have to distinguish sharply between him
and the movement.
3. As a representative of the only one existing strategy that
the corporations have to fear, cf. the home page under
construction at web site http://www.unitedpeoples.net ,
my experiences with Sergio is apt for enhancing others' picture
of him as an agent provocateur :
Already beforehand, Sergio for no obvious reasons tried to
discourage me from attending the Geneva conference a year ago.
And during the conference the anti-democratic Sergio as
"moderator" on one hand cut me off and prevented me from
presenting my views, on the other hand openly promoted the
debate-sabotaging endless nonsense of an attending CIA-agent.
As one of the group members required an explanation for his
chocking behaviour, Sergio answered that the right time for
global action of Peoples Global Action had not yet come !
His hostilities against me has continued also after the
conference.
4. KRRS's historical "Cremate Monsanto" campaign is being
conducted in the name of PGA (this strategy having been decided
with or without the consent of Sergio).
For the first time the correct strategy for complete termination
of the corporations has been carried out in practice.
Notice the decisive difference between KRRS's strategy and Vandana
Shiva's limited and inadequate scope of getting Monsanto out of
India only.
5. Despite a noticeable decline of the announced scope, the
planned global activities this summer where PGA and other
activists will focus on the corporate centers, deserve support.
Provided that the necessary dicipline will prevent any violent
provocations, the activities in spite of the general silence of
the mainstream media can only contribute to the silent majority's
understanding and awareness.
And inevitably the question will be raised: What is the ultimate
goal of these activities ?
And inevitably the answer can only be: Internationalize the
corporations !
6. My suggestion therefore is that we through this debate tell
Sergio that we watch him keenly, but support all activities he
can find support for within PGA, as long as the activities
have a reasonably high benefit/cost ratio.
Ole
---------------
Dear Ole,
Thanks for your report. Several interesting items there. Regarding PGA,
you said:
>Provided that the necessary dicipline will prevent any violent
>provocations, the activities in spite of the general silence of
>the mainstream media can only contribute to the silent majority's
>understanding and awareness.
"Necessary discipline" is indeed a central proviso. You seem to be
suggesting that we should give PGA the benefit of the doubt on this one,
since you say:
>6. My suggestion therefore is that we through this debate tell
>Sergio that we watch him keenly, but support all activities he
>can find support for within PGA, as long as the activities
>have a reasonably high benefit/cost ratio.
It seems to me that on the contrary, we _cannot give PGA any
benefit-of-doubt on this one. Their manifesto is clear, they are
"non-judgemental" regarding violence, and PGA seems to issue no apologies
or reprimands when provocations do arise, instead they whine about
"unprovoked" police brutality.
In order to support future actions by them, as I see it, there would need
to be a _prior statement by PGA, and a convincing one, that they had mended
their ways.
imho,
rkm
========================================================================
an activist discussion forum - •••@••.•••
To subscribe, send any message to
•••@••.•••
A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
(mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org)
Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance
To review renaissance-network archives, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list
and a more general political discussion, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
-- Frantz Fanon
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
committed citizens can change the world,
indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
