---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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