What if the black bloc have the right idea?

354 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think it is important to do the other work that isn't so exciting, doesn't produce instant gratification, and sometimes involves compromise.

 

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

That's the essence of the original proposal: Nothing else has worked therefore we must resort to violent overthrow.

@ NDPP

What does the state trying to force her to testify and her refusal to comply have to do with this?

It demonstrates that the state is unscrupulous and that she has a strong force of will; it doesn't justify other peoples' actions.

And also, it's not the first time the state has reacted like this; in 1919 it resulted in thousands of arrests and deportations of many people who did nothing at all:

 

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And speaking of Slumberjack's reference to wars of attrition...

What on earth are you going on about?

Slumberjack

ArghMonkey wrote:
 ... but what if we took over the government by force? would that be ok? .... The answer is not fun but its obvious.

Quote:
"Those who would respond to the urgency of the situation with the urgency of their reaction only add to the general asphyxiation. Their manner of intervention implies the rest of their politics, of their agitation."

What is all too obvious is the fact that with billions spent on surveillance and security, any such proposition is impossible, not to mention that the general collective, otherwise known as the population, would hardly support such a thing either now or into the foreseeable future, notwithstanding the fact that a newly reconstituted government, from subterfuge, from violence, or what have you, would only become a mirror of what was done away with.  It begs the question of precisely who this 'we' would be comprised of.

There is actually no 'we' or 'them,' because 'they' are only comprised of what we invest in them.  We are them.  It stands to reason that since 'they' are constituted from both constructive and destructive input, starving them of both diminishes, little by little, this entity that we have been contributing toward in one fashion or another.  Forget about the left, the center and the right, or detest it all equally, it doesn't matter.  Forget about the periodic calls for martyrdom in support of this or that cause, in support of the same dynamics of government, some presenting as more benign than others, but which are essentially the same nonetheless.  If you want to solve the problems of this world, then look forward to extinction, because we're the problem.

In the meantime; communism, which NDPP's invisible committee link describes as an existence that doesn't give a fuck about Marxism, the USSR, or any other totalitarian mutation; can be experimented with and lived in mutual association with others from practically any location.  Extract what you need from the ruins of this society in any manner you like, only be careful to avoid replicating the present by harming people in the process.  Focus on de-subjectification from the everyday, deeply embedded language of oppression by attempting a makeover of the mind instead of the body, or instead of some political party, even if it more resembles an error ridden process that sputters along.  None of this by the way implies turning the other cheek, but it does assume a militant posture nonetheless in its very absence, because as Arundhati Roy puts it, 'they need us.'  Another world might indeed be possible, but of the one we're currently in, it’s fucked up beyond all repair.  Removing 'us' is far more devastating than donating bricks to 'them.'  As Catchfire suggests, grab a latte instead, or better yet, steal one if you can get away with it.

Anyway, I must admit to finding the sentencing speech of Mandy Hiscocks interesting when she said toward the end, as part of her address to the judge, the court, and to the entire system being represented in the juridical process; referring to social justice; that 'we' didn't come to you, and 'we'll' never come to you.  I found it interesting because of the fact that the group she is associated with were there in the courtroom, speaking volumes to the fact that someone had to have come before something, seeking relief, justice, revenge, social programs, prison reform, an end to globalization, pollution, police brutality...the list is so long that it's nearly impossible to select just one.  In every instance where the 'we' presents itself before the 'they' with a list of demands, in whatever form the presenting ends up as, the result is exactly everything we see before us today, played out over and over again to the extent that there should be no remaining guesswork in the outcome.

bernadette corporation

Quote:
This is capitalism today.  A fat fish that doesn’t swim anymore.  Now we can’t even eat it, it is rotten. Everything is rotten today.

The sleep of this time is not a restful one, but rather an anguished sleep that leaves you more exhausted, only desiring to sleep again and escape the irritating reality.  There is a narcosis that leads to an even deeper narcosis.

Those who, by luck or misfortune, awaken from this sleep, enter the world as lost children.

"Where are the words, where is the house?  Where are my loves, my friends, my ancestors?”

There are none, my child.  Everything must be built:  the language you inhabit, the house where you will not be alone, the ancestry that will make you more free.  And you must build a new sentimental education through which you will love once more.  And all this built upon a general hostility, because the awakened ones are the nightmare of those still asleep.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In the totalitarian state to the south of us there is no right to remain silent.  You either testify against your fellow activists or go to jail. 

Statement by Leah Lynn Plante (and vid)

http://tidesofflame.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/we-are-made-of-star-stuff-s...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Besides, having worked with children in the past, the whole "yeah well that person is worse than what I do" really causes me personally to tune out anyways.

Stop with the adolescent, to cute by half. personal attacks.  I have raised my children and am helping raise my grand children.  So please desist from being a self righteous twit and just discuss and debate. 

By the way the elite and their minions love using the personal put down as a response to anyone who challenges their paradigms.

Tongue out

Bacchus

oda, read this thread, lots of people are suggesting otherwise

onlinediscountanvils

Bacchus wrote:
oda, read this thread, lots of people are suggesting otherwise

 

Given that this my 20th post I'm not sure why you would think I haven't read this thread. I can see how Smith's comment could apply to the OP, although I assumed it was more spitballing than serious proposal. But "lots of people"? I don't see it.

ArghMonkey ArghMonkey's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

What is all too obvious is the fact that with billions spent on surveillance and security, any such proposition is impossible, not to mention that the general collective, otherwise known as the population, would hardly support such a thing either now or into the foreseeable future, notwithstanding the fact that a newly reconstituted government, from subterfuge, from violence, or what have you, would only become a mirror of what was done away with.  It begs the question of precisely who this 'we' would be comprised of.

1. Doing nothing or doing things that amount to almost nothing is not "ok" a.f.a.i.c.

2. Technology is scary as hell but its still made by humans, for every phone call recorded illegally there are hackers releasing damning emails and papers, the blade cuts both ways and resistance always has access to effective counter measures. You can build microwave "guns" in your garage, you think technology is only in the hands of a few? Even if it was (which it isent) thats no reason to try nothing.

3.The "we" arent very united, your right in saying the "we" is all of us but specifically I am looking at groups willing to do "whatever it takes", maybe they dont exist in Canada today, maybe one day they will? maybe its something we should be thinking about?

4. All efforts arent the same though its easy to think they might be, they all seem to fail in equal measure, though when they succeed we invent things like the middle class, thats worth lots of failures to gain no?

5. When it comes to the planet and all the unfortunate creatures that exist at a time when we can fuck with them with impunity, ya, extinction will return some sort of balance to the world, the world pre-humankind was violent but lacked our calculated evil. I dont hate my species though and for every fuck up we have counter examples of kindness, compassion, sharing, cooperation, community, etc.  We are social being with a heart and motivators, being realistic means aknowledging our positives too.

Fidel

Yes I think Angry Monkey is right, SJ. It's better to die fighting on our feet than live on our knees. Technology is a double edged sword and can be utilized in our favour and all. We are not HG Wells' Eloi just yet - they depend on too many of us to run their matrix world. We do have allies on the inside who took the red pill by their own choosing. If "they" are legion, then we are one-thousand times greater in number. Our worst nightmare is their only hope, and our only hope is their worst nightmare.

HG Wells wrote:
“And I have by me, for my comfort, two strange white flowers - shriveled now, and brown and flat and brittle - to witness that even when mind and strength had gone, gratitude and a mutual tenderness still lived on in the heart of men.”
The Time Machine

Slumberjack

ArghMonkey wrote:
 Doing nothing or doing things that amount to almost nothing is not "ok" a.f.a.i.c.

I don't think we talked about doing nothing, but at the same time, determining what is ok and what is not ok has the ring of a summons or an injunction.  As people have been suggesting in this thread, certain choices can be critiqued for their effectiveness, or for how some choices tend to supplement the existing power relations.  Ultimately people will decide the best way for themselves.  It doesn't prevent anyone, as publisher Eric Hazan once told a crowded room during a conversation about subjectivity and praxis, from oiling up their machine guns in the corner to the discussion.

Quote:
 Technology is scary as hell but its still made by humans, for every phone call recorded illegally there are hackers releasing damning emails and papers, the blade cuts both ways and resistance always has access to effective counter measures. You can build microwave "guns" in your garage, you think technology is only in the hands of a few? Even if it was (which it isent) thats no reason to try nothing.

No one necessarily implies that Luddism should be thought of as a viable alternative when they suggest that people consider fleeing the political disciplines.

Quote:
The "we" arent very united, your right in saying the "we" is all of us but specifically I am looking at groups willing to do "whatever it takes", maybe they dont exist in Canada today, maybe one day they will? maybe its something we should be thinking about?

What is "it?"  That would be my initial question.  If "it" means replacing the government by force in order to look after everyone the way they deserve to be looked after, as determined by committee consensus, and incidentally to suppress all the wrong doers - and here we'll need to draw up a list - people will soon have to consider fleeing from this as well.

Quote:
All efforts arent the same though its easy to think they might be, they all seem to fail in equal measure, though when they succeed we invent things like the middle class, thats worth lots of failures to gain no

Not if we're seeking to turn class distinction out on it's ear.  It's succeeded well enough as it is tyvm.

Quote:
I dont hate my species though and for every fuck up we have counter examples of kindness, compassion, sharing, cooperation, community, etc.  We are social being with a heart and motivators, being realistic means aknowledging our positives too.

Of course.  There are many reasons to remain optimistic.  There'd be little point if there were nothing more to work with other than greed accompanied by the usual violence.  I'm certainly not convinced yet, despite all the effort being put in, that even the most basic foundations for all livable communities have been buried under for good by the existing greed and violence.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
Not if we're seeking to turn class distinction out on it's ear.  It's succeeded well enough as it is tyvm.

I have to agree with SJ here, AM. They continue waging class warfare in dividing and conquering us. I see it every day, and it's both sad and embarrassing for us all.

Fidel

I believe millions ran to the front to either fight fascism or out of fear of reprisals from the Nazis and their corporate-sponsored military machine. Tens of thousands of Canadians and Americans were chomping at the bit to go overseas for that and various other reasons, and many of them were simply escaping poverty and interested in seeing the rest of the world.

SJ is right about the increasing financial burden of war. Vietnam was proof that they couldn't afford it over the economic long run. I could run on for a page or two about how that screwed-up the North American economy by the late 1970's. The point is that the ammo alone for Vietnam was estimated at so many hundred thousand tons of mineral resources. They simply couldn't afford the same effort today with the new liberal capitalism and financial constraints imposed on us by non-elected financial elites running things from the shadows. They are resorting to marauding international capital to do what standing armies used to do when invading and conquering countries. Greeks and Icelanders have told them to go fuck themselves without a decent army to back-up the bankersters' dubious claims. It all hinges on their ability to buy governments that will continue to uphold their fraudulent claims, because I don't think European and Wall Street financiers can afford to wage a decent land war today.

It's why they are relying on mainly drone terror and aerial bombing, which was already proven to be useless against the will of a ten thousand year-old culture in Vietnam and again today in Afghanistan and Iraq. Destroying whole villages in order to "save them", and now whole countries by aerial bombing,  is not very politically viable in the long run with Moscow and Beijing now telling them to get stuffed for threatening Iran militarily. That's illegal since Nuremberg, and I think the gig is up for the Gladio Gang's glorious post-cold war tear since the 1990's.  What they can afford to do and continue doing is to finance terrorism abroad. The strategy of tension is still on. It's not as quick as megadeath and wars of annihilation, but then again which of them wants the political gamble of another world war? |Churchill and Roosevelt fully believed the Nazis would occupy the Kremlin six weeks from the start of barbarossa. They refused to believe that Stalin had effectively prepared Russia for western aggression against the revolution part two, and a corporate-sponsored land army was demolished as a result of their own arrogance and poor planning for unknowns, like the will of a nation to avoid being mass murdered and-or enslaved.

Fascism is a big show, a three-ring circus with lots of propaganda and glitz. They are not so sure of themselves today. Another epic world war failure could be the end of them for a long time. Fascists like to gamble on surer things today and small victories, like terror attacks and bullying tiny nations into submission. The Gladio Gang are having great difficulties with terrorizing small and poor nations, like Iraq and Afghanistan and now Syria.  Bullies like to maintain a bad rep, and now the wheels have come off that one. When the head don starts losing respect, it usually gets rough for the reigning family. Then the capos and foot soldiers rebel. Rebellion among their own ranks is what they fear most.

NDPP

we shouldn't be waiting for these capos and foot soldiers to organize their own versions of 'Golden Dawn' before starting seriously to organize long term resistance as well. High time it kicked into high gear here in sleepy hollow north as well..past time actually.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And speaking of Slumberjack's reference to wars of attrition...

What on earth are you going on about?

Your mention of the growing financial burden of war... which tends to wear down, rather than actually defeat strategically.

Bit of a tangent, I know. Sorry for the confusion.

And Fidel

Better to die fighting?

I'm sure millions of fucking fools ran to the front to prove that old slogan right.

What do you have for an encore? Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?

(edit)

I initially used the word "idiots" above. Sorry about that.

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

ArghMonkey wrote:

Im not just talking about bricks in windows, im talking about storming parliament, at what point does that become a reasonable thing to do.

When a significant majority of Canadians would wholly support such action.

Sven Sven's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Actually, an eye for an eye would just destroy depth perception.  It would not lead to total blindness.

Now, two eyes for two eyes would be a different story...

6079_Smith_W

@ Fidel #164

Yes, many people have put their lives on the line on the line for some very good reasons.

Responding to a macho threat isn't one of them, and I don't care if the actual words are Zapata's, or Bob Marley's or some Klingon or a latin proverb, or all of them.

In this context It is just a different version of the same thing said by every warmonger or would-be revolutionary who doesn't care how many people get themselves killed, so long as it is for his cause, and so long as they don't ask questions.

My reaction this afternoon was a bit off the cuff. Let me explain just how manipulative that goad is.

It assumes that if you aren't fighting you are on your knees, not resisting, not standing up to power, and not doing anything of any worth

It assumes that fighting will solve the problem, and it sure makes dying sound like a good, brave and very macho thing. The ONLY thing that proves your real worth, actually. If someone yelled that out in a rally I'd probably be a bit ashamed to admit I don't want to die.I'd sure be careful not to ask why I should just in case everyone assumed I was a weakling who was too afraid to die and just wanted to live on my knees.

 

And yeah, we'd better get our street gang together before they get their street gang together so we'll be ready. That's real progressive thinking.

 

Sven Sven's picture

A Montreal Paul wrote:

Too many people on the Left prefer to mix only with people who think like them, and value ideological purity above all else. Instead of talking with people, they preach at them. And they get angry at everyone: "Why isn't anyone listening to me!?"

This is not a problem unique to the Left.  This is true of the Left and the Right.  The Internet has exacerbated that tendency.

6079_Smith_W

Sven wrote:

ArghMonkey wrote:

Im not just talking about bricks in windows, im talking about storming parliament, at what point does that become a reasonable thing to do.

When a significant majority of Canadians would wholly support such action.

Plus, I responded to this in post #5.The fact is that they did storm parliament in 1849. Burned it to the ground, actually.

Who did it? A mob of racist anglos who didn't think that francophone Quebeckers deserved the same reparations they got for the 1837 rebellions. Was that reasonable?  Was it just?

More importantly, was it effective? The answer to that is no.

All that happened is that the prime minister went to another building and continued his work governing the country.

 

ryanw

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think it is important to do the other work that isn't so exciting, doesn't produce instant gratification, and sometimes involves compromise.

 Has anyone suggested otherwise?

having "fence sitter" pointed at your pejoratively is pretty close to that

having any presentation of moderation in ones own views gets trash thrown on you by both sides, and certainly name calling isn't a sanctioned method of persuasion by the fair and autonomy fostering morale superiors.

at the same time you should respect the source of that immediacy; and you can appeal to them for civility in planning these interventions but they're under no obligation to agree and you can then choose to do some impromptu privilege comparison and categorize that person in a patronising fashion as being unable to meet standards you would expect from anyone else and just take the abuse.

 

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
Fascism is a big show, a three-ring circus with lots of propaganda and glitz. They are not so sure of themselves today.

This is true of politics in every respect Fidel, which in our circumstances also resembles Fatherland style Fascism because it appears conjoined at the head with business.  Even today with our more advanced diagnostic tools, we haven't had much success in establishing with any precision where corporatism ends and politics begins - and the advances of the security state reminds us of just how unsure they truly are, especially when the population as a whole are classified by level of threat.  The concept behind Heydrich's colour coded index cards has been digitalized and rolled out to a vast assortment of interconnected security agencies.  The one exception today from the previous established norm for Fascism is this focus on Muslims instead of Jews.  Although ... Jason Kenney appears to be tethered to tradition when it comes to agitating against certain groups, especially those who can only be taken advantage of in so many ways, which helps to explain his preference for re-introducing to Canadians of European descent, who apparently need little re-introduction, the ancient prejudices against the Roma.

onlinediscountanvils

ryanw wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think it is important to do the other work that isn't so exciting, doesn't produce instant gratification, and sometimes involves compromise.

 Has anyone suggested otherwise?

having "fence sitter" pointed at your pejoratively is pretty close to that

 

Not at all. I wasn't the one who wrote it, but the "fence sitter" comment was in reference to someone's rhetorcial style - not some expectation of "instant gratification".

Otavano

ArghMonkey wrote:

The more I see the failure of the left to change our society and the more I see the destruction caused by conservatives the more I really start to wonder when (and if) the left will ever take control.

At what point do we force our hand?

This is a serious post, despite lots of talk from the left, we arent effecting much change, sure we have official opposition but harper went from a minority to a majority.

Do we have to wait till feudalism sets in completely before we do something? Its doubtful we would have the brains or nerve to stand up even then.

Im not a member of the black bloc but increasingly my thinking is becoming more radical then theirs.

Dont you guys/girls get sick of the insanity going on with conservatives? Whats your tipping point? When your children get indoctrinated? When would you be willing to do anything to get rid of conservatives?

An honest question.

 

Hi ArghMonkey,

I'm more of a liberal-conservative myself, but at the same time, I can understand your frustration. Looking past the right-left divide, there are many points on which principled conservatives and principled socialists ought to be able to find some common ground. I've mentioend some in the thread below:

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/hi-all

I don't see why conservatism has to necessarily be tied in with support for imperialism of any kind, and so the principled right and left should stand together on withdrawing from NATO, NORAD, and other such organizations, respect treaties, etc. removing the separate school system from the Constitution, etc.

I don't know if the formation of a centrist non-imperialist party might be the way to go for a while until the imperialism is removed, after which we could go back to our differences. Or some other idea of the sort. The NDP ought to realise that there is a void right now on the principled right that's not really being filled by any party at the moment.

Generally speaking, the principled right will still agree with generous funding for universal compulsory education, ensuring quality job training for the unemployed, and other help to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty. I think what divides them from the left mostly has to do with the area of social conservatism in the case of some on the right, as well as things pretty well all on the right would view as luxuries as opposed to necessities, such as funding for arts and culture, CBC/SRC, etc. beyond for instance compensation for the damage done to indigenous cultures. There is no reason to be members of linguistically imperialist organizations such as the Organisation de la Francophony or the Commonwealth of Nations, which have nothing to do with eitehr the right or left anyway, but merely imperialism.

perhaps one way of looking at it is taht the principled left can come across sometimes as bread-and-butter socialists (i.e. make sure everyone gets a quality education and eliminate the extremes of whealth and poverty, but not worry about superfluous issues such as arts and culture (except maybe for endangered indigenous languages), who owns a particular company, or whether free-trade vs. protectionism).

I don't know if there are any ideas on how to bridge the gap between the non-imperialist right and the non-imperialist left.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
That's why I think it is important to do the other work that isn't so exciting, doesn't produce instant gratification, and sometimes involves compromise. 

Sometimes may even be considered tolerable, but sadly we've been shown nothing other than compromise.  Just as sometimes, people become so enraptured by the spectacle of certain unsanctioned forms of violence, as though they were reading about it from a tabloid newspaper; which in essence they do; that they neglect to give the origins of such violence its proper due.  Instead, it is almost as if in examining violence and neglecting to properly attribute a cause or an origin, it becomes understandably irrational and illogical to some people, and thus somehow represents a greater peril than the more familiar and evidently mind-numbing types of everyday violence, the hell they've already formed intimate relations with.

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ #175

Again, that's not really the problem I have with it. People are going to resort fo violence in certain situations whether anyone likes it or not - when they are under attack, when something outrageous is done to them, or when they are so frustrated they do not know what else to do.I don't have a problem with the irrationality.

It's rational violence I have a problem with - violence as a calculated, offensive tactic designed to send a message or get a result. As I said, it's completely disconnected. Nobody other than the brick chuckers is going to get the point.

By contrast, when riots broke out after the murder of Martin Luther King, What did the president of the United States say?  "What did you expect? I don't know why we're so surprised. When you put your foot on a man's neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what's he going to do? He's going to knock your block off."

He didn't call them vandals; He got the message, and had sympathy for it.

And regarding NDPP's post #151, I don't absolve the government for stomping on peoples' rights and attacking them, but really what is the purpose of vandalism, sabotage, bombing and other violent acts? In large part it is to pressure the government to do just that - show their nasty side and turn more people against them. So really, if some people want a physical fight with the government, that is exactly what they are getting. And they are upset about innocent people being affected? Well they don't seem to care much about collateral damage when they carry out their actions. So why should they be surprised that some innocent person has has her  house raided and is thrown in jail?

But of course, it is different, because it shows the state behaving badly, not them.

And there is no mass of people waiting to burn our parliament. Again, if we can't get them to do many other things that would be far more simple, less violent, and more effective, how do you think you are going to get them to do that?

 

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:
In large part it is to pressure the government to do just that - show their nasty side and turn more people against them.

 

I've often heard this put forward as one of the goals of non-violence civil disobedience. I've never seen it associated with political vandalism. If that were the case, why the emphasis on self-defense and anonymity? Why would they not just wear regular clothes, toss a brick through a window, and wait to get tasered and beaten?

6079_Smith_W

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
In large part it is to pressure the government to do just that - show their nasty side and turn more people against them.

 

I've often heard this put forward as one of the goals of non-violence civil disobedience. I've never seen it associated with political vandalism. If that were the case, why the emphasis on self-defense and anonymity? Why would they not just wear regular clothes, toss a brick through a window, and wait to get tasered and beaten?

First off, let me say again that I don't absolve the government for cracking down, breaking their own laws, or anything else. Those who commit violent acts didn't MAKE them do anything, though I'd say that was part of their intent.

But the point isn't to become a martyr, it is to destabilize. And it is innocent people who get hurt in situations like that. Look at how many people were arrested and deported after the anarchist bombings. How many were arrested after the war measures act was declared.

What is the motive for doing these things? To get a reaction - a bad one - and I'd say they don't particularly care who is on the receiving end of it. That went out the door when they committed the violence in the first place.

onlinediscountanvils

@Smith

Didn't you complain about "moving targets" upthread?

NDPP posted something about the incarceration of three anarchists who were already being investigated two months before some black blockers smashed some windows in Seattle, and now you're going to invoke bombings? Seriously? If you're going to go there, why don't you start a new thread, and leave this thread's discussion to stuff the black bloc actually does in the real world.

6079_Smith_W

@ onlinediscountanvils

How is it not on topic?

I mentioned bombings because one of the most prominent examples of the government going on the offensive and attacking innocent people was in response to a bombing campaign.

Also, this thread isn't just about the black bloc; It didn't even start out as being just about them, and I did not accuse them of planting bombs. I don't think they were around in 1919.

Aargh Monkey, who started this, has raised the question of storming parliament, violent overthrow, and a number of other offensive actions that have nothing to do with the black bloc.

And there have been a number of incidents in Seattle over the years, if I recall.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

By contrast, when riots broke out after the murder of Martin Luther King, What did the president of the United States say?  "What did you expect? I don't know why we're so surprised. When you put your foot on a man's neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what's he going to do? He's going to knock your block off."

He didn't call them vandals; He got the message, and had sympathy for it.

So it is not about the violence but whether or not the violence is tied to a pacifist's death.  People violently rioting over the killing of Martin Luther King are good but people in Watts and Detroit who just rioted for no particular reason are bad?

Hard to keep up with you as you plummet down your windy road but I'm trying.

Waves at SJ.  I guess your PM was right but with a peculiar twist.

6079_Smith_W

@ kropotkin

I didn't say that and you know it. Do I need to wave it under your nose? 

Go back and read what I just said, very clearly, at #176.

And I wouldn't say that those riots or any other riots happened for no particular reason.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Actually 6079 your posts go around in corcles and I have avery hard time fin=folowing then becaue s they seem to lack an internal consitency that one

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Actually 6079 I find that many of your posts go around in circles and I have a very hard time following them because their logic seems to lack an internal consistency.

BB deliberately breaking windows at the banks and the Bay is bad but other rioters breaking windows and leaving whole neighbourhoods in flames are good makes no fucking sense to me so please try to be a little more precise.

Slumberjack

Nothing like a riot to attract a crowd.  Pushing toward 4000 thread views after 10 days.

6079_Smith_W

Well I thought I said it clearly enough, enough times, but evidently not.

People who are driven to desparation may riot, and saying they should or should not do it isn't really a relevant question. 

There's a big difference between people who act out of desparation, or are in a position where they are forced to fight, and those who plan carefully, and who really have no other strategic option on the table but violence.

Similarly there was a big difference in last summer's British riots between the underprivileged people who initially lashed out, and those who followed - people who were not so oppressed, and did not have grievances, but used the opportunity to loot and attack.

And yes, I realize political vandals have a different motive than thieves. But personally, I have no more respect for the tactic. Less, actually, because I think political vandalism and sabotage does more damage in the long run. Stolen goods, like broken windows, can be replaced. But that kind of aggression and division just sows the seeds of war. And sorry, but I think if you are doing anything other than trying to end violence you are just working for the oppressors.

I mean, unless you're all talking about starting a civil war, which is completely over the moon. But that's the logical conclusion of these tactics, and it is the only context in which they make sense.

@ SJ

Good point! you're absolutely right

*grin*

 

 

Bacchus

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
In large part it is to pressure the government to do just that - show their nasty side and turn more people against them.

 

I've often heard this put forward as one of the goals of non-violence civil disobedience. I've never seen it associated with political vandalism. If that were the case, why the emphasis on self-defense and anonymity? Why would they not just wear regular clothes, toss a brick through a window, and wait to get tasered and beaten?

 

Because they want it to happen to others, not themselves.

onlinediscountanvils

Bacchus wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
In large part it is to pressure the government to do just that - show their nasty side and turn more people against them.

 

I've often heard this put forward as one of the goals of non-violence civil disobedience. I've never seen it associated with political vandalism. If that were the case, why the emphasis on self-defense and anonymity? Why would they not just wear regular clothes, toss a brick through a window, and wait to get tasered and beaten?

 

Because they want it to happen to others, not themselves.

 

Oh, bullshit. And you know this how? Because you've asked a black blocker, and that's what they said their goal was?

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

How is it not on topic?

I mentioned bombings because one of the most prominent examples of the government going on the offensive and attacking innocent people was in response to a bombing campaign.

 

NDPP's post had nothing to do with bombings. You made that connection.

Bacchus

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
In large part it is to pressure the government to do just that - show their nasty side and turn more people against them.

 

I've often heard this put forward as one of the goals of non-violence civil disobedience. I've never seen it associated with political vandalism. If that were the case, why the emphasis on self-defense and anonymity? Why would they not just wear regular clothes, toss a brick through a window, and wait to get tasered and beaten?

 

Because they want it to happen to others, not themselves.

 

Oh, bullshit. And you know this how? Because you've asked a black blocker, and that's what they said their goal was?

Actually yeah. But that was at G20 in Toronto so I cant speak for others others but why would you cover up do it in a large crowd that will inevitably get blamed and pay the price? Either they want it to happen to others to make them hate the government and join the cause, or they are cowards who just want to cause destruction but not stand up to their principles, assuming they had any to begin with.

 

The self identified black blocker did not state her goal was to have it happen to others, just that she preferred them to grab others and not her. She said she couldnt afford to get caught otherwise her parents would stop paying for her university and make her go closer to home

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Similarly there was a big difference in last summer's British riots between the underprivileged people who initially lashed out, and those who followed - people who were not so oppressed, and did not have grievances, but used the opportunity to loot and attack.

Did you make this up or do you have some sort of survey of the rioters to support this.  Or maybe you are just spouting the British MSM line.  Just like the nasty BBC reporter who called the elder black statesman out for his past as a "rioter. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biJgILxGK0o

onlinediscountanvils

Bacchus wrote:
The self identified black blocker did not state her goal was to have it happen to others

 

Oh, so it wasn't her goal to get other people tasered and beaten. Glad we cleared that up.

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Fidel #164

Yes, many people have put their lives on the line on the line for some very good reasons.

Responding to a macho threat isn't one of them, and I don't care if the actual words are Zapata's, or Bob Marley's or some Klingon or a latin proverb, or all of them.

I'm not talking about macho threats - I'm talking about the possibility that you might forget all about your carefully thought-out  morals and ethics under the right circumstances. Not everybody has been able to maintain their sanity in the middle of a bloody world war. Yes, war is madness. It's the height of insanity. It's an abysmal failure of elected politicos to avoid mass murder as an only alternative to diplomacy. And then again war is wildly profitable for a certain handful few people on this earth. I'm not trying to be macho or anything else you've attributed to me in the past and will likely attempt to do so again if I understand your posting style.

Cut the bs and get real, Smith. Put your heart and soul into it.

Bacchus

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Bacchus wrote:
The self identified black blocker did not state her goal was to have it happen to others

 

Oh, so it wasn't her goal to get other people tasered and beaten. Glad we cleared that up.

 

Read the rest of what I said. It wasnt her goal, it was just the end result she preferred

6079_Smith_W

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

 

 

NDPP's post had nothing to do with bombings. You made that connection.

So what? I didn't falsely accuse anyone of bombings, especially not the black bloc. I made reference to it because of the state's reaction to it with mass arrests and deportations, similar to the case NDPP cited. The fact is that violent tactics do get reactions, and my comment was completely relevant to the topic of this thread.

You don't have any point at all.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The end result she preferred was to not get beat up and tasered.  That has nothing to do with wanting or preferring that some one else gets beat up and tasered.  Seems to me you want people to get beat up and tasered if they cover their faces too protect themselves from the police state we live in.  Let me guess you are not FN's like most of the BB I have marched and protested with in Vancouver. 

6079_Smith_W

@ k

Not sure what the Darcus Howe interview has to do with me, though if I remember correctly I posted it in one of the threads on last years' riots.

But no, not all of the looters were frustrated by their treatment from the authorities, or the murder which sparked the whole thing.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/courts-reveal-rioters-are-no...

There were also racist gangs targetting visible minorities, people burning down the houses of suspected arsonists, and more than a few not-so-poor people as well.

And (still looking for the article, which I posted last year) an organized crime gang in Manchester even used the riots and the distraction of the police to clean out a number of department stores.

It should also be noted that people in the neighbourhood where the murder took place made many attempts at peaceful negotiation. And even throughout the riots, people banded together to resist the violence. Not everyone resorted to rioting, and not everyone who had legitimate grievances supported it.

But that's the problem with a riot and really any violent situation. Even it the people who started it have some justification, it's not like there's any referee around to say who gets to join in, what is allowed and what is not, and when enough is enough.

 

 

 

Bacchus

Plus she stated she preferred others get it instead of her, not just "I dont want to be tasered'

 

Nope not FN (though my brother is but that doesnt really count does it?) And in fact most of the black bloc at g20 were white anglo saxon preppy kids

 

I'd respect your BB way more than mine

onlinediscountanvils

Bacchus wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Bacchus wrote:
The self identified black blocker did not state her goal was to have it happen to others

 

Oh, so it wasn't her goal to get other people tasered and beaten. Glad we cleared that up.

 

Read the rest of what I said. It wasnt her goal, it was just the end result she preferred

 

I did read it. So she wasn't necessarily trying to get people tasered and beaten, just hoping for that outcome?

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

NDPP's post had nothing to do with bombings. You made that connection.

So what? I didn't falsely accuse anyone of bombings, especially not the black bloc. I made reference to it because of the state's reaction to it with mass arrests and deportations, similar to the case NDPP cited.

 

There weren't any deportations in the case that NDPP brought up. No bombs. No deportations. And depending on how loosely you choose to define it, arguably no "mass arrests" either.

6079_Smith_W

@ onlinediscountanvils

*shakes head*

Look. If you can't figure out what I was talking about I suggest you move on to something else, because that dog don't hunt.

 

 

Pages