                        The Power and The Prophet
                            BAD Broadside #9

         There has been a great deal of criticism in the popular press
     and elsewhere of the government's actions in the Branch Davidian
     debacle in Waco. The Quincy Patriot Ledger (4/21/93) classified the
     event as "among the worst disasters in the history of American law
     enforcement". The ATF and the FBI are being taken over the coals for
     the methods used and their failure to achieve a pacific outcome to
     the siege. Reno and Clinton are faulted for lacking the prescience to
     anticipate a disaster of the magnitude that occurred, and for letting
     the feds force the issue. Why didn't they, it is asked, keep up the
     "sanctions" until the Davidians got tired and came out? What excuse
     was there for losing patience and precipitating the holocaust that
     occurred? Many have even asked why the ATF felt it had to invade the
     Davidian compound in gangbusters style at all. The Davidians were out
     there in the middle of nowhere not bothering anyone, and Koresh could
     have been seized away from the compound. Obviously the Davidians
     should have been quite simply left alone.

         Government sources offered a number of inadequate responses, from
     Reno's frank acceptance of responsibility (for the failure at the end,
     not the whole thing) to the defensive drivel from law enforcement
     types who tried to lay the blame for their own bungling on Koresh, who
     refused to play fair. The stockpile of legally purchased small arms is
     cited as the reason for the initial precipitate action. Rumors of
     undefined "child abuse," that fashionable all-round excuse for frantic
     intervention, was among the reasons given for the final attack. But
     the real reason for the extreme nature of the siege and the attack
     wasn't over a question of guilt. It wasn't what Koresh and company had
     allegedly done, or even what they might do as armed sex-mad religious
     maniacs that was the problem. It was their unrepentant challenge to
     the authority of the State.

         Many sense an inevitability about the whole thing, and in a very
     important way they are right. Given the authoritarian nature of both
     the State and the Davidian sect, once the conflict was engaged, the
     only way it could end was in the destruction of the offending party.
     It has long been an anarchistic truism that the State reserves for
     itself a monopoly on coercive control. As Benjamin Tucker says flatly,
     "Aggression, invasion, government are interconvertible terms. The
     essence of government is control, or the attempt to control." The
     State will not and cannot allow an independent authority to evade
     this control within its jurisdiction. Koresh et al have been denounced
     for futilely holding out against the government rather than
     negotiating. It was indeed futile, but quite possibly they were aware
     that there was no real "negotiation" possible. It is a cardinal
     principal of the State that no one (apparently not even the heads of
     rival States) can hold themselves "above the law"; i.e., independent
     of the authority of the State. Therefore the only question is how the
     law will be avenged, not whether it will be. The only option open was
     complete surrender and abasement, after which the details and extent
     of punitive retribution could be adjusted.

         The Davidian sect assumed and acted as if it had independent
     authority by virtue of the dictates of christian doctrine. They
     wouldn't play by the rules and give in like nice little subjects of
     the State. Yet anarchists should resist the temptation to identify
     with these victims of governmental repression. The tragedy occurred
     because both sides shared a fatal weakness -- a hypertrophy of
     authority. Religion, especially the christian religion, has long
     claimed an authority that transcends that of the State in certain
     matters, although few groups are so naive as to force the issue to its
     logical conclusion. As anarchists have long insisted, such authority
     inevitably leads to disaster. David Koresh and his followers -- it
     is nonsensical to pretend they were all his dupes -- chose to follow
     the dictates of their faith rather than those of the State, as other
     religious groups from the Pilgrims to the Mormons have in the past.
     And as in the past, they suffered by challenging the power of the
     State.

         The authority of the State is maintained through the demand that 
     its laws and regulations be acceded to without question. It
     customarily took an open and active breach of these laws, an actual
     perpetration of a "crime," to precipitate a coercive response by the
     government. However, it has now become the fashion to anticipate
     possible breaches and to move against potential "criminals" who
     through their beliefs and activities (such as espousing religious,
     sexual or political nonconformity) may at some point transgress the
     myriad rules and regulations the government has at its disposal for
     excusing coercion. Following an often brutal and intimidating
     experience at the hands (and feet) of agencies such as the ATF and the
     DEA, the social penitent is supposed to be led away to be made an
     example of to other would-be dissidents. When the invaded refuse to
     play to the State's script by not surrendering and confessing their
     subjugation, they must be destroyed (socially or biologically).

         By asserting their own authority over that of the government, the
     Davidians laid down an irresistible challenge. The State took up the
     challenge, and as is usually the case, won. The Davidians were
     attacked, reviled, humiliated, demonized in the press and finally,
     although inadvertently, physically destroyed. There may be
     considerable criticism now and perhaps some jobs will be lost or some
     ameliorating statutes passed, but the State itself will not be
     affected. As long as the criticism focuses only on the manner in which
     the repression was handled rather than questioning the prerogative of
     the government to repress at will, nothing will change.


                               NO COPYRIGHT

            Please send two copies of any review or reprint
                      of all or part of this to:

                     Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
                               (BAD Brigade)
                                PO Box 1323
                            Cambridge, MA 02238

                     Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com

                               April, 1993


