>You are not in the position to criticize, since you don't know any
>of the activists involved and live in another hemisphere. How can
>you criticize our strategy if you DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS?
But I do know what your strategic aim is, the question is, do you? It is to further radicalise those people attending these protests. By provoking confrontation with authorities.
>Are you one of those liberal peace nazis?
I'm neither a liberal, a pacifist or a nazi. I entirely support you objective of further radicalising liberal protestors, I simply think reinforcing the hand of the authorities in their capacity to use force is an acceptable price to pay.
>This paragraph sounds like it was copied verbatim from the arguments they use.
I arrived at that conclusion independently. Strategic non-violence is a very sensible strategy when faced with opposition from people who have the advantage of an overwhelming superiority of force. It only works when their power hinges to a large extent on the consent of a population who will withdraw that consent if they believe the force is being exercised immorally, but in those circumstances it is a valid strategy. Certainly more valid than skulking around like a thief in the night causing petty inconvenience.
>>Getting the cops to beat you up wouldn't work, the trouble is with
>>this is that it would probably come across publicly that you
>>deserve it. The strategic object of non-violent dissent is to make
>>it more difficult for the cops to take advantage of their
>>overwhelming superiority of force. What the organisers need to do
>>is try to non-violently defend you from the cops, while also
>>non-violently preventing you (not to mention the usual paid agent
>>provocateurs, which you seem intent on making redundant) from
>>rampaging about the place giving the cops an excuse to beat you
>>(and other protestors) up.
>
>That's right, blame the victim for the police violence they so richly deserve.
You want sympathy? Then you have to make it look like they initiated the violence without any proper cause.
> > A secret public demonstration. Wrong strategy.
>
>Successful direct actions usually have a secret component.
In what sense do you mean "successful"? Perhaps you're aims are too limited?
You see, the problem is that you might very well achieve success at the tactical level, that is achieve your tactical aim, but only undermine your strategic objectives. Take for example the US invasion of Iraq, entirely successful on the tactical level - Saddam Hussein's government overthrown, Iraqi military completely crushed, new puppet government installed. Unfortunately, it has only undermined the overall strategic objective - full-spectrum US world dominance.
That's what happens when you get carried away with your capacity to achieve tactical success, without properly evaluating the strategic implications of your tactics.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas