Richard Taylor commented on my post about terrorism; since the post was made a while ago and the comments might not be noticed and since I have nothing else to post today, I repeat it here:
If you wanted the issue of guns discussed why didn't you speak up?
There are in fact times when guns are necessary in the process of social and political change - Capitalism itself came about via many wars and revolutions - perhaps there are Tuhoe and others who are organising to use guns - perhaps not - but you have to show that such a use is ALWAYS a bad thing. Always bad to have guns?? Guns were sued to stop Hitler.
(I have in fact fired a gun - I don't like guns in general though BTW)
I agree that guns (for the most part) are bad news; but the people I saw with guns were the police - and they have had them and used them in NZ for years. Most of those protesting have a more sophisticated view than this kind of very superficial synopsis of yours; and most in general and in principal oppose guns as a primary weapon for use in a political change - but again - we heard nothing from you at the PR Bar...)
Why are the Maori - including Tuhoe so angry?
What you have said here is very witty perhaps but seems to float around and away from the subject -it is not even very clear what your point is...
That some people were planning to murder certain politicians or others - so what? maybe it will be necessary one day.
That guns are terrible? - Hmm - yes - they can be. But hands can "murder or create" (Eliot) - we don't need guns to kill...
That protest organistions attract mixed bunch(es)? - yes they do -
That Jamie Lockett's speech was quite tedious and almost meaningless? (Almost like that of an agent provocateur or an SIS agent? Or a "madman"?) Yes. It seemed so to me...but he was at least given, and took, the right to speak out, BUT
- YOU DIDNT SPEAK OUT AT THE PR BAR AGAINST GUNS OR AGAINST THE TUHOE or PUT YOUR CASE FOR THE RIGHTNESS OF THE POLICE ACTIONS AGAINST MAORI AND TUHOE ETC - why not?
Because to do so would have been rude. The event was not a debate but a fundraiser and I was there not as a participant but as an observer.
And if my point wasn't clear, let me make it so now: what Mr Iti and friends were doing was wrong. We do not live in Nazi Germany or some police state. We live in the world's oldest democracy, where we elect our governments, where we have the rule of law as well as plenty of checks and balances. No act of political violence is necessary or justified. As citizens we have the right to elect our representatives. We do not want Mr Iti and a bunch of suburban guerillas deciding that it may be necessary to murder some of them.
I am sorry if that is not a very sophisticated view. I think there has been quite enough sophistication already. I have heard so many excuses, justifications and downright evasions when it comes to this matter. It seems to be alright to plot to kill people, although nobody seems to be able to explain what is the cause that justifies murder. Is this killing allowed so that Mr Iti can set up his own fiefdom in the Ureweras? Or is it allowable by more general reasons, because Maori have had a bad time in the past? Or is it just because of the System? Or some other sophisticated reason, such as the contradictions inherent in Late Capitalism? Do let me know. I would hate to be thought of as superficial.
Before answering, you may wish to read the essay from the Boston Review about the Red Army Faction in Germany, to which I linked a few days ago - I don't do these links just for lulz, you know; there is a purpose. You see, that bunch of middle-class fucktards who comprised the RAF not only killed innocent people but they also damaged the cause of the Left in Germany.
Anyway, enough of this. Mr Taylor has an interesting art blog and that his daughters are members of the Nudie Suits, a popular beat combo for which I have more than a little affection. So in the interests of peace, love and understanding, here is some Western Swing: