[ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2016 11:17 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what he'd be a martyr to. It's not like anyone would step in
>> and take his place.
>
> A martyr to speaking out against the government and anyone the government
is
> trying to protect.  Worst case, you'd have a lot more incidents like that
recent
> standoff in Oregon, and they'd get more violent.

Still too early to tell much about the result of the Oregon standoff. The
guy who was killed by the government definitely fits the martyr mold, but I
don't if his killing has yet set off anything greater than just adding his
name to the list of people killed by the government. Sure, these folks
probably inspire others, but there seems to be nothing yet like, say, the
late 1960s from my reading. No widespread movement.

In a sense, maybe it's a reply of the process elucidated in Adam Zamovski's
book _Phantom Terror_. Put simply, the government learned its lessons from
the 1960s and 1970s (and from the 1990s with Waco) in how to deal more
effectively with movements that might challenge its legitimacy. (See
https://reason.com/archives/2016/03/01/spectres-haunting-europe for a
review of Zamovski's book.)

That said, though, you might be right that were something to happen to
Trump at the convention, yes, many in his movement and probably many
outside it who are sympathetic would see him as a martyr. I'm trying to
parse what this would, in the very unlikely event it happened, would do.
Again, RFK was assassinated and many view him as a martyr of sorts, but to
what? There's no RFK party. Nor have I read about a widespread movement
after his death to, say, take over the Democratic party and put his
policies into place. I haven't read about folks in 1972 or 1976 and after
saying, "What would RFK have done? That's what we must do!"

With Trump it might be different, of course, though I believe many support
him more because they see him as a challenge to the status quo (while
paradoxically being part of the status quo, but partisans are rarely
consistent).

Anyhow, the Secret Service is reported to have said it won't allow guns at
the convention. Maybe they'll beef up security to such a degree that, like
with 1968, most of the action will happen outside the actual convention
venue.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160328/63230cc3/attachment.html>