<HTML><HTML> From: "Brian Charles Dauth" Okay -- I have been trying to follow this thread and now I am lost.  How is the idea that violence is necessary empirical and scientific when it (violence) hasn't worked yet? ^^^^^ CB: How about violence worked to end slavery in the U.S. ?  John Brown. Frederck Douglass,  without struggle there is no progress. The struggle might have to be spirtual or , unfortunately, physical or both but there has to be  struggle. John Brown's body lies  a smoldering in the grave ,but his soul is marching on. Or Cuba. It took an armed struggle for the initial victory of the revolution in Cuba; or China; or Vietn Nam. etc.  There was armed struggle in the victory over Apartheid South Africa.  In Venezuela right now we see how the revolutionaries there have to use forceful self-defense. ^^^^ Wouldn't the opposite also be possible: that violence is not the way to go since it has failed so far?  Or is it that not enough violence was used (the old "if you fail redouble your effort, don't rethink your approach)? I remember a few weeks back I was struggling with the concept of false consciousness. Could it be that belief/faith in violence is a manifestation of false consciousness in that violence appeals to/satiates the passions and not the rational mind? Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister </HTML>