It can be that easy, especially in a controlled situation like a march, where the likelihood of oversight by public or private means is likely (which kindles another thought: overwhelming the police and other public bodies that carry out CCTV surveillance, in the immediate aftermath of a protest. with FoI requests for footage, the economic war often being as important as the physical one).
You don't initiate violence, you respond to it, or the imminent threat of it, which leaves the quasi-pacifists among us little excuse for not defending themselves.
Then violence would be our tool to use if necessary- outgunned and outmanned are we.
It should be.
IMHO it's important to allow the state to pay out enough rope to hang themselves with, though. We know from the last couple of years how fragile a grip on public support the state has, in terms of policing protest, and allowing the state's apparatus to blunder around intimidating people engaged in legitimate protest, and be seen to do so, costs them immeasurably more than it costs the protesters.
oh aye, but a massive social imperative to freedom is not viable, not in the current set up.
Well, maybe "freedom" isn't an immediately-achievable goal, and I suspect that people understand that, but that's not the immediate issue: The cuts and the damage they're already causing and will cause, are.
They'll win. They do this, win when you go toe-to-toe. Hamstring, undermine and so forth. Go face to face and they have the higher ground.
Which is why I don't believe in "going toe-to-toe". As I said to a poster on another thread last week, it's very bad tactically to fight your enemy on ground of his choosing. far better to fight that enemy on your own terms.
Now, working out what terms to fight on, and what tactics and strategies best serve your goals, that's the difficult thing.
defense and fall back stuff. I know this is what the guerrilla force has to do. But the Irregulars Handbook can be a catalyst for a sodding RAF special. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth- to become the thing you despise etc.
Not really. The RAF were never about self-defence, or even community defence, they were more about a direct assault on the system via those who served it.
The great thing about "guerrilla warfare" is that you don't need to fight to win, you merely need to tie up the materiel and personnel your enemy controls, and (hopefully) make them look brutal and inept. With the state of current information technology, you don't even have to worry about the BBC doing an Orgreave with your footage of the state's apparatus being brutal and inept.
