





I manage a restaurant in DC where I’m often baffled by the presence of people like Senator “Joe-mentum” or former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Night after night of making sure the sons and daughters of CEO’s and Saudi oil barons get their grilled salmon on time can be a bitter pill to swallow. However, on two nights last week I had a subversive secret: whenever I had a moment I would sneak back to the office and tend to my email interview with my hero, and under-read American mischief maker, Mickey Z. The following is the result of our somewhat spontaneous interview.
Mickey Z. is a self-educated writer/martial artist/vegan who lives with his wife Michele in
New York City.
Likes: sunsets, rainbows, and anarcho-syndicalism
Dislikes: mean people, traffic, and factory farming His web site is www.mickeyz.net
Maxwell Black: Call me cynical, but I have a sinking suspicion that the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are permanent. Even if Cindy Sheehan were to self-immolate on the White House lawn, I don’t think it would make a difference. Do you think there is any real reason to believe there is an end in sight?
Mickey Z: Well, things tend to be permanent…until they end. I’m sure some confluence of events will impact the durability and/or feasibility of the US occupation. I’m also pretty sure those events will not involve anything that we call “activism” today.
Since we acknowledge that there is certain amount of futility to the anti-war movement, would activist’s time and effort be better served on other projects? I’m not saying we should abandon the cause, but perhaps it could be fought along side a broader cause like say a revived Global Justice Movement.
We clearly need new ideas, new methods, and a new focus. The most insane part about me trying to answer this question is this: If I discuss tactics that could be slightly misconstrued by the powers-that-be, I risk serious trouble. For now, I’ll suggest folks read both volumes of Endgame by Derrick Jensen.
Speaking of Jensen and “tactics that could be misconstrued by the powers that be”. In his work Endgame volumes 1 and 2 he makes a great effort to smash the ideology of pacifism. One of his premises is “love does not imply pacifism.” He explains that it’s just the opposite–you fight for and protect what you love. He gives examples like a mother grizzly naturally protecting her cub, fighting back against domestic abusers, Indians fighting for their land and so on. If we apply Chomsky’s idea of universality–that what is moral (or immoral) in one setting should be considered in other settings–do we have moral dilemma? What I mean is what if “what you love” (or think you love) is Capitalism, slavery or unearned privilege?
If I randomly walked up to a man, kicked him in the nuts, and then smashed his face down onto my rising knee, I’d justifiably be vilified as a dangerous sociopath. If that same man was brutally attacking someone I loved (or anyone, for that matter) - perhaps even with a weapon - and I came along on the scene and promptly acted out the above scenario, would I still be a sociopath? The trouble is, once you give anyone “permission” to anyone to use force, they often abuse it. No easy answers for sure. Maybe Malcolm X said it best: “We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us.”
Nice.
(more…)