Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
BRING THE WAR HOME
A CALL FOR BLACK BLOCS AT UPCOMING
ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO
ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO
BRING THE WAR HOME
A CALL FOR BLACK BLOCS AT UPCOMING
ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO
In Afghanistan, the US military has killed thousands of people. The US spends billions funding genocidal policies against the Palestinian people. In Colombia, the US is escalating a civil war in which thousands of labor activists and peasants have been murdered. In Iraq, economic sanctions and radioactive weaponry have killed hundreds of thousands in the decade since the last war. The US “War on Terror” keeps expanding, threatening millions around the world.
This is not a war between the people of the US and the people of the world. It is capitalism—a war on the poor. Investors in US oil companies will get a new pipeline through Afghanistan and increased access to the Iraq’s oil reserves (second only to Saudi Arabia). The weapons manufacturers will get new contracts and the US politicians will have an excuse to increase their power. Meanwhile, the poor and working people of America will definitely not be better off.
We continue to live in a world of unemployment and minimum wage jobs, of racism and harassment, of surveillance and prisons, of impossible rents and evictions—a world not built for us, but on top of us. The brutal displays of the police in Oakland or L.A. bring to mind images of the Israeli Army in occupied Palestine. The thousands of Arab and South Asian desaparecidos in the US since September 11th recall the US-supported fascist regimes of Latin America. Even the foot soldiers the government uses to expand its empire will come home, as they did in the last Iraq war, with diseases from depleted Uranium ammunition. For us, the poor and working people living in the US, the war is not in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan or Colombia. It is right here at home, against the rich.
The growing anti-war movement has called a number of demonstrations in the upcoming weeks and months. We will be there in solidarity. But we are worried that our protests have become nothing more than parades. Protest isn’t protest if it doesn’t threaten the established order or physically disrupt the functioning of the war machine.
So let’s use our collective power to change things directly. Wear black in mourning for the victims of capitalism, racism, state violence. Let’s stick together and watch each other’s backs. Let’s fight back.
Join us for a creative rampage.
LOOK FOR THE BIG BLACK “ANTI-WAR ACTION” FLAGS
BLACK BLOC – THE DAY THE NEW WAR ON IRAQ STARTS
Anti-war groups have called for a protest the day the new US war on Iraq begins. The protest will meet at 5pm the day the war starts at Powell and Market.
BLACK BLOC – JANUARY 18th
There will be a large anti-war protest on January 18th, 2003. The protest will meet at 11:00am at Embarcadero and march to the Civic Center.
For more information, contact antiwaraction [at] ziplip.com
A CALL FOR BLACK BLOCS AT UPCOMING
ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO
In Afghanistan, the US military has killed thousands of people. The US spends billions funding genocidal policies against the Palestinian people. In Colombia, the US is escalating a civil war in which thousands of labor activists and peasants have been murdered. In Iraq, economic sanctions and radioactive weaponry have killed hundreds of thousands in the decade since the last war. The US “War on Terror” keeps expanding, threatening millions around the world.
This is not a war between the people of the US and the people of the world. It is capitalism—a war on the poor. Investors in US oil companies will get a new pipeline through Afghanistan and increased access to the Iraq’s oil reserves (second only to Saudi Arabia). The weapons manufacturers will get new contracts and the US politicians will have an excuse to increase their power. Meanwhile, the poor and working people of America will definitely not be better off.
We continue to live in a world of unemployment and minimum wage jobs, of racism and harassment, of surveillance and prisons, of impossible rents and evictions—a world not built for us, but on top of us. The brutal displays of the police in Oakland or L.A. bring to mind images of the Israeli Army in occupied Palestine. The thousands of Arab and South Asian desaparecidos in the US since September 11th recall the US-supported fascist regimes of Latin America. Even the foot soldiers the government uses to expand its empire will come home, as they did in the last Iraq war, with diseases from depleted Uranium ammunition. For us, the poor and working people living in the US, the war is not in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan or Colombia. It is right here at home, against the rich.
The growing anti-war movement has called a number of demonstrations in the upcoming weeks and months. We will be there in solidarity. But we are worried that our protests have become nothing more than parades. Protest isn’t protest if it doesn’t threaten the established order or physically disrupt the functioning of the war machine.
So let’s use our collective power to change things directly. Wear black in mourning for the victims of capitalism, racism, state violence. Let’s stick together and watch each other’s backs. Let’s fight back.
Join us for a creative rampage.
LOOK FOR THE BIG BLACK “ANTI-WAR ACTION” FLAGS
BLACK BLOC – THE DAY THE NEW WAR ON IRAQ STARTS
Anti-war groups have called for a protest the day the new US war on Iraq begins. The protest will meet at 5pm the day the war starts at Powell and Market.
BLACK BLOC – JANUARY 18th
There will be a large anti-war protest on January 18th, 2003. The protest will meet at 11:00am at Embarcadero and march to the Civic Center.
For more information, contact antiwaraction [at] ziplip.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Some thoughts . .. .
First, thanks for starting to plan a response besides the zombie walk down Market Street. It's important to be doing this now.
But. . . wearing all black and moving in a block on the day the bombs fall in a protest in SF (where at least one police car was turned over in Gulf War I) will be like a sign saying 'kick me cops! hit me with your sticks!' Some people may want this, and I assume that you're okay with it. Indeed, bloodied protestors in black in the news may be just fine.
But also, why not more than just black? The shut down of the federal building was a success, brief, but successful. The recent lockdown actions at corporate HQs have also been a success. Look at what has worked, and why. Ask yourselves, beyond wearing black as an expression of our message, what can we do to make change?
I'm just pointing this out because I've seen actions that were so focused on fighting cops that they ended up with no coherent message, no tangible 'action.' SO much time was devoted to the medics and what medical attention and the lawyers that would be needed that the message got lost.
And you know what happened? The cops backed off, did nothing, and the protestors had no plan to fall back on since all they'd planned was to battle cops.
Personally I think that actions can be more successful when both cops and protestors aren't really to physically do battle. Freaked out cops break the law, cause permanent physical damage to people, and then lawsuits go on for months.
But I do support the need for a black block and for people to express themselves in any way that is right for them. I hope it works, however it goes! It *would* be wonderful to see a black block cause some real trouble.
First, thanks for starting to plan a response besides the zombie walk down Market Street. It's important to be doing this now.
But. . . wearing all black and moving in a block on the day the bombs fall in a protest in SF (where at least one police car was turned over in Gulf War I) will be like a sign saying 'kick me cops! hit me with your sticks!' Some people may want this, and I assume that you're okay with it. Indeed, bloodied protestors in black in the news may be just fine.
But also, why not more than just black? The shut down of the federal building was a success, brief, but successful. The recent lockdown actions at corporate HQs have also been a success. Look at what has worked, and why. Ask yourselves, beyond wearing black as an expression of our message, what can we do to make change?
I'm just pointing this out because I've seen actions that were so focused on fighting cops that they ended up with no coherent message, no tangible 'action.' SO much time was devoted to the medics and what medical attention and the lawyers that would be needed that the message got lost.
And you know what happened? The cops backed off, did nothing, and the protestors had no plan to fall back on since all they'd planned was to battle cops.
Personally I think that actions can be more successful when both cops and protestors aren't really to physically do battle. Freaked out cops break the law, cause permanent physical damage to people, and then lawsuits go on for months.
But I do support the need for a black block and for people to express themselves in any way that is right for them. I hope it works, however it goes! It *would* be wonderful to see a black block cause some real trouble.
It’s about time the left started to show its racists sympathies, after all we should be more concerned about the suffering of some spoiled rich white kids, then the people in the rest of the world. I sure as hell, don't give a shit what happens to the 300 million oppressed Muslims in this world, and it is nice to see that no one else on this board really does either.
I support the idea of people wearing black clothing who don't intend to do civil disobedience of any sort, because it's the least you can do to support people who might feel that they have to make that choice.
I'm interested in hearing some accounts of what happened in SF during gulf war I. Not all of us were here. I have quite a few friends who describe being swept up by police for standing around during the Rodney King aftermath, and the police took their clothes and shut them all in some facility for a day, but then some were given $1000 payments because a judge decided it was wrong. Another guy, who refuses to directly talk about it to me, got half a year in jail for pushing over a police motorcycle, but he was one of the only people who was actually caught where they had good evidence to convict him.
I was in high school in another town, and kids started acting out in an undirected fashion . Lots just left the school on Jan 15th, 1991 and started driving around to other high schools trying to draw those kids out. More held a 'talk-in' in the cafeteria, but I looked in and a bunch of clearly pro-war 'jocks' were there, and the stuff students were saying mainly had to do with a rumor that a draft had just been announced. The intercom lady in the office freaked out and started sending out unsubstantiated rumors and telling teachers to lock their doors, and TV started reading off reports people had phoned in of snipers on the freeway - which weren't true.
In the city, there was no big energetic demo, but there was a large peace vigil march where mainly a lot of people from churches came and were walking with candles, and this was one of my first exposures to the RCP. The RCP, or Rev. communist youth brigade went to the front with bullhorns and started doing things like stabbing police horses with pins, which made them run amok and start arresting people and it made the whole march seem like it was RCP type people instead of pacifists. Some hippies started a sit-in at the park, but mostly nothing substantial occurred after that.
I'm interested in hearing some accounts of what happened in SF during gulf war I. Not all of us were here. I have quite a few friends who describe being swept up by police for standing around during the Rodney King aftermath, and the police took their clothes and shut them all in some facility for a day, but then some were given $1000 payments because a judge decided it was wrong. Another guy, who refuses to directly talk about it to me, got half a year in jail for pushing over a police motorcycle, but he was one of the only people who was actually caught where they had good evidence to convict him.
I was in high school in another town, and kids started acting out in an undirected fashion . Lots just left the school on Jan 15th, 1991 and started driving around to other high schools trying to draw those kids out. More held a 'talk-in' in the cafeteria, but I looked in and a bunch of clearly pro-war 'jocks' were there, and the stuff students were saying mainly had to do with a rumor that a draft had just been announced. The intercom lady in the office freaked out and started sending out unsubstantiated rumors and telling teachers to lock their doors, and TV started reading off reports people had phoned in of snipers on the freeway - which weren't true.
In the city, there was no big energetic demo, but there was a large peace vigil march where mainly a lot of people from churches came and were walking with candles, and this was one of my first exposures to the RCP. The RCP, or Rev. communist youth brigade went to the front with bullhorns and started doing things like stabbing police horses with pins, which made them run amok and start arresting people and it made the whole march seem like it was RCP type people instead of pacifists. Some hippies started a sit-in at the park, but mostly nothing substantial occurred after that.
I hope you don't plan to wear all black at night.....that'll make for an interesting driving experince for the rest of us
the one place in town where the most cops are guaranteed to be waiting for them, and then show up in uniform, so the cops know which ones to beat? Why have no calls gone out for decentralized, multiple actions by autonomous affinity groups?
Oh wait, now I remember. Bay Area activists are too stuck up to pay attention to sports, so they never heard of Wee Willie Keeler’s famous motto "Keep your eye clear, and hit 'em where they ain't.”
Oh wait, now I remember. Bay Area activists are too stuck up to pay attention to sports, so they never heard of Wee Willie Keeler’s famous motto "Keep your eye clear, and hit 'em where they ain't.”
hey "just wondering", why not make that call yourself or with folks you know would particpate? this call out does nothing to stop you from doing that. if people are prepared to do autonomous actions, and "hit them where they ain't" then that's great. instead of asking why someone else isn't making that call-out, organize it autonomously......
at the gulf war I demo in SF, but I have only sketchy memories of it. It was my first march, ever. There were excellent drummers and everyone was amazingly riled up. I remember being around civic center and in a huge crowd with the drums going, and then I remember going down market, no longer in a huge crowd but there were things on fire along the sides of the road, and everything was graffitied and things turned over and broken. It was surreal, and scary, like a bomb had just gone off. I think I left then. Later I heard about the cop car getting turned over. Most people I worked with (in SOMA) were really angry about the destruction. I hated those people, but they represented the majority. I think that's the danger - turning off a LOT of people by that sort of rampant destruction. When Americans aren't getting murdered, Americans don't understand. And smashing things doesn't help them to understand. They're like a natural anomoly - they just don't get it. Maybe it's the mercury vaccinations or something.
During the Rodney King thing in SF there was a curfew - some people below us were playing music so loud we called the police, but none could come because they were too busy. So we broke the curfew and wandered the streets. It was romantic, at the time, having the streets to ourselves. In the morning I blasted the f--- out of the neighbors with church music so loud that people threw bottles out of their windows at someone cleaning up outside after the party.
But I've been amazed by the huge recent turnaround in the peace movement - even my relatives, who were saying a few months ago not to send them any 'political' emails, are now sending them to ME!! They're excited about the local paper publishing an editorial against war, and they're really ready to get on that bandwagon. These are Apolitical people. But they're really getting angry, thanks to the ecomony tanking.
I feel wary of damaging this incredible thing that has started to blossom, but I also know we need to express the outrage that so many are afraid to.
I hope people can keep it FOCUSED on corporate targets - even the average American, thanks to Enron, now understands about corporations. What we need is a nice corporate HQ map ahead of time to *direct* the flow of emotion.
Just an aside, one of my favorites, paint bombs, are a lot of fun (paint filled balloons). Small ones can be concealed and tossed from almost anywhere. And they speak for themselves, quite loudly on the sides of banks and corporate offices. No one gets hurt.
During the Rodney King thing in SF there was a curfew - some people below us were playing music so loud we called the police, but none could come because they were too busy. So we broke the curfew and wandered the streets. It was romantic, at the time, having the streets to ourselves. In the morning I blasted the f--- out of the neighbors with church music so loud that people threw bottles out of their windows at someone cleaning up outside after the party.
But I've been amazed by the huge recent turnaround in the peace movement - even my relatives, who were saying a few months ago not to send them any 'political' emails, are now sending them to ME!! They're excited about the local paper publishing an editorial against war, and they're really ready to get on that bandwagon. These are Apolitical people. But they're really getting angry, thanks to the ecomony tanking.
I feel wary of damaging this incredible thing that has started to blossom, but I also know we need to express the outrage that so many are afraid to.
I hope people can keep it FOCUSED on corporate targets - even the average American, thanks to Enron, now understands about corporations. What we need is a nice corporate HQ map ahead of time to *direct* the flow of emotion.
Just an aside, one of my favorites, paint bombs, are a lot of fun (paint filled balloons). Small ones can be concealed and tossed from almost anywhere. And they speak for themselves, quite loudly on the sides of banks and corporate offices. No one gets hurt.
That's not my job. We practice division of labor. What that means is that we don't all do all the same things. Ideally, each person does what she of he is best at. I'm a journalist. My job is to ask questions. That's what a journalist does, or part of it, anyhow. It is, in fact, the single most important part, the part which makes all the other parts possible.
So I ask questions.
I have a couple for you, too. Here they are:
(1.) Why was this not obvious to you?
(2.) Is it not a self evident truism?
(3.) Or didn't you realize that I am a journalist?
(4.) If you did not, what then did you imagine I was?
(5.) Who are you, anyway, and why are you asking me questions?
So I ask questions.
I have a couple for you, too. Here they are:
(1.) Why was this not obvious to you?
(2.) Is it not a self evident truism?
(3.) Or didn't you realize that I am a journalist?
(4.) If you did not, what then did you imagine I was?
(5.) Who are you, anyway, and why are you asking me questions?
From after reading this article, it makes me laugh. "We have killed thousands in Afganistan." Well duh, war is hell ain't it.
When the WTC was attacked, that is when we got pissed and started marching over to kick some ass. Oil is only part of the issue, the main issue is the fact that the middle east has been the ones trying to terrorize the U.S. in the past, and after the 9/11 incident, they pissed us off. We wouldn't even be over in Afganistan, or the whole middle east for that matter if it weren't for the 9/11 attack.
And what is this shit about people dying in Afganistan. Of course people in Afganistan are dying, especially when kids at the age of 12 are carrying AK's. The people in Afganistan fight only for religion and nothing more, and if you don't pray to ala, you should die, that is what they think. What I see in America, is a bunch of little whiners raising white flags to a nation that is thanking ala for helping them blow up the WTC, and saying, "Oh no, people are dying." Well hell ya people are dying, but people should think twice before doing hiddious shit like 9\11.
You know what I think, I think people should see war from all point of views before judging. The U.S. has televised warfare, and the media lets you see what they know can make people react. Things like seeing a dead kid, or a dead woman, or destroyed homes. The fact is, that that dead kid was probably forced out as a decoy, or was simply carrying a rifle, or the fact that the home was destroyed because it was housing terrorists, and like I said the media will only show people what they know can make people react, and that is the reason why people start complaining about dead people in war. People really need to start looking at war from all different points of views, instead of clicking on the T.v and believing the 90% bullshit that the media feeds them, and literally many stories in the media are twisted around. I've watched NBC news and heard a topic about the shooting in Columbine, and then I saw the same topic in ABC news, and it was switched around. The media is only trust worthy to a small extent, the rest people need to start figuring out the real truth through their own research.
And this thing about minimum wages, at least in America, you can get jobs whether they are small or not, and if you can't get a job in America, you are one idiot to begin with. You protestors don't even understand the person that you are helping. Your helping a dictator that kills his own people because he wanted to test a bio weapon, or steals his peoples lives for his own benefits. And you know what, I want you protestors to go on a rampage, and why you ask, because I want the SWAT team to come and start sweeping you up like dirt. Because you people feel that because extremist liberals feel that it's ok to protest in a malicious manner. I'm suprised to see you people do this shit. You have a house, car, tv, and rights that many countries wish they had, why do we have a high imigration and migration rate, because other countries want what we have and that is freedom and opportunities. Oh and sorry to bust your bubbles, but you're late on your protest, because the U.S. has already bombed some of Iraq's missile installations.
You honestly think that the govt will crumble under your will because you come running through San Francisco with your pitchforks and broom sticks and start rampageing...??? HELL NO, the SWAT team is going to come and start gassing you, and then maybe those people in the protest will be out of the peoples way's in trying to help America, by stopping a dictator from doing shit to people that is completely and udderly inhuman.
We never seemed to complain when we went to Germany in WWII and destroyed Hitler from killing 11,000,000 people in his tortorous camps, 6,000,000 of which were jews. Oh, but I bet if Hitler was doing that today, and we were going to go over there and kick ass, protestors would cluster fuck the streets like they said they will do on the day that the war with Iraq starts. Thats bullshit. Those people going on the protest have been so brainwashed into thinking that America is such a bad place, hey, and sice you protestors are protesting against America, go live in Iraq. Hell, go bow to Saddam for all I care, but that's bad news for you female protestors, because your husband is allowed to beat that hell out of you because he feels like it, and for the rest of you protestors, you better stick to believing only in Saddam, because if you don't you get murdered for it.
My whole point comes down to this; if you are not going to stand up for the country that you call home, then leave. A country is only as good as the people make it, and look at the U.S., we are a Mega Power, the last Super Power in the world. But hey, if you don't accept this countries ways, then move to a country that does, because I'm glad to live in this country. Why? Because I can say what I'm saying on my PC right now, I can believe in whatever religion I feel like, I can live in my house without worrying about some country shooting at my family because I have faith for a different religion, and I can actually be able to eat without having to starve to death like Iraqi civilians and middle east civilians for that matter.
Iraqi civilians want us to go over there and destroy Saddam. Why? Because he dominates them like cattle. They can't overthrow him because he made his military far to strong for his people, and he cuts their rations and payments to whatever he feels is necessary regardless of what they think. Here, you can strike for pay raises and get them, there, they can't protest at all, so you protestors should really think about who you represent, because it seems to me that you represent Saddam.
When the WTC was attacked, that is when we got pissed and started marching over to kick some ass. Oil is only part of the issue, the main issue is the fact that the middle east has been the ones trying to terrorize the U.S. in the past, and after the 9/11 incident, they pissed us off. We wouldn't even be over in Afganistan, or the whole middle east for that matter if it weren't for the 9/11 attack.
And what is this shit about people dying in Afganistan. Of course people in Afganistan are dying, especially when kids at the age of 12 are carrying AK's. The people in Afganistan fight only for religion and nothing more, and if you don't pray to ala, you should die, that is what they think. What I see in America, is a bunch of little whiners raising white flags to a nation that is thanking ala for helping them blow up the WTC, and saying, "Oh no, people are dying." Well hell ya people are dying, but people should think twice before doing hiddious shit like 9\11.
You know what I think, I think people should see war from all point of views before judging. The U.S. has televised warfare, and the media lets you see what they know can make people react. Things like seeing a dead kid, or a dead woman, or destroyed homes. The fact is, that that dead kid was probably forced out as a decoy, or was simply carrying a rifle, or the fact that the home was destroyed because it was housing terrorists, and like I said the media will only show people what they know can make people react, and that is the reason why people start complaining about dead people in war. People really need to start looking at war from all different points of views, instead of clicking on the T.v and believing the 90% bullshit that the media feeds them, and literally many stories in the media are twisted around. I've watched NBC news and heard a topic about the shooting in Columbine, and then I saw the same topic in ABC news, and it was switched around. The media is only trust worthy to a small extent, the rest people need to start figuring out the real truth through their own research.
And this thing about minimum wages, at least in America, you can get jobs whether they are small or not, and if you can't get a job in America, you are one idiot to begin with. You protestors don't even understand the person that you are helping. Your helping a dictator that kills his own people because he wanted to test a bio weapon, or steals his peoples lives for his own benefits. And you know what, I want you protestors to go on a rampage, and why you ask, because I want the SWAT team to come and start sweeping you up like dirt. Because you people feel that because extremist liberals feel that it's ok to protest in a malicious manner. I'm suprised to see you people do this shit. You have a house, car, tv, and rights that many countries wish they had, why do we have a high imigration and migration rate, because other countries want what we have and that is freedom and opportunities. Oh and sorry to bust your bubbles, but you're late on your protest, because the U.S. has already bombed some of Iraq's missile installations.
You honestly think that the govt will crumble under your will because you come running through San Francisco with your pitchforks and broom sticks and start rampageing...??? HELL NO, the SWAT team is going to come and start gassing you, and then maybe those people in the protest will be out of the peoples way's in trying to help America, by stopping a dictator from doing shit to people that is completely and udderly inhuman.
We never seemed to complain when we went to Germany in WWII and destroyed Hitler from killing 11,000,000 people in his tortorous camps, 6,000,000 of which were jews. Oh, but I bet if Hitler was doing that today, and we were going to go over there and kick ass, protestors would cluster fuck the streets like they said they will do on the day that the war with Iraq starts. Thats bullshit. Those people going on the protest have been so brainwashed into thinking that America is such a bad place, hey, and sice you protestors are protesting against America, go live in Iraq. Hell, go bow to Saddam for all I care, but that's bad news for you female protestors, because your husband is allowed to beat that hell out of you because he feels like it, and for the rest of you protestors, you better stick to believing only in Saddam, because if you don't you get murdered for it.
My whole point comes down to this; if you are not going to stand up for the country that you call home, then leave. A country is only as good as the people make it, and look at the U.S., we are a Mega Power, the last Super Power in the world. But hey, if you don't accept this countries ways, then move to a country that does, because I'm glad to live in this country. Why? Because I can say what I'm saying on my PC right now, I can believe in whatever religion I feel like, I can live in my house without worrying about some country shooting at my family because I have faith for a different religion, and I can actually be able to eat without having to starve to death like Iraqi civilians and middle east civilians for that matter.
Iraqi civilians want us to go over there and destroy Saddam. Why? Because he dominates them like cattle. They can't overthrow him because he made his military far to strong for his people, and he cuts their rations and payments to whatever he feels is necessary regardless of what they think. Here, you can strike for pay raises and get them, there, they can't protest at all, so you protestors should really think about who you represent, because it seems to me that you represent Saddam.
If Black Blockers are so outraged and ready for action, why do they always choose to become parasites on peace marches?
Why not call for you day of 'fucking shit up' on some other day. The Big peace marches always have many scared but essentially courageous middle-of-the-road people will be marching for the first time. They are coming around to understanding the issues. Why scare them off?
Why hide behind the skirts of church ladies and behind kids in strollers? If you want to go 'attack the man' go for it. Why not today? Just do it on a day when the mainstream peace movement is not around to be beaten up by the cops.
In Seattle the CD folks were awesome shutting down streets, etc... They got arrested, showed jail solidarity, and all that. But the Black Blockers were idiots, even breaking the windows of some locally owned stores. I was there. What was the point of that? It just encouraged the cops to break everyone's heads while the blockers ran away. Anarchists are essentially sissies.
I agree CD is great, blockade the streets, get arrested, make fun of the powers that be, create a party in the streets. Thats all cool and needed.
But breaking windows and lighting things on fire is moronic and is usually the act of cointelpro rentals, or priveliged white kids who are really angry at their own parents.
Let the church ladies have their day, plan your 'day of action' some other day if you have the huevos.
Why not call for you day of 'fucking shit up' on some other day. The Big peace marches always have many scared but essentially courageous middle-of-the-road people will be marching for the first time. They are coming around to understanding the issues. Why scare them off?
Why hide behind the skirts of church ladies and behind kids in strollers? If you want to go 'attack the man' go for it. Why not today? Just do it on a day when the mainstream peace movement is not around to be beaten up by the cops.
In Seattle the CD folks were awesome shutting down streets, etc... They got arrested, showed jail solidarity, and all that. But the Black Blockers were idiots, even breaking the windows of some locally owned stores. I was there. What was the point of that? It just encouraged the cops to break everyone's heads while the blockers ran away. Anarchists are essentially sissies.
I agree CD is great, blockade the streets, get arrested, make fun of the powers that be, create a party in the streets. Thats all cool and needed.
But breaking windows and lighting things on fire is moronic and is usually the act of cointelpro rentals, or priveliged white kids who are really angry at their own parents.
Let the church ladies have their day, plan your 'day of action' some other day if you have the huevos.
Most of them fight as a way of earning a little money to eat, and they switch sides often as well.
no reason for us to stay in afghan $$ never said we want to occupy the place $$ just hope we can assist them in forming a government where the peoples voices can be heard $$ these warlords are as bad as the taliban telling the people how they should live and what they should do $$ know thats how its been there for eons but need to try and help them learn to do things differently $$ communities fighting being led by warlords it just aint fitting that people should have to live like that $$ try and help them form a government $$ if it dont work get out $$ quick $$ if they allow a bunch of bandits in like the taliban or some other warlord to take over their country hopefully theyll rise up and waste em $$ if they wanna war between themselves if they dont put it to a stop they got themselves to blame $$ long as they keep it to themselves what can the rest of us do but hope $$ on the other hand if they allow terrorists to stay in their country and train and live they shouldnt be surprised when we fly in occationally and bomb a site or two $$ they got a good chance to try and make a land where the people are free from being lead by warlords and bandits $$ heres hoping they take advantage of it
uh... the black bloq is not like the RCP or similar groups in that it definitely does not engage in challenging behavior at peace marches organized by others. They physically separate themselves in space and go off in another direction - a different march essentially. The only thing still matches the main march is the day. At the last big IAC march, most black block participants dutifully stood through a few shrill sectarian speeches, added their numbers to the main march -( just for in case anyone was counting , they devoted a couple hours to this activity) and then they held their activity afterwards a mile away from the civic center where people were still standing watching speeches. The same happened at WTO Seattle. The progressives with bite, and the black block types (not everyone who goes beyond pacifist marching is only black block) were not intermingling with the large labor march earlier in the day (Tuesday, Nov 30, 1999) starting from the Seattle Center. They were milling around the paramount theater over a mile away as the news media, dignitaries such as Madelaine Albright, and police started to freak out at the sheer numbers of people standing around and then decided to release the tear gas around 2 in the afternoon. The labor marchers, 25,000+ didn't have to enter the tear gas and also did a great job. Do you think anyone would have given a damn if there were just labor marchers in another area of town? madelaine albright wouldn't have even noticed.
It's funny because probably for most of this past year I've wanted to basically smash things at protests, I've been so angry. I've *tried* to get arrested. I've stayed up all night practically so I could do stuff in the morning. But now . . .
Now, all I want to do is organize, not in that sort of chaotic physical way, but in the way of getting more and more and more people turned on and angry and aware. In the past couple of months I've turned 3 people on to imc and they all began to immediately write and post a lot, but had no idea of the site before that. Now is like this amazingly fertile time when people are willing to take risks they wouldn't ordinarily - they've lost their job, or they just sort of sense the insanity of things and are angry, or scared. I think it's a good time to promote the site too. At the last march someone handed me a flier, which was great, but I think it needs to be pretty direct - YOU CAN SEE PICTURES AND VIDEO OF THE MARCH, etc. at the top of it. I've had people come up to me and ask if I could email them some pictures, so I sent them the imc link to my posting.
Maybe you could post the pdf of the flier here on the site so if people want to make copies and hand them out at the march, they can.
Now watch, I'll see a black flag and it will be all over, time to run in the streets again.
Now, all I want to do is organize, not in that sort of chaotic physical way, but in the way of getting more and more and more people turned on and angry and aware. In the past couple of months I've turned 3 people on to imc and they all began to immediately write and post a lot, but had no idea of the site before that. Now is like this amazingly fertile time when people are willing to take risks they wouldn't ordinarily - they've lost their job, or they just sort of sense the insanity of things and are angry, or scared. I think it's a good time to promote the site too. At the last march someone handed me a flier, which was great, but I think it needs to be pretty direct - YOU CAN SEE PICTURES AND VIDEO OF THE MARCH, etc. at the top of it. I've had people come up to me and ask if I could email them some pictures, so I sent them the imc link to my posting.
Maybe you could post the pdf of the flier here on the site so if people want to make copies and hand them out at the march, they can.
Now watch, I'll see a black flag and it will be all over, time to run in the streets again.
Go Somewhere where it really counts
Someone 3:22pm Mon Jan 6 '03
comment#40286
Standing in traffic on a bridge = stopping war ???
I understand the need for people to express their opinions. Some are a little more arrogant than others. It seems a bit small minded to think that blocking traffic in Portland will convince Washington D.C. to stop a war.
'ring' 'ring' "uhh...hello this is George."
"uh, yeah Mr. President we have people standing on some bridges in Portland, Oregon protesting war!!"
"Where?"
"You know, 'Little Ber..
"Oh ya,ya I remember, so what?"
"Mr President!!....they're blocking traffic!!"
"Blocking traffic? Aw fuck it, call back the troops!"
Someone 3:22pm Mon Jan 6 '03
comment#40286
Standing in traffic on a bridge = stopping war ???
I understand the need for people to express their opinions. Some are a little more arrogant than others. It seems a bit small minded to think that blocking traffic in Portland will convince Washington D.C. to stop a war.
'ring' 'ring' "uhh...hello this is George."
"uh, yeah Mr. President we have people standing on some bridges in Portland, Oregon protesting war!!"
"Where?"
"You know, 'Little Ber..
"Oh ya,ya I remember, so what?"
"Mr President!!....they're blocking traffic!!"
"Blocking traffic? Aw fuck it, call back the troops!"
I don't see any of you "pro islam people saying diddle squat about the hundreds of thousands of non' muslims being killed in the last decade by muslims in africa, the mid east, and anywhere there is a muslim.
I never see the protest over african christian women being raped, then their breasts cut off , and left to die by those 'peacefully muslims".
I never see any protests over the 10,000 young sudan and nigerian boys taken as slaves by the "peacefully muslims"
what is wrong with this site? It seems so one sided,
ignore the genocide of christians and jews by the muslim hand, yet, damn if the jews fight back to keep their very existence after being driven out of EVERY muslim country. shame on you all.
If any of you knew history, you would see jews, and christians were once the rulers of the whole mid east, it's our indigenous lands, long before any "muslim" came to be. Mohammed)piss be on him) invented muslims in 632 ad, it's been 1400 years of conquer and kill since then. Oh yes, "peacefully muslims"
get a GRIP, FOOLS
I never see the protest over african christian women being raped, then their breasts cut off , and left to die by those 'peacefully muslims".
I never see any protests over the 10,000 young sudan and nigerian boys taken as slaves by the "peacefully muslims"
what is wrong with this site? It seems so one sided,
ignore the genocide of christians and jews by the muslim hand, yet, damn if the jews fight back to keep their very existence after being driven out of EVERY muslim country. shame on you all.
If any of you knew history, you would see jews, and christians were once the rulers of the whole mid east, it's our indigenous lands, long before any "muslim" came to be. Mohammed)piss be on him) invented muslims in 632 ad, it's been 1400 years of conquer and kill since then. Oh yes, "peacefully muslims"
get a GRIP, FOOLS
"But breaking windows and lighting things on fire is moronic and is usually the act of cointelpro rentals, or priveliged white kids who are really angry at their own parents."
Hey BOB -- you fucking COP -- as everyone knows there are breakaway marches, you know, green zone, yellow zone, red zone? Ever hear of that, pig? Everyone knows that if you want to sit and listen to speeches you can, if you want to protest you can. Go eat a donut
Hey BOB -- you fucking COP -- as everyone knows there are breakaway marches, you know, green zone, yellow zone, red zone? Ever hear of that, pig? Everyone knows that if you want to sit and listen to speeches you can, if you want to protest you can. Go eat a donut
Daddy been mean to momma's wittle man again? Oh momma's sorry. Don't worry though. Daddy's just been having problems at the office again; everything'll be all right. He's just been under a lot of stress lately. But don't fret a bit, my baby. You're still gonna get that trust fund next year, sweet pea. And mommy and daddy will always be there for you. SMMOOOOOOOCHHH!!!
B: If Black Blockers are so outraged and ready for action, why do they always choose to become parasites on peace marches?
I'm not going to answer anything else Bob wrote other than this one paragraph.
In Seattle the CD folks were awesome shutting down streets, etc... They got arrested, showed jail solidarity, and all that. But the Black Blockers were idiots, even breaking the windows of some locally owned stores. I was there. What was the point of that?
First, which "locally owned" stores were smashed? I was there too, and the Bloc specifically hit chain sotres. Oh,i forgot Starbucks is from Seattle. Maybe, that's what you mean by "locally owned".
It just encouraged the cops to break everyone's heads while the blockers ran away.
The cops were breaking heads and using teargas and the rest before any black blocker broke any windows. The cops were trying to stop the sucessful blockades that you so widely praised. Others might put down the blockaders the way you put down the Black Bloc because they broke the law, and snarled up average people along with delegates. And why should people fall into the "man's" clutche sif they cna get away.
And now you use e stupidest anti-gay ad hominem: "Anarchists are essentially sissies." Well i can tell you i'm an anarchist and i'm a sissy and yes i fig back and support others who fight back especially against anti-gay people who are supposedly part of the movement.
I'm not going to answer anything else Bob wrote other than this one paragraph.
In Seattle the CD folks were awesome shutting down streets, etc... They got arrested, showed jail solidarity, and all that. But the Black Blockers were idiots, even breaking the windows of some locally owned stores. I was there. What was the point of that?
First, which "locally owned" stores were smashed? I was there too, and the Bloc specifically hit chain sotres. Oh,i forgot Starbucks is from Seattle. Maybe, that's what you mean by "locally owned".
It just encouraged the cops to break everyone's heads while the blockers ran away.
The cops were breaking heads and using teargas and the rest before any black blocker broke any windows. The cops were trying to stop the sucessful blockades that you so widely praised. Others might put down the blockaders the way you put down the Black Bloc because they broke the law, and snarled up average people along with delegates. And why should people fall into the "man's" clutche sif they cna get away.
And now you use e stupidest anti-gay ad hominem: "Anarchists are essentially sissies." Well i can tell you i'm an anarchist and i'm a sissy and yes i fig back and support others who fight back especially against anti-gay people who are supposedly part of the movement.
Point taken. Sissy might be interpreted as homophobic. My appologies.
Let me take that back and say instead, "Anarchists are essentially, selfish assholes who don't give a shit about building a movement, they just care about getting their rocks off."
The locally owned store in Seattle was a little watch repair and jewelry store. I watched the the window smashing and then saw it played endlessley on CNN for the next three days completely obscuring the fact that the CD had shut down the streets and stopped the meeting for a day. The visual message to the world was "rioters trying to steal jewelry." Not the best message for building a movement. Thus the label, moronic. If you people, esp the Eugene idiots had attended any of the planning meetings you would have known that was couner to the agreements of the day. Will you do similar actions in San Francisco to discredit the growing anti-war movement? Probably.
And all of you PIBs "people in black" (dressed in the same uniform color as cops, by the way) have yet to answer my core question.
Why plan days of action on the same day as the mainstream peace event? Why not have the courage to call your own action day?
Could it be that there are not enough people who support your tactics of fucking shit up for fun's sake? Does this fact force you to hide behind nervous regular folks at their first march?
Still waiting to hear the Black Bloc's groupthink on that one...Have a meeting, and get back to me.
Let me take that back and say instead, "Anarchists are essentially, selfish assholes who don't give a shit about building a movement, they just care about getting their rocks off."
The locally owned store in Seattle was a little watch repair and jewelry store. I watched the the window smashing and then saw it played endlessley on CNN for the next three days completely obscuring the fact that the CD had shut down the streets and stopped the meeting for a day. The visual message to the world was "rioters trying to steal jewelry." Not the best message for building a movement. Thus the label, moronic. If you people, esp the Eugene idiots had attended any of the planning meetings you would have known that was couner to the agreements of the day. Will you do similar actions in San Francisco to discredit the growing anti-war movement? Probably.
And all of you PIBs "people in black" (dressed in the same uniform color as cops, by the way) have yet to answer my core question.
Why plan days of action on the same day as the mainstream peace event? Why not have the courage to call your own action day?
Could it be that there are not enough people who support your tactics of fucking shit up for fun's sake? Does this fact force you to hide behind nervous regular folks at their first march?
Still waiting to hear the Black Bloc's groupthink on that one...Have a meeting, and get back to me.
if it did happen, even if it was done by agent provacatuers, its a fair criticism that a wide opening was made for them by the organizers of this event.
beyond the problems of the opportunism in calling for a provacative action which is attached to the organizing efforts of others (presumably without even approaching the organization which took the lead to call the action): these calls for anarchistic riots keep our movement lilly white. this is because africans and others who are always targetted by police know they will be the first ones with their heads clubbed in when the police attack. thus, they stay away.
beyond the problems of the opportunism in calling for a provacative action which is attached to the organizing efforts of others (presumably without even approaching the organization which took the lead to call the action): these calls for anarchistic riots keep our movement lilly white. this is because africans and others who are always targetted by police know they will be the first ones with their heads clubbed in when the police attack. thus, they stay away.
I'm not that impressed by the ninja black bloc thing myself. It seems kind of cartoonish and played out. Often depicted as a means of circumventing the cops, black blocs, in fact, are highly vulnerable to police infiltration and provocation.
That said, Matthew's objection doesn't hold much water. Personally, I've been to actions that didn't attract large numbers of young blacks UNTIL shit started getting riotous. This isn't an endorsement, just a statement of facts.
Matthew would have us believe that blacks are chafing at the bit to rise against this war, if only if it weren't for the "anarchists". We can always expect from Matthew some racialized explanation for why otherwise "objectively revolutionary" people (read: blacks) aren't acting that revolutionary.
I'd be curious, Matthew, how you square your above denunciation of militancy with your critique of the 1992 uprising, which previously you have glorified as an "African Rebellion".
Let the dissembling begin!
That said, Matthew's objection doesn't hold much water. Personally, I've been to actions that didn't attract large numbers of young blacks UNTIL shit started getting riotous. This isn't an endorsement, just a statement of facts.
Matthew would have us believe that blacks are chafing at the bit to rise against this war, if only if it weren't for the "anarchists". We can always expect from Matthew some racialized explanation for why otherwise "objectively revolutionary" people (read: blacks) aren't acting that revolutionary.
I'd be curious, Matthew, how you square your above denunciation of militancy with your critique of the 1992 uprising, which previously you have glorified as an "African Rebellion".
Let the dissembling begin!
by the way, the person who was attributed with breaking the Starbucks window was not part of the black bloc, and had not previously participated in any demonstrations. This isn't to delegitimize the participation of people under age 18, and there were many smart and inspired people under age 18 at WTO. It was definitely the case that a lot of students heard what was going on and left their high schools and went downtown. But with regards to the girl who was photographed by the famous Starbucks window that gets mentioned so often as though america's innocence was permanently shattered at that moment - she was portrayed in several interviews and news stories as an apolitical 'troubled teen' who feels really bad about having done it, and wasn't able to express developed political opinions to the reporter: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z29B52203
between this proposal and the rebellions following the simi valley verdict in '92 is '92 was a sponteneous response to the final straw in decades of abuse by the standing colonial army in the african community, and this is an open invation for an army of police to meet us on the 18th in full riot gear ready to crack open heads.
"Matthew would have us believe that blacks are chafing at the bit to rise against this war, if only if it weren't for the "anarchists". We can always expect from Matthew some racialized explanation for why otherwise "objectively revolutionary" people (read: blacks) aren't acting that revolutionary. "
if your going to troll on me aaron, i wish you'd stop making up things i say and otherwise putting words in my mouth.
the uhuru movement's explanation for the primary thing preventing african people from political life is the u.s. government counterinsurgency against their community. this has for example, resulted in over 10% of the adult male african population inside a prison cell
as we correspond here. another example is the drug economy which is a form of chemical warfare imposed on the african community which generates hundreds of billions of dollars for the general u.s. economy and justifies the above prisons rates (all of this occuring with the general complicity of anarchists and other sectors of white leftists). everything described in the "patriot act" and the "dept. of homeland security" have been practiced upon africans inside the u.s. since the early 70's.
beyond the general counterinsurgency, the thing probably most keeping the general african population from the "peace movement" is the chauvenistic dominance of white liberals inside it, and the lack of solidarity, or even interest, in the war being imposed on the black community by the peace movement.
now, your turn, aaron: what's your explanation for the lack of african participation inside the growing peace movement? whats your brilliant "class based" analysis on "blacks not acting that revolutionary" these days? did they just not have the spunk of your typical middle class white liberal, or your black-donned angry young white anarchist? did they get bored after all their activity in the '60s? and why the doesn't "anarchism" attract africans? or are we supposed to pretend this isn't a problem since anarchists are so "evolved" that any discussion of the "racial makeup" of the movement amounts to racism?
"Matthew would have us believe that blacks are chafing at the bit to rise against this war, if only if it weren't for the "anarchists". We can always expect from Matthew some racialized explanation for why otherwise "objectively revolutionary" people (read: blacks) aren't acting that revolutionary. "
if your going to troll on me aaron, i wish you'd stop making up things i say and otherwise putting words in my mouth.
the uhuru movement's explanation for the primary thing preventing african people from political life is the u.s. government counterinsurgency against their community. this has for example, resulted in over 10% of the adult male african population inside a prison cell
as we correspond here. another example is the drug economy which is a form of chemical warfare imposed on the african community which generates hundreds of billions of dollars for the general u.s. economy and justifies the above prisons rates (all of this occuring with the general complicity of anarchists and other sectors of white leftists). everything described in the "patriot act" and the "dept. of homeland security" have been practiced upon africans inside the u.s. since the early 70's.
beyond the general counterinsurgency, the thing probably most keeping the general african population from the "peace movement" is the chauvenistic dominance of white liberals inside it, and the lack of solidarity, or even interest, in the war being imposed on the black community by the peace movement.
now, your turn, aaron: what's your explanation for the lack of african participation inside the growing peace movement? whats your brilliant "class based" analysis on "blacks not acting that revolutionary" these days? did they just not have the spunk of your typical middle class white liberal, or your black-donned angry young white anarchist? did they get bored after all their activity in the '60s? and why the doesn't "anarchism" attract africans? or are we supposed to pretend this isn't a problem since anarchists are so "evolved" that any discussion of the "racial makeup" of the movement amounts to racism?
As my above post stated, I'm not in favor of the black bloc. I agree with you that a pre-announced riot is a very questionable tactic, one that makes many people (of all "races") think twice about participating in anti-war actions. Where I disagree with you is in your suggestion that riotous behavior keeps the movement "lilly white". It's more apt to say, at least at this juncture, that it will tend to keep the movement "rilly small".
I agree with you that the "peace movement" is dominated by a white liberal ethic--one that sees war as something anomolous and occuring "out there", instead of as a part of a continuoum of exploitation, repression, and racism that finds expression within the US. For that reason, it is seen as irrelevant by many, and especially those that have the most interest in radical change.
FYI, I don't identify as an anarchist.
I agree with you that the "peace movement" is dominated by a white liberal ethic--one that sees war as something anomolous and occuring "out there", instead of as a part of a continuoum of exploitation, repression, and racism that finds expression within the US. For that reason, it is seen as irrelevant by many, and especially those that have the most interest in radical change.
FYI, I don't identify as an anarchist.
wow aaron, i'm blown away. glad to know we find some agreement. thanks.
on the war agains the african community, the uhuru movement is coordinating a direct action at the oakland police station. for all the political problems with the uhuru movement some have, hopefully they will be smaller than the political problems we have with the opd running around oakland with a secret list to justify harrasing, intimidating and brutalizing the african community. it would do wonders to broaden the movement if a "stop the war: action which was targetting the war against the black community was well received in the peace movement in a tangeable way -- meaning some bodies out in support.
hope to meet aaron and others in person on that day, as friends.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1557947.php
on the war agains the african community, the uhuru movement is coordinating a direct action at the oakland police station. for all the political problems with the uhuru movement some have, hopefully they will be smaller than the political problems we have with the opd running around oakland with a secret list to justify harrasing, intimidating and brutalizing the african community. it would do wonders to broaden the movement if a "stop the war: action which was targetting the war against the black community was well received in the peace movement in a tangeable way -- meaning some bodies out in support.
hope to meet aaron and others in person on that day, as friends.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1557947.php
What is a direct action?
Matthew, I have seen you before. You are pure fucking white. And I always have some respect for AllPeeps.
But who the fuck are you to say that black people don't want to have militant protests? That is fucking total counter revolution.
Just like anything some black people are into it and some people arent. Where I am from, black people don't go to protests simply BECAUSE they are fucking totally boring and dont accomplish shit. And the protests organized by black people are always more militant than white activist protests in my experience.
Personally I think we need to just fucking loot our way out of this mess we're in. If we just kept looting and looting what the fuck would they do? I would never buy a goddamn thing in my life and let the companies and government rot.
So really Matthew. If what you are saying is that your group will not go to the January 18th protests, or if you are saying that your group will only march with the IAC in the January 18th protests, then say that. But PLEASE dont fucking be so sectarian that you claim that all black people hate militant protesting. And let me just say that if the black people I grew up with heard some white politician or "established black group" try to speak for all black people, they'd be on the floor with a fat lip.
I appreciate the work Uhuru does but if this is the kind of politics you are going to play then I dont want to have any thing to do with it
But who the fuck are you to say that black people don't want to have militant protests? That is fucking total counter revolution.
Just like anything some black people are into it and some people arent. Where I am from, black people don't go to protests simply BECAUSE they are fucking totally boring and dont accomplish shit. And the protests organized by black people are always more militant than white activist protests in my experience.
Personally I think we need to just fucking loot our way out of this mess we're in. If we just kept looting and looting what the fuck would they do? I would never buy a goddamn thing in my life and let the companies and government rot.
So really Matthew. If what you are saying is that your group will not go to the January 18th protests, or if you are saying that your group will only march with the IAC in the January 18th protests, then say that. But PLEASE dont fucking be so sectarian that you claim that all black people hate militant protesting. And let me just say that if the black people I grew up with heard some white politician or "established black group" try to speak for all black people, they'd be on the floor with a fat lip.
I appreciate the work Uhuru does but if this is the kind of politics you are going to play then I dont want to have any thing to do with it
dear jesus,
thank you for expressing appreciation of the work of uhuru and of all peeps. i also hope you appreciate knowing who i am, as i never post here with secret identities, i am open with my organizational affinities, and i am as happy to speak my opinion in public where you can see my face and look in my eye as i am here. that's how you know so much about me based on my comments on this thread. i wish that were more common around here, as i wish i could discern who you are, and your organizational affiliations based on your post.
i'm sorry we disagree here, and i'm sorry my comments make you feel alienated from the work of the uhuru movement. nonetheless, i feel compelled to make them, because i feel they need to be considered.
but you also wrote:
"But who the fuck are you to say that black people don't want to have militant protests?"
that's a ridiculous comment that i never made. quite the contrary. african people in the u.s. have a long and rich history of "militant protest," both peaceful and not.
the uhuru movement is a firm believer in "by any means necessary." our history proves this. do a search for "st. petersburg" "1996" and "riots" [sic] for evidence of this. however we also believe in being strategic, not reckless. we believe in confronting the enemy on our terms, not their's.
while we openly speak of the right of people to defend themselves. we believe that the shooting, cutting and bombing that created the world of unspeakable oppression in which we live in will require the same measures to flush it down the toilet of history where it belongs.
so we make it clear that we are NOT philosophically pacifists. but in this period we have always called for peaceful protests. we often get ludicrous "permits" to do constitutionally-guarenteed things such as rally in public spaces or carry signs over the golden gate bridge.
we do these things, not because we think ultimately there is a peaceful solution out of this mess, or that that u.s. will give us a permit to conduct a revolution. we do them because when there is violence it should be clear the pigs caused the violence. when rights are violeted it should be clear that the pigs did the violating. when we talk about "our terms" that's not only a question of whose got military strength, but whose got political strength.
here's the thing: this black block call doesn't only invite everyone who's angry at the war and want more than a weekend stroll to a park and rallies. i also want that, and i want to meet and work with others who want that.
this call also invites the pigs who will come with guns clubs armor horses motorcycles teargas, ready for a fight, ready to provoke a fight, ready to beat and arrest people. they will have a pig or two dressed in black with a black bandana over their faces, so no one can know his identity, with dreadlocks and peircings to throw a rock through a window. then the pigs will move in. if and when all this happens the people will be given ridiculous charges, the pigs will present this black block call as evidence, they will call those arrested "terrorists" and they will throw the book at them. in the unlikely event that there are any black or brown people in the crowd, they will be the first ones beaten and arrested.
believe me, i love a good fight. i've been in them. i've been in mayhem, before. its fun and exciting. there was a time when i'd be the first one in the black block. maybe sometime we can share a beer and swap war stories. but in the meantime, we have to be disciplined and strategic, do things that are going to move us forward not because of the way they will make us feel. when i was walking down that bridge and i saw that wall of pigs in front of us, i was thinking two things "get the children back" and "right on! lets do this!." i knew some shit was going to come down. i also knew we had a signed permit that the pigs were violating, not us! we had the political advantage!
that's the criticism i'm making of this particular proposal, not of militant protests in general. someone already asked me to explain the difference between this and the rodney king rebellions (for example), which i did. if you missed that, please scroll up.
yes, as you know, i'm white, jesus. pure fucking white. i'm not saying you're necessarily doing this, but i find it ironic that people will both argue race is irrelevant -- that "its all about class." -- with the same mouth they'll argue that my opinion is less valid because of my race.
in any case however, i didn't make this up. i'm reiterating a criticism i've heard numerous times from african people -- not all affiliated with the uhuru movement either. this criticism exists, because its happened before. at demonstrations that turn violent, the africans get targetted by the police. three africans will be in the vicinity of a white guy who smashes a window, and the africans get beat up and arrested and the white guy gets away. i didn't make it up. i agree with this criticism, and i have a right to say it, regardless of the color of my skin. i think its something that needs to be considered, therefore i felt compelled to raise it. as i said, i'm sincerely sorry if it alienates you from the uhuru movement. if you want to hear it from an african, i can ask any number of my african comrades -- the ones who helped a white person like me understand this contradiciton -- to make it, but again that shouldn't matter. its either right or its wrong. it doesn't matter who's saying it.
there is some reason why african people in general avoid both the larger peaceful marches and are probably even less represented in these "black block" type things, isn't there? and is this a problem for us?
i mean, at the 100,000 demo, big demo, i maybe saw 20 africans in the entire crowd -- including the ones i came with! and a good portion of those were speakers! don't all of us have a responsibility to consider why that is? you say because the demos are too boring and ineffective. well if the more "exciting" and "effective" version of protest called for here turns out more so-called "people-of-color" than i'll be the first to admit i was wrong. if however this thing is as or even more white-dominated than the bigger protest, i hope you will consider what i'm saying.
people both affiliated with the uhuru movement and all peeps will definitely be out on the 18th as we have been to all anti-war protests that we are able to make. we are not sectarian. if we can't support some action, we openly state the political or logistical reasons why. that's not sectarian either.
as what i'm stating is a general position of the uhuru movement, i can pretty much assure you uhuru movement affiliates won't join the black block as we understand it. all peeps, on the other hand, is a coalition which the uhuru movement pariticipates in, which hasn't taken a position on this action, so folks involved in all peeps will decide for themselves, and should participate in the black block if they want.
however, if things do turn violent, and arrests are made, and/or people are injured by the police, i will propose and struggle that the uhuru movement participate in any calls for support of any individuals or groups who are caught up in that. even if we don't agree on tactic, and can't join in this one, we support and defend your right to struggle against this war in ways that you deem necessary.
in principled solidarity, matthew willis
thank you for expressing appreciation of the work of uhuru and of all peeps. i also hope you appreciate knowing who i am, as i never post here with secret identities, i am open with my organizational affinities, and i am as happy to speak my opinion in public where you can see my face and look in my eye as i am here. that's how you know so much about me based on my comments on this thread. i wish that were more common around here, as i wish i could discern who you are, and your organizational affiliations based on your post.
i'm sorry we disagree here, and i'm sorry my comments make you feel alienated from the work of the uhuru movement. nonetheless, i feel compelled to make them, because i feel they need to be considered.
but you also wrote:
"But who the fuck are you to say that black people don't want to have militant protests?"
that's a ridiculous comment that i never made. quite the contrary. african people in the u.s. have a long and rich history of "militant protest," both peaceful and not.
the uhuru movement is a firm believer in "by any means necessary." our history proves this. do a search for "st. petersburg" "1996" and "riots" [sic] for evidence of this. however we also believe in being strategic, not reckless. we believe in confronting the enemy on our terms, not their's.
while we openly speak of the right of people to defend themselves. we believe that the shooting, cutting and bombing that created the world of unspeakable oppression in which we live in will require the same measures to flush it down the toilet of history where it belongs.
so we make it clear that we are NOT philosophically pacifists. but in this period we have always called for peaceful protests. we often get ludicrous "permits" to do constitutionally-guarenteed things such as rally in public spaces or carry signs over the golden gate bridge.
we do these things, not because we think ultimately there is a peaceful solution out of this mess, or that that u.s. will give us a permit to conduct a revolution. we do them because when there is violence it should be clear the pigs caused the violence. when rights are violeted it should be clear that the pigs did the violating. when we talk about "our terms" that's not only a question of whose got military strength, but whose got political strength.
here's the thing: this black block call doesn't only invite everyone who's angry at the war and want more than a weekend stroll to a park and rallies. i also want that, and i want to meet and work with others who want that.
this call also invites the pigs who will come with guns clubs armor horses motorcycles teargas, ready for a fight, ready to provoke a fight, ready to beat and arrest people. they will have a pig or two dressed in black with a black bandana over their faces, so no one can know his identity, with dreadlocks and peircings to throw a rock through a window. then the pigs will move in. if and when all this happens the people will be given ridiculous charges, the pigs will present this black block call as evidence, they will call those arrested "terrorists" and they will throw the book at them. in the unlikely event that there are any black or brown people in the crowd, they will be the first ones beaten and arrested.
believe me, i love a good fight. i've been in them. i've been in mayhem, before. its fun and exciting. there was a time when i'd be the first one in the black block. maybe sometime we can share a beer and swap war stories. but in the meantime, we have to be disciplined and strategic, do things that are going to move us forward not because of the way they will make us feel. when i was walking down that bridge and i saw that wall of pigs in front of us, i was thinking two things "get the children back" and "right on! lets do this!." i knew some shit was going to come down. i also knew we had a signed permit that the pigs were violating, not us! we had the political advantage!
that's the criticism i'm making of this particular proposal, not of militant protests in general. someone already asked me to explain the difference between this and the rodney king rebellions (for example), which i did. if you missed that, please scroll up.
yes, as you know, i'm white, jesus. pure fucking white. i'm not saying you're necessarily doing this, but i find it ironic that people will both argue race is irrelevant -- that "its all about class." -- with the same mouth they'll argue that my opinion is less valid because of my race.
in any case however, i didn't make this up. i'm reiterating a criticism i've heard numerous times from african people -- not all affiliated with the uhuru movement either. this criticism exists, because its happened before. at demonstrations that turn violent, the africans get targetted by the police. three africans will be in the vicinity of a white guy who smashes a window, and the africans get beat up and arrested and the white guy gets away. i didn't make it up. i agree with this criticism, and i have a right to say it, regardless of the color of my skin. i think its something that needs to be considered, therefore i felt compelled to raise it. as i said, i'm sincerely sorry if it alienates you from the uhuru movement. if you want to hear it from an african, i can ask any number of my african comrades -- the ones who helped a white person like me understand this contradiciton -- to make it, but again that shouldn't matter. its either right or its wrong. it doesn't matter who's saying it.
there is some reason why african people in general avoid both the larger peaceful marches and are probably even less represented in these "black block" type things, isn't there? and is this a problem for us?
i mean, at the 100,000 demo, big demo, i maybe saw 20 africans in the entire crowd -- including the ones i came with! and a good portion of those were speakers! don't all of us have a responsibility to consider why that is? you say because the demos are too boring and ineffective. well if the more "exciting" and "effective" version of protest called for here turns out more so-called "people-of-color" than i'll be the first to admit i was wrong. if however this thing is as or even more white-dominated than the bigger protest, i hope you will consider what i'm saying.
people both affiliated with the uhuru movement and all peeps will definitely be out on the 18th as we have been to all anti-war protests that we are able to make. we are not sectarian. if we can't support some action, we openly state the political or logistical reasons why. that's not sectarian either.
as what i'm stating is a general position of the uhuru movement, i can pretty much assure you uhuru movement affiliates won't join the black block as we understand it. all peeps, on the other hand, is a coalition which the uhuru movement pariticipates in, which hasn't taken a position on this action, so folks involved in all peeps will decide for themselves, and should participate in the black block if they want.
however, if things do turn violent, and arrests are made, and/or people are injured by the police, i will propose and struggle that the uhuru movement participate in any calls for support of any individuals or groups who are caught up in that. even if we don't agree on tactic, and can't join in this one, we support and defend your right to struggle against this war in ways that you deem necessary.
in principled solidarity, matthew willis
Well, we can all know one thing. If there are cracked heads that day, and if some black people get some cracked heads, we'll know that uhuru and their resources were out hiding with the IAC, not in the streets!
This revolution will not be managed, matthew. Your discipline is ruining you. Every opportunity to show that this established order is in its final days, we must take.
This revolution will not be managed, matthew. Your discipline is ruining you. Every opportunity to show that this established order is in its final days, we must take.
how the hell is this different than the take the bridge action that the all peeps coordinated? the uhuru movement supported that, obviously.
and i was there for the GG bridge march, and if anything your callout brought more cops than protesters. oddly enough, it was their presence that shut down the bridge. was that on "our own terms"?
and how is any protest ever just "on your terms"? protest is always about interaction with the "powers" that be, and the "powers" that be are racist. at the GG bridge, as everywhere, the demo was NOT on your terms, and some of the folks that got picked on the most (like the 13 year old girl) were Arab (arguably more targetted these days than africans). your march didnt protect them in any special way. by your definition, how does this qualify as on "our own terms"?
and incidentally, the presence of any arabs at that march, knowing they were gonna get jacked, speaks for itself. people will decide for themselves what their risk factor is an act accordingly. my conclusion is that as long as we dont force anything on anyone (thats important), we shouldnt play this bogus political game of deciding which direct action is ok because *I* decide that this or that protest minority will feel comfortable participating in large enough numbers.
anyway, the question stands. how is this different from the GG march, aside from the so called permit that was useless anyway? and given that minority populations are always going to be more vulnerable and they will participate as they see fit, we come to the fact that YOU are NOT a minority. So cant you make a decision that doesnt start from "well, if I *were* black, would I go?
shouldnt you (you - matthew!) go to the breakaway as an individual?
and i was there for the GG bridge march, and if anything your callout brought more cops than protesters. oddly enough, it was their presence that shut down the bridge. was that on "our own terms"?
and how is any protest ever just "on your terms"? protest is always about interaction with the "powers" that be, and the "powers" that be are racist. at the GG bridge, as everywhere, the demo was NOT on your terms, and some of the folks that got picked on the most (like the 13 year old girl) were Arab (arguably more targetted these days than africans). your march didnt protect them in any special way. by your definition, how does this qualify as on "our own terms"?
and incidentally, the presence of any arabs at that march, knowing they were gonna get jacked, speaks for itself. people will decide for themselves what their risk factor is an act accordingly. my conclusion is that as long as we dont force anything on anyone (thats important), we shouldnt play this bogus political game of deciding which direct action is ok because *I* decide that this or that protest minority will feel comfortable participating in large enough numbers.
anyway, the question stands. how is this different from the GG march, aside from the so called permit that was useless anyway? and given that minority populations are always going to be more vulnerable and they will participate as they see fit, we come to the fact that YOU are NOT a minority. So cant you make a decision that doesnt start from "well, if I *were* black, would I go?
shouldnt you (you - matthew!) go to the breakaway as an individual?
hi anonimo, (are you also jesus, or am in interacting with a new person?) thanks for coming to the bridge demo last year. we will be sponsoring another one coming up later this year. yes, uhuru was a big part of building that, so yes. obviously we supported it.
and you're right. non-white people -- particulary africans, indigenous people, and whatever group the u.s. government happens to be focusing its imperialist interests on at any given moment, risk more me and you in any given moment. dangerous activities which might provoke the police range from driving a car, to walking down the street to the store, to going to a demonstration, to doing a more direct action type action.
however you asked for differences between this action and the take it to the bridge. here they are as i understand them. if i misunderstand anything i sincerely hope i will be corrected. if i'm wrong in my understanding about the 'black block,' which is entirely possible, please correct me.
1. the golden gate bridge was a call for a a peaceful non-violent demonstration. we called for an non-violence and provided a list of what that meant. we called on everyone to respect these principles. so when the police attacked us, it was clear to all, they were the ones committing the violence.
again, we didn't do this because we are pacifists (we sure as hell aren't in the uhuru movement), we did it because it was strategic. for one it prevented agent provactuers from provoking a police attack which would later be justified.
2. we got permits. you called it "useless" but it was anything but. they were proof that when the police attacked us within the timeframe admitted in the permit, they were violating our supposed first amendment rights. this exposed them for the brutish thugs they. it shut some of my more reactionary family members and coworkers up when they said attempted to defend the police. the permit thing was a front page story in the chronicle, the marin independent and on broadcast news.
the question of the permits was critical towards that demo's success. the police violating them did not make them illegitemate. it made the police illegitimate. if the legal people in the bay area had supported it, we could have had a great lawsuit.
3. we didn't attach ourselves to another organization's organizing efforts. if we had a proposal for a component to another's organizing efforts we go through them. even if they are a group with a history of unprincipled activity towards us, such as the iac. that's a principle of ours. again, maybe i'm wrong in my assumption that this is the case here, but it seems that not only did this not happen, this action is being sponsored in contention with the principle organizers of the day, whose work makes the possibility for this action possible.
regarding arab participation at the golden gate bridge:
many may not know this. we had major struggle inside the coalition which resulted in about half of the orgs and individuals who were with us in building the take it to the bridge demo walking out of the coalition a few weeks before the demonstration. this was because orgs and individuals inside the coalitions were attaching open calls for insurrection to our action and making other provacative statements in the name of the coalition which hadn't been agreed upon collectively.
among the consequences of this was that many of the arab organizations who were planning on coming, told us they were going to withdraw support of it because they felt it would undermine their cause to be attached to an action allowing for violence.
so there you have it. i sincerely hate like hell to have disagreement on this with so many courageous people who are going forward with this plan. again i support your right to struggle in the way you see fit, even if i disagree with some components of it.
here is the letter we received from al-awda: the palestinian right to return coalition in the course of building our action last year:
Dear brothers and sisters of the All People's
> Coalition Members,
>
> From Al-Awda, the Palestinian Right to Return
> Coalition, we are sorry we can't be with you today for
> this important meeting. Unfortunately our commitment to the demonstration today prevents us from being
> with you in person.
> However, we are enthusiastic by
> the important work that has been coordinated by the
> All People's Coalition, and we are proud to be
> part of this important Coalition since its inception
> in October of 2001.
>
> Although we can not be there in person, we are
> writing
> with some critical feedback from the Palestinian and
> Muslim
> communities regarding the upcoming May 25th "Take
> the
> Bridge" demonstration. We are with you that the
> stakes
> must be raised by the anti-war movement in the U.S.
> We see the "Take the Bridge" demo as having
> enormous potential to bring us closer towards these
> goals. However, there are some very real concerns
> about the potentially
> damaging impact on our community and how this action
> may seriously limit our
> ability to unite with
> this demonstration.
>
> As you know, our communities are currently
> undergoing
> an intensification of arrests, detentions and
> deportations and other forms of harrassment from the
> INS and other branches of U.S. government. We
> believe
> a demonstration that is not peaceful, ordered and
> designed to unite the broadest sector of the
> population as our principles will allow, will
> endanger
> our communities, alienate activists and
> potential activists from our cause, and justify an
> even deeper repression on our people -- in
> particular,
> Arabs and other people of Middle Eastern descent.
>
> Therefore we urge fellow members of All Peeps to
> clarify to our community, and to all, that the call
> for this upcoming demo is to be peaceful.
> We must consider the very real danger that our
> actions
> will backfire if we put our base and ourselves into
> a
> dangerous and alienating situation.
>
> We believe if we build this demo according to our
> broad principles of unity as a coalition, we can
> surpass our expectations and build an event that
> will
> show our brothers and sisters in Palestine and
> elsewhere that there is a massive and powerfull
> movement of all races, in solidarity with them in
> the
> U.S.
>
> If however, the Golden Gate Demonstration is a call
> for something we feel is reckless and damaging to
> our
> goals, we will not be able support or participate in
> it. We will also request that our oranization is
> removed from the list of supporters as is currently
> stated in the leaflet. It is our profound hope this
> is
> not that case, and that we can all work to bring
> thousands or more to the Golden Gate on the 25th.
>
> In Solidarity,
>
>
> Jess Ghannam
> The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
>
in principled solidarity, matthew
and you're right. non-white people -- particulary africans, indigenous people, and whatever group the u.s. government happens to be focusing its imperialist interests on at any given moment, risk more me and you in any given moment. dangerous activities which might provoke the police range from driving a car, to walking down the street to the store, to going to a demonstration, to doing a more direct action type action.
however you asked for differences between this action and the take it to the bridge. here they are as i understand them. if i misunderstand anything i sincerely hope i will be corrected. if i'm wrong in my understanding about the 'black block,' which is entirely possible, please correct me.
1. the golden gate bridge was a call for a a peaceful non-violent demonstration. we called for an non-violence and provided a list of what that meant. we called on everyone to respect these principles. so when the police attacked us, it was clear to all, they were the ones committing the violence.
again, we didn't do this because we are pacifists (we sure as hell aren't in the uhuru movement), we did it because it was strategic. for one it prevented agent provactuers from provoking a police attack which would later be justified.
2. we got permits. you called it "useless" but it was anything but. they were proof that when the police attacked us within the timeframe admitted in the permit, they were violating our supposed first amendment rights. this exposed them for the brutish thugs they. it shut some of my more reactionary family members and coworkers up when they said attempted to defend the police. the permit thing was a front page story in the chronicle, the marin independent and on broadcast news.
the question of the permits was critical towards that demo's success. the police violating them did not make them illegitemate. it made the police illegitimate. if the legal people in the bay area had supported it, we could have had a great lawsuit.
3. we didn't attach ourselves to another organization's organizing efforts. if we had a proposal for a component to another's organizing efforts we go through them. even if they are a group with a history of unprincipled activity towards us, such as the iac. that's a principle of ours. again, maybe i'm wrong in my assumption that this is the case here, but it seems that not only did this not happen, this action is being sponsored in contention with the principle organizers of the day, whose work makes the possibility for this action possible.
regarding arab participation at the golden gate bridge:
many may not know this. we had major struggle inside the coalition which resulted in about half of the orgs and individuals who were with us in building the take it to the bridge demo walking out of the coalition a few weeks before the demonstration. this was because orgs and individuals inside the coalitions were attaching open calls for insurrection to our action and making other provacative statements in the name of the coalition which hadn't been agreed upon collectively.
among the consequences of this was that many of the arab organizations who were planning on coming, told us they were going to withdraw support of it because they felt it would undermine their cause to be attached to an action allowing for violence.
so there you have it. i sincerely hate like hell to have disagreement on this with so many courageous people who are going forward with this plan. again i support your right to struggle in the way you see fit, even if i disagree with some components of it.
here is the letter we received from al-awda: the palestinian right to return coalition in the course of building our action last year:
Dear brothers and sisters of the All People's
> Coalition Members,
>
> From Al-Awda, the Palestinian Right to Return
> Coalition, we are sorry we can't be with you today for
> this important meeting. Unfortunately our commitment to the demonstration today prevents us from being
> with you in person.
> However, we are enthusiastic by
> the important work that has been coordinated by the
> All People's Coalition, and we are proud to be
> part of this important Coalition since its inception
> in October of 2001.
>
> Although we can not be there in person, we are
> writing
> with some critical feedback from the Palestinian and
> Muslim
> communities regarding the upcoming May 25th "Take
> the
> Bridge" demonstration. We are with you that the
> stakes
> must be raised by the anti-war movement in the U.S.
> We see the "Take the Bridge" demo as having
> enormous potential to bring us closer towards these
> goals. However, there are some very real concerns
> about the potentially
> damaging impact on our community and how this action
> may seriously limit our
> ability to unite with
> this demonstration.
>
> As you know, our communities are currently
> undergoing
> an intensification of arrests, detentions and
> deportations and other forms of harrassment from the
> INS and other branches of U.S. government. We
> believe
> a demonstration that is not peaceful, ordered and
> designed to unite the broadest sector of the
> population as our principles will allow, will
> endanger
> our communities, alienate activists and
> potential activists from our cause, and justify an
> even deeper repression on our people -- in
> particular,
> Arabs and other people of Middle Eastern descent.
>
> Therefore we urge fellow members of All Peeps to
> clarify to our community, and to all, that the call
> for this upcoming demo is to be peaceful.
> We must consider the very real danger that our
> actions
> will backfire if we put our base and ourselves into
> a
> dangerous and alienating situation.
>
> We believe if we build this demo according to our
> broad principles of unity as a coalition, we can
> surpass our expectations and build an event that
> will
> show our brothers and sisters in Palestine and
> elsewhere that there is a massive and powerfull
> movement of all races, in solidarity with them in
> the
> U.S.
>
> If however, the Golden Gate Demonstration is a call
> for something we feel is reckless and damaging to
> our
> goals, we will not be able support or participate in
> it. We will also request that our oranization is
> removed from the list of supporters as is currently
> stated in the leaflet. It is our profound hope this
> is
> not that case, and that we can all work to bring
> thousands or more to the Golden Gate on the 25th.
>
> In Solidarity,
>
>
> Jess Ghannam
> The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
>
in principled solidarity, matthew
I was there too. The permit took a LOT of work to get, and it wasn't nothing. We wouldn't have been able to step one foot on the bridge without it.
That was a great march . . .
That was a great march . . .
Hasn't anyone learned that trying to organize a riot is a sure way to get your ass kicked. Calling for a "rampage" and "chaos in the streets" is fucking stupid. The cops are going to be on you like flies on shit. Aaron's above post hit things on the head "the ninja like black block is played out".
The organizers of this call to action should be held accountable for the negative consequences that will inevitablely come out of this stupid idea. Does anyone remember the Long Beach Mayday that happened a year or two ago? I hope the organizers will at least avoid getting innocent bystanders hurt.
HOLD THE ORGANIZERS ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!
The organizers of this call to action should be held accountable for the negative consequences that will inevitablely come out of this stupid idea. Does anyone remember the Long Beach Mayday that happened a year or two ago? I hope the organizers will at least avoid getting innocent bystanders hurt.
HOLD THE ORGANIZERS ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!
Maybe you need to go back to school for a while before you go around calling other people stupid.
Boy what a criticism of my post-- I spelled bloc, "block". And I should go back to school too! how revolutionary!!
They are two different words with two different meanings.
matthew - i am not jesus.
your three points seem to make the statement that the goals of your protest were to get the police to attack a non-violent peaceful demonstration and be shown up as thugs? i attended the protest with the expectation that someone had planned a direct action to actually physically take the bridge (the road not the sidewalk). whatever. it was a good time, and remarkably effective given the small numbers of folks that showed. perhaps one of the things that made it effective was the apparently misleading militant calls attached to it that made the police themselves block up the bridge! things that make you go hmmmmm.
anyway, I appreciate the legal benefit of the permit. i am also sure you appreciate the need for unpermitted protest marches.
what people dont seem to realize is that a black bloc call is not a call for a riot. none of us, least of all the people making the bullshit riot accusations, have any idea what the tactics and idea the organizers of this have in mind. tactics and actions always differ from bloc to bloc.
the best reference we have for this bloc is the breakaway from october 26th. so people should make their decision to participate based on facts and not blatant speculation, and if you will be there the 18th you should come to the gathering and find out what its about before you discount it.
your three points seem to make the statement that the goals of your protest were to get the police to attack a non-violent peaceful demonstration and be shown up as thugs? i attended the protest with the expectation that someone had planned a direct action to actually physically take the bridge (the road not the sidewalk). whatever. it was a good time, and remarkably effective given the small numbers of folks that showed. perhaps one of the things that made it effective was the apparently misleading militant calls attached to it that made the police themselves block up the bridge! things that make you go hmmmmm.
anyway, I appreciate the legal benefit of the permit. i am also sure you appreciate the need for unpermitted protest marches.
what people dont seem to realize is that a black bloc call is not a call for a riot. none of us, least of all the people making the bullshit riot accusations, have any idea what the tactics and idea the organizers of this have in mind. tactics and actions always differ from bloc to bloc.
the best reference we have for this bloc is the breakaway from october 26th. so people should make their decision to participate based on facts and not blatant speculation, and if you will be there the 18th you should come to the gathering and find out what its about before you discount it.
What would happen if there were several, and they went in different directions, all at precisely the same time?
i think numbers are important to the success of such a march, but if there were enough people it sure would be cool to split the march and then have the two marches rejoin!
dear anonimo,
no one knew exactly what was going to happen on the bridge till it was over. that was new ground. the bridge march organizers did entertain the idea of a sit-in on the golden gate bridge as part of our action. however, we were clear with plan a, b and c based numbers and other political and practical conditions. these determined our action to take another course. plan d turned out to be the plan that actualize. everyone on the bridge was welcome to make whatever they wanted to happen, happen, and we were ready with legal and political support -- so long as all actions didn't damage people or property. if the conditions were right, i would have put my ass on that vehicle traffic with you and whoever else would join us, no doubt! but we can't be reckless.
one of the things i learned from that action is whenever you are pushing the envelope you have to be flexible in what happens. like you say the day turned out great. no one was hurt, and the fucking pigs shut the bridge down for us! it was beautiful! like you say, what 300 people (tops) can do when the conditions are right! we still are making waves from that action. a bridge picture was in the chronicle two weeks ago (12/31/02) as a top photo of 02! fucking proud to be there with you, anonimo and bov and whoever else was there who is reading this was there that day! seriously!
i am totally open to having misunderstandings about the black bloc. i threw my two cents in not trying to make sweeping judgements about the action, but offering a criticism i thought worthy to think about. the truth is i don't know much about it.
i would have joined the 'breakaway march' last time if i had not already brought an amp, microphone and stage to the last demo to organize a people's voice (for those of us with something to say, but who weren't on the laundry list of lefty celebrities. on the stage i set up, everyone was welcome!). i had a material interest in not leaving the mic and amp unatteneded. but when the breakaway march went by, i didn't really know what it was, but i was cheering support for it and encouraging others to join it.
but i must say: in current political conditions, i believe scheduled and organizied actions should adhere to principles of non-violence; particularly when they are attached to larger events where the participants who come may be exposed to conditions they are not ready for. i stated the reasons for this already. not because we are pacifists, but because we need to continue to expose who the real perpetrators of violence are. if the police attack us first, after we've publically expressed our committment to non-violence, then the sky's the limit!
love, matthew
no one knew exactly what was going to happen on the bridge till it was over. that was new ground. the bridge march organizers did entertain the idea of a sit-in on the golden gate bridge as part of our action. however, we were clear with plan a, b and c based numbers and other political and practical conditions. these determined our action to take another course. plan d turned out to be the plan that actualize. everyone on the bridge was welcome to make whatever they wanted to happen, happen, and we were ready with legal and political support -- so long as all actions didn't damage people or property. if the conditions were right, i would have put my ass on that vehicle traffic with you and whoever else would join us, no doubt! but we can't be reckless.
one of the things i learned from that action is whenever you are pushing the envelope you have to be flexible in what happens. like you say the day turned out great. no one was hurt, and the fucking pigs shut the bridge down for us! it was beautiful! like you say, what 300 people (tops) can do when the conditions are right! we still are making waves from that action. a bridge picture was in the chronicle two weeks ago (12/31/02) as a top photo of 02! fucking proud to be there with you, anonimo and bov and whoever else was there who is reading this was there that day! seriously!
i am totally open to having misunderstandings about the black bloc. i threw my two cents in not trying to make sweeping judgements about the action, but offering a criticism i thought worthy to think about. the truth is i don't know much about it.
i would have joined the 'breakaway march' last time if i had not already brought an amp, microphone and stage to the last demo to organize a people's voice (for those of us with something to say, but who weren't on the laundry list of lefty celebrities. on the stage i set up, everyone was welcome!). i had a material interest in not leaving the mic and amp unatteneded. but when the breakaway march went by, i didn't really know what it was, but i was cheering support for it and encouraging others to join it.
but i must say: in current political conditions, i believe scheduled and organizied actions should adhere to principles of non-violence; particularly when they are attached to larger events where the participants who come may be exposed to conditions they are not ready for. i stated the reasons for this already. not because we are pacifists, but because we need to continue to expose who the real perpetrators of violence are. if the police attack us first, after we've publically expressed our committment to non-violence, then the sky's the limit!
love, matthew
purely symbolic actions. If we had symbolic problems, symbolic solutions would suffice. Our problems are not symbolic. They are concrete. They call for concrete solutions.
Drsssing up and acting out wont cut the mustard.
Drsssing up and acting out wont cut the mustard.
Night time demos are hella cooler than these boring cow-herds down Market Street (not that boring cow herds are worthless). In the late 80s and early 90s it was pretty customary to gather large numbers after night-fall against US intervention in Central America and the Gulf War. The last memorable night demo in SF was in 95 against Mumia's execution. There's a whole different energy when it's dark. People get freakier and the cops are thrown off--the balance of forces is more favorable to our side.
It seems that some have become ideologically beholden to the blac bloc thang. Don't be! It's a tactic, nothing more. If the negatives outweigh the positives, as i believe is the case, then it's time to come up with something new.
How about a militant-ass night time demo? There's still time to get out the word.
It seems that some have become ideologically beholden to the blac bloc thang. Don't be! It's a tactic, nothing more. If the negatives outweigh the positives, as i believe is the case, then it's time to come up with something new.
How about a militant-ass night time demo? There's still time to get out the word.
a tradition of long standing. It only works with torches that don't go out after ten minutes like at that fiasco in Berkeley that nessie told us about that time:
http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/28.html
But again, even the best symbols are still only symbols. The war itself is all too real.
http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/28.html
But again, even the best symbols are still only symbols. The war itself is all too real.
and a tuna sandwich is just a tuna sandwich, but I don't pretend that's relevant to this discussion.
the type of action--time, place, ambiance, feel, degree of militancy--aren't only symbols. they are determinants of successful actions. i've been to enough demos to know that the difference between demonstrations of weakness and demonstrations of power isn't symbolic. it's the real thing.
the type of action--time, place, ambiance, feel, degree of militancy--aren't only symbols. they are determinants of successful actions. i've been to enough demos to know that the difference between demonstrations of weakness and demonstrations of power isn't symbolic. it's the real thing.
Is it when we have a good time, feel better later, don't get beaten too badly or arrested in too great numbers? Is it when we get corporate media coverage? What then?
I've been going to demos for forty years. I have yet to se one have more than a fleeting, ephemeral effect. If we want to transform society, it will take a lot more than marching around with signs. It will take mass organizing on a scale we can scarcely yet imagine. It's not about control of a couple of streets for a few hours, or even the occupation of a few schools and factories. It's not about physical space at all. It's about the space between humanity's ears.
If you think that massing in Civic Center "demonstrates power," you are sadly mistaken. Our rulers couldn't care less what out signs say or how we are dressed. They know what real power is, and will never be fooled by our street theater. Real power is the armies the command. The sole and only thing they fear is that their armies desert them. When grunts start fragging second louies the captain’s ears perk up. When captains start turning up shot in the back, that’s when the generals tremble.
Perhaps you remember Viet Nam. Neither VC nor NVA nor US peaceniks could put a stop to the carnage, no matter what was tried. But when GI’s turned their guns around, the war stopped. No war can be fought without soldiers. Stop trying to convince the brass and the suits not to fight. It’s a total waste of time. Their minds are made up. Focus on reaching the soldiers, the ones who make war possible. Because when we do, the guns will turn around and the game is over.
I've been going to demos for forty years. I have yet to se one have more than a fleeting, ephemeral effect. If we want to transform society, it will take a lot more than marching around with signs. It will take mass organizing on a scale we can scarcely yet imagine. It's not about control of a couple of streets for a few hours, or even the occupation of a few schools and factories. It's not about physical space at all. It's about the space between humanity's ears.
If you think that massing in Civic Center "demonstrates power," you are sadly mistaken. Our rulers couldn't care less what out signs say or how we are dressed. They know what real power is, and will never be fooled by our street theater. Real power is the armies the command. The sole and only thing they fear is that their armies desert them. When grunts start fragging second louies the captain’s ears perk up. When captains start turning up shot in the back, that’s when the generals tremble.
Perhaps you remember Viet Nam. Neither VC nor NVA nor US peaceniks could put a stop to the carnage, no matter what was tried. But when GI’s turned their guns around, the war stopped. No war can be fought without soldiers. Stop trying to convince the brass and the suits not to fight. It’s a total waste of time. Their minds are made up. Focus on reaching the soldiers, the ones who make war possible. Because when we do, the guns will turn around and the game is over.
why is it you've been going to demos for 40 years if you think they are ineffective? is fragging the ultimate anti-war action? if so, should we all find the nearest recruiter?
no. anti-war demos, fragging, whatever. they are all interconnected. an anti-war demo inspires a frag and vica-versa. do what you can from your vantage point.
no. anti-war demos, fragging, whatever. they are all interconnected. an anti-war demo inspires a frag and vica-versa. do what you can from your vantage point.
In 1986 Reagan et al. amassed a large number of forces in Honduras and it appeared that an invasion of Nicaragua was in the offing. For several nights running their were raucous thousands-strong demonstrations in SF, Chicago, and NY. I was a teen-ager at the time and they had a powerful effect on me. Weinberger pointed to them as evidence that support was lacking for an invasion. I don't know if in fact an invasion was in the works, but the fact that the ruling class was clearly paying attention had a powerful effect on me, equal to, or greater than, the demos themselves. I emphasize the effect these events had on me because that feeling of power is precisely what we want to spread, particularly among a new generation of rebels in the making. THAT isn't ephemeral.
In the early to mid 90s I became disillusioned with going to demos because I came to feel they were ineffectual and more often than not demonstrated weakness as opposed to strength. So many of the demos that occur are just exercises in moral hand-wringing with no impact whatsoever. But this doesn't mean that they need be so. I hate mediocrity--it's one of the things that I hate about this society. I hate it when mediocrity reigns among oppositionists. My attitude is that when we marshal our forces we should put up as good a show as possible...because people are watching, assessing, and--whether consciously or unconsciously--formulating a position. It goes without saying that mass strikes, mutinies, and all that are the goal, but given that that's not imminent I'm for making these coming demos as BIG as possible. These demos are important: I haven't said that about a demo in a long time.
In the early to mid 90s I became disillusioned with going to demos because I came to feel they were ineffectual and more often than not demonstrated weakness as opposed to strength. So many of the demos that occur are just exercises in moral hand-wringing with no impact whatsoever. But this doesn't mean that they need be so. I hate mediocrity--it's one of the things that I hate about this society. I hate it when mediocrity reigns among oppositionists. My attitude is that when we marshal our forces we should put up as good a show as possible...because people are watching, assessing, and--whether consciously or unconsciously--formulating a position. It goes without saying that mass strikes, mutinies, and all that are the goal, but given that that's not imminent I'm for making these coming demos as BIG as possible. These demos are important: I haven't said that about a demo in a long time.
If January 18th goes BEST, we will still be protesting when it comes to be nighttime out. Let's hope something like that would be possible!
Last night was a presentation by the women who walked across the US on a peace walk at the BFUU - the amazing thing was how everyone they met was someone they could talk to, and almost all were against war, the cops, the farmers, even the kkk.
They want us to believe that we are alone in this, but really, most don't want war. The question is, how bad does it have to get before people feel they have to do something? Every word out of the Moron's mouth helps push people toward doing something, but we need to have things ready for when they are ready. That's why the strike planning is important, the tax resistance work, the potential cd acts, the 'symbolic' city council resolutions passing all over the country, among everything else.
They want us to believe that we are alone in this, but really, most don't want war. The question is, how bad does it have to get before people feel they have to do something? Every word out of the Moron's mouth helps push people toward doing something, but we need to have things ready for when they are ready. That's why the strike planning is important, the tax resistance work, the potential cd acts, the 'symbolic' city council resolutions passing all over the country, among everything else.
As intimidated as suburban America is, from my expirience as a working Joe,we have had enough! Having said that, understand that the success of our, or any democracy lies with the involvement of "average people", who would not align themselves with radical groups or ideas. I Think we can all agree that Democracy, is a radical idea. I understand perfectly the Black Bloc's sentiment regarding the inefectiveness of activism from within the framework of traditional party polical politics, but it is only from whithin this framework that we will be taken seriously. Destroying privet property only upsets the very people who want to join us! Please, look to the masses. we want justice, and leadership who will represent us, not alienate us.
There needs to be a wide range of reponses to the oligarchs bent on war. For those who wish to fight from the inside, we must use the laws and resources available to help feed the hungry, house the homeless and heal the sick. But there must also be a strong movement to destroy the system at the same time. The system that is presently serving the purpose it was designed to serve. To enslave the poor, to rape the earth and to kill those that oppose it. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking it will fall without a bloody fight. We must educate the people, and at the same time strike whenever possible. And when the time comes, when enough people are sick and tired and hungry, they will rise up.
When the war starts? What about all the people dying from lack of critical life supplies not to mention the bombing runs we've been going on for the last few years? The whole 'war' tag is just a propaghanda tool anyway. The war started a long time ago, didn't it?
that's correct. the war in Iraq started a long time ago; never really ended in 1991, in fact. what looks to be starting now is the OCCUPATION of Iraq. That's what we need to keep in mind.
Many people not generally oppossed to "war" are horrified once they understand that the U.S. is about to impose a military dictatorship until it can set up a puppet government. When people understand it in those terms, they are almost universally against U.S. policy.
Many people not generally oppossed to "war" are horrified once they understand that the U.S. is about to impose a military dictatorship until it can set up a puppet government. When people understand it in those terms, they are almost universally against U.S. policy.
It really is stupid of the US to keep on bombing Iraq, killing innocent women and children. It makes no economic sense. Why should we kill these people at our expense, when Sadaam will do it for fun? When they get tired of him, if there are any of them left, they'll get rid of him.
Just went through all the comments and thought I'd offer a little of my infinite wisdom!
A brief history of my political growth-When I started college in 1965,I joined a group of reactionaries who broke up a peaceful anti war vigil.We tore up their signs and sent them scurrying to save their asses.A mere three years later I was running through the streets of San Francisco chanting "One sides right,one sides wrong,victory to the Viet Cong"and raising hell on Market Street.Like many others at the time,I went through"some changes"
I don't feel comfortable with either the "zombie walk"types who are just good upper middle class liberal professionals who are anti-war but NOT anti-racist or anti-capitalist.I actuallly BELIEVED SDS and the Movement types who encouraged radicals to join the working class and organize in that milieu.I am glad I made that choice but don't feel most of the liberal types really feel my realities.Also,I distrust the ANSWER-Worker's World Party dogmatists who seem to have their little control group of approved speakers parroting the party line.I joined the New Left to forever be rid of those stuffy idealogues.
Yet Iam very reluctant to hook up with the anarchist-black bloc types either.Been there,done that.We had this tendency way back when-hey,I took a serious bust and beatdown in 1969 in a window breaking rampage Downtown!.Unarmed folks cannot,I repeat CANNOT win going up against Tac Squad goons with guns and clubs.
At SF State,we had a tactic called War of the Flea.Analagize the people to fleas on a dog.,the dog being the Power Structure.When the dog scratches the flea jumps to another part of the dog.You make your prescence felt with minimal damage and casualties to your side.Did the same thing the next year at UC Berkeley,disrupting classes in small groups and eventually shutting down the school.The only time heads were cracked was when ultras wanted to do a rocks-against -guns tradeoff and ended up with serious felony charges.
Be creative and spirited.Try not to hurt anyone or get hurt yourself.But let President Bush know you mean business!
A brief history of my political growth-When I started college in 1965,I joined a group of reactionaries who broke up a peaceful anti war vigil.We tore up their signs and sent them scurrying to save their asses.A mere three years later I was running through the streets of San Francisco chanting "One sides right,one sides wrong,victory to the Viet Cong"and raising hell on Market Street.Like many others at the time,I went through"some changes"
I don't feel comfortable with either the "zombie walk"types who are just good upper middle class liberal professionals who are anti-war but NOT anti-racist or anti-capitalist.I actuallly BELIEVED SDS and the Movement types who encouraged radicals to join the working class and organize in that milieu.I am glad I made that choice but don't feel most of the liberal types really feel my realities.Also,I distrust the ANSWER-Worker's World Party dogmatists who seem to have their little control group of approved speakers parroting the party line.I joined the New Left to forever be rid of those stuffy idealogues.
Yet Iam very reluctant to hook up with the anarchist-black bloc types either.Been there,done that.We had this tendency way back when-hey,I took a serious bust and beatdown in 1969 in a window breaking rampage Downtown!.Unarmed folks cannot,I repeat CANNOT win going up against Tac Squad goons with guns and clubs.
At SF State,we had a tactic called War of the Flea.Analagize the people to fleas on a dog.,the dog being the Power Structure.When the dog scratches the flea jumps to another part of the dog.You make your prescence felt with minimal damage and casualties to your side.Did the same thing the next year at UC Berkeley,disrupting classes in small groups and eventually shutting down the school.The only time heads were cracked was when ultras wanted to do a rocks-against -guns tradeoff and ended up with serious felony charges.
Be creative and spirited.Try not to hurt anyone or get hurt yourself.But let President Bush know you mean business!
Thanks for the advice Old Dude.
I appreciate your thoughts.
I appreciate your thoughts.
The Moron who posted this will be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law!!!
======================
white flags
by wave them • Monday January 06, 2003 at 09:23 PM
... Mohammed)piss be on him) invented muslims in 632 ad, it's been 1400 years of conquer and kill since then. Oh yes, "peacefully muslims" get a GRIP, FOOLS
======================
white flags
by wave them • Monday January 06, 2003 at 09:23 PM
... Mohammed)piss be on him) invented muslims in 632 ad, it's been 1400 years of conquer and kill since then. Oh yes, "peacefully muslims" get a GRIP, FOOLS
It may take longer to find a dynamic IP address than a fixed one but we can trace it - you can be sure of that!
Hey "me" thanks for your stupid message, how do you think you reach these "soldiers"? Thats right, protests is one way.
check your own brain!
check your own brain!
all of the naysayers or doubting thomases should just come to the fucking 2:30 gathering point and hear what the breakaway thing is about. at the very least.
Young dude-got nothing but repect for folks like you and Aaron and others of the "new breed".Your passion and anger inspire and re-energize me.And if that sounds patronizing,believe me,I am sincere as hell!
This point in History reminds me of 1967-going from protest to resistance as the world spins out of control.I think it will take a multitude of tactics to really stop the War machine and the ravenous Capitlaist-Consumerist Beast of Death that perpetuates it.Everyone needs to do what they believe has the most impact.
But everyone do SOMETHING!
This point in History reminds me of 1967-going from protest to resistance as the world spins out of control.I think it will take a multitude of tactics to really stop the War machine and the ravenous Capitlaist-Consumerist Beast of Death that perpetuates it.Everyone needs to do what they believe has the most impact.
But everyone do SOMETHING!
Yup. Sure is. Of course that's what I thought in 1999, too, when Seattle took me by surprise. Hell, that's even what I thought in 1984, when the Democratic Convention came to town and the entire opposition united as one. And in 1979, when *London Calling* was finally released in the US, I figured that, at last, there was hope after all.
I think of us as waves in an rising tide. We roll up the beach and roll back. We roll up again, this time higher. Waves come in sets. They're not all the same size. Every set has a wave that's the biggest. At the time, I thought 1967 was the high wave of a set that started with the Memphis Bus Boycott. I was wrong. The big wave was 1970.
This set we're in now still has the big wave to come.
But, FWIW, 1967 was the year this happened:
http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages//mutt.and.jeff.html
I think of us as waves in an rising tide. We roll up the beach and roll back. We roll up again, this time higher. Waves come in sets. They're not all the same size. Every set has a wave that's the biggest. At the time, I thought 1967 was the high wave of a set that started with the Memphis Bus Boycott. I was wrong. The big wave was 1970.
This set we're in now still has the big wave to come.
But, FWIW, 1967 was the year this happened:
http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages//mutt.and.jeff.html
After almost two decades of activism, I'm generally unimpressed by any claims that big parade demos do much to stop wars. I think it's pathetically naive to believe that marching down the street on a weekend will actually influence the war plans of the politicians, generals and CEOs. Likewise, most of the black bloc and other hyper-militance falls into what I like to call strategy-free activism. Rarely is it any more effective, and it is quite often just as pre-fab in its own way as the choreographed passivity of the lefty parades-to-the-park. I used go to such events only rarely and then usually only to socialize with friends.
But for even the hyper-skeptical among us, there is a good reason to go to any part of this weekends events, even if only to be another body in the crowd.
This last April, I was in the West Bank (Ramallah, Jenin, Bethlehem and a few other small towns) doing human shield work for the Palestinians under Israeli siege. One night I was in the home of a family in the town of Araqa. I had been on my way out of the West Bank when Israeli tanks invaded the town and imposed curfew by spraying the town (and the olive orchard we were in) with machine gun fire. That evening, while teenage Israeli soldiers spent the night shooting up the town (a regular occurrence in Palestine), we watched the television news on the Arab-language station Al Jazeera, keeping the curtains drawn, lights off and our heads below the window level.
As giant parachute flares lit up the town outside like daylight and explosions rattled the windows, there on the TV was coverage of the big late-April anti-war demonstrations in D.C., New York and San Francisco. I didn't really recognize anyone I knew, but I patted my hand against my chest, pointed to the people demonstrating against U.S. Mid-east policy and said "my friends." I'd been told the Arabic word for friend, but had forgotten it. The meaning got across nonetheless.
The one family member who spoke a little English made it clear how important it was for them to see other people around the world--but especially in the U.S.--speak out against Bush (and by association, Ariel Sharon). One of the common complaints of Palestinians is that the world has ignored or forgotten them and the injustice being perpetrated upon them.
So, the point is that just by being visible we're giving people under fire a direct morale boost. Al Jazeera tended to focus their coverage on any pro-Palestinian or Arabic-language signs present in the crowds. Making up signs and banners--in English and Arabic if possible--that speak directly to the Palestinians in their homes might be the most effective thing possible at this demo.
That is, assuming the organizers have sent a press release to Al Jazeera--does anyone know if this has happened? Would be worth checking up on.
See you there.
But for even the hyper-skeptical among us, there is a good reason to go to any part of this weekends events, even if only to be another body in the crowd.
This last April, I was in the West Bank (Ramallah, Jenin, Bethlehem and a few other small towns) doing human shield work for the Palestinians under Israeli siege. One night I was in the home of a family in the town of Araqa. I had been on my way out of the West Bank when Israeli tanks invaded the town and imposed curfew by spraying the town (and the olive orchard we were in) with machine gun fire. That evening, while teenage Israeli soldiers spent the night shooting up the town (a regular occurrence in Palestine), we watched the television news on the Arab-language station Al Jazeera, keeping the curtains drawn, lights off and our heads below the window level.
As giant parachute flares lit up the town outside like daylight and explosions rattled the windows, there on the TV was coverage of the big late-April anti-war demonstrations in D.C., New York and San Francisco. I didn't really recognize anyone I knew, but I patted my hand against my chest, pointed to the people demonstrating against U.S. Mid-east policy and said "my friends." I'd been told the Arabic word for friend, but had forgotten it. The meaning got across nonetheless.
The one family member who spoke a little English made it clear how important it was for them to see other people around the world--but especially in the U.S.--speak out against Bush (and by association, Ariel Sharon). One of the common complaints of Palestinians is that the world has ignored or forgotten them and the injustice being perpetrated upon them.
So, the point is that just by being visible we're giving people under fire a direct morale boost. Al Jazeera tended to focus their coverage on any pro-Palestinian or Arabic-language signs present in the crowds. Making up signs and banners--in English and Arabic if possible--that speak directly to the Palestinians in their homes might be the most effective thing possible at this demo.
That is, assuming the organizers have sent a press release to Al Jazeera--does anyone know if this has happened? Would be worth checking up on.
See you there.
Oh, yes! True activism, like giving hope to the wide-eyed children of the world! And, tell me ... while you were in Palestine, did you also tell them that *their* protests and resistance were not worthwhile? That the human shield was there to save them?
Come on. The direct advantage of a large protest happening this weekend is to completely fuck with the timing of Bush and Cheney's war plans. Domestic unrest divides the Republicans who are eyeing elections, domestic unrest is a tool used by foreign diplomats when dealing with the U.S., not to mention just generally contributing to an atmosphere of some kind of resistance in these dark times.
Your condescension of our tactics is something that neither we nor the Palestinians want to hear.
Come on. The direct advantage of a large protest happening this weekend is to completely fuck with the timing of Bush and Cheney's war plans. Domestic unrest divides the Republicans who are eyeing elections, domestic unrest is a tool used by foreign diplomats when dealing with the U.S., not to mention just generally contributing to an atmosphere of some kind of resistance in these dark times.
Your condescension of our tactics is something that neither we nor the Palestinians want to hear.
Oh,yes,May,1970 was the cresting of a huge wave of dissent.The time of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State and Jackson State murders.Hundreds of colleges shut down and the whole country polarized and much of the nation's youth alienated and creating alternative communities.
Yet within a year the wave had receded.SDS was non existant,the Black Panthers were a mere shell of their former selves and the campuses were quiescent.I ponder to this very day why the momentum just fizzled like it did.I ended up in Georgia and then Louisiana putting in work "radicalizing"students and workers but,looking back,I now see much of my efforts were tainted by white priviledge and reformism.I learned to shut the fuck up and LISTEN and it was only then that I finally made real strides in seeing thru the bullshit.
Thanks for sharing your insights,partner.
Yet within a year the wave had receded.SDS was non existant,the Black Panthers were a mere shell of their former selves and the campuses were quiescent.I ponder to this very day why the momentum just fizzled like it did.I ended up in Georgia and then Louisiana putting in work "radicalizing"students and workers but,looking back,I now see much of my efforts were tainted by white priviledge and reformism.I learned to shut the fuck up and LISTEN and it was only then that I finally made real strides in seeing thru the bullshit.
Thanks for sharing your insights,partner.
"We wouldn't even be over in Afganistan, or the whole middle east for that matter if it weren't for the 9/11 attack. "
To my knowledge, "9/11" happened less than a year and a half ago. American soldiers have been operating in the Middle East for (at least) over 10 years now. And America had been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for many years before that (i.e. providing weapons and training to Saddam Hussein's regime to fight the Iranians, while secretly selling weapons to the Iranians at the same time; .
The only connection between the 9/11 tragedy and the immenent war on Iraq is the way the Bush Administration exploited the horrible loss of life as an way to rile mindless patriots against the Arab world and support the killing of thousands of innocent people to protect US Corporate interests. If you'd do your own research instead of "clicking on the T.v and believing the 90% bullshit that the media feeds" you, you'd know that claims of Iraq - Al Qaieda connections are nothing more that unsubstantiated propaganda, and contradict the reality that Hussein's regime and Islamic Fundamentalists such as Bin Laden share a long history of hating eachother.
To my knowledge, "9/11" happened less than a year and a half ago. American soldiers have been operating in the Middle East for (at least) over 10 years now. And America had been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for many years before that (i.e. providing weapons and training to Saddam Hussein's regime to fight the Iranians, while secretly selling weapons to the Iranians at the same time; .
The only connection between the 9/11 tragedy and the immenent war on Iraq is the way the Bush Administration exploited the horrible loss of life as an way to rile mindless patriots against the Arab world and support the killing of thousands of innocent people to protect US Corporate interests. If you'd do your own research instead of "clicking on the T.v and believing the 90% bullshit that the media feeds" you, you'd know that claims of Iraq - Al Qaieda connections are nothing more that unsubstantiated propaganda, and contradict the reality that Hussein's regime and Islamic Fundamentalists such as Bin Laden share a long history of hating eachother.
I am sick and tired about this oil in Iraq debate. My old man was in oil his whole life, and taught me a lot about what goes on. If we took over Iraq tomorrow, and all the oil wells were still there (assuming Saddam didn't torch them as a goodbye gift ), after about a year or two to get the wells up and running, training all the new workers, and restarting refineries ( not to mention port facilities), Iraq would be producing 20-40 million barrels per year, MAX. I know that sounds like a lot, but it ain't... Saudi Arabia produces 8 million a DAY and around 2.9 Billion a year. We wouldn't be able to get production up to 200 million a year until 2008 at the earliest. GW is also into oil, and he knows that just because Iraq has oil in the ground, doesn't mean we have oil in the tank. So stop spreading this all-emotional rhetoric about 'the war in Iraq is all about OIL' and start thinking for a change. To sum it up,
Iraq = Oil = You're wrong!
Iraq = Oil = You're wrong!
what is it about?
If it ain't about oil, it's Saddam Hussein and the WMD that he hasn't proved he destroyed! DUH!
Saddam is no threat to America. if he's a threat to anybody, it's Israel. let Israel fight its own battles. No American blood for Israel.
Thanks for the info on oil. But I think the key seems to be the miliatry - oil will peak by 2012 and at that time, whoever has the oil controls the world, because the military doesn't run on anything else. I doubt that China is researching military equipment based on alternative fuels. I doubt that anyone is. Even now, the US is trapped in another cycle of OLD weapons - we'll have years of outdated stuff again thanks to Rumsfeld 'caving' on all the demands of the contractors.
And then there's the weaponization of space - no one up there has any WMD that we can use as an excuse, but the US is already arming to the teeth up there . . .
And then there's the weaponization of space - no one up there has any WMD that we can use as an excuse, but the US is already arming to the teeth up there . . .
Greetings, People of Earth. We mean you no harm. Your weapons are useless against us. Take us to your leader.
The following are excerpts of an interesting article on the role of oil in the prospective war with Iraq. It shows, among other things, that the idea that this sort of war could be avoided if we were more conscientious consumers is simplistic.
http://prudentbear.com/internationalperspective.asp
International Perspective, “Occupying the Iraqi oil fields, or how America restores its international credit rating”, 1/14/03, by Marshall Auerback
Iraq as the “51st state” is obviously not one designed to appease America’s allies. But one can readily see the advantages for the Americans, particularly in regard to the dollar. A major prop for the dollar has long been the simple fact that oil is priced in dollars. If the new Iraqi petroleum authorities announce that they will accept only checks in dollars, invest their surplus in dollars, and swell American exports by contracting principally with American firms for services and goods, both the long and short term prospects of the dollar will brighten. As pleased as Europeans have historically been to seize chances to export under the umbrella of a high dollar, and take advantage of the US consumer as global buyer of the last resort, US control over Iraqi oil fields this will not be what they had in mind when they supported recent UN resolution 1441. At a moment when the costs of empire are mounting for America, her rich European allies/creditors matter financially and Bush cannot choose to ignore that fact...
On the matter of how the objective is achieved, there are many possibilities. There is still talk of marching straight to Baghdad, but this might be part of an elaborate disinformation campaign. One can equally imagine the US forces going after the fields first, all the while saying they were going to march all the way to Baghdad, but then taking their sweet time about the 2nd half of it so as to minimize casualties and hope that the "one-bullet" solution for Saddam would manifest itself at last. So the practical effect would in effect be an occupation of the oil fields.
If this strategy ultimately is pursued, it may be that the US would "magnanimously" agree to put all revenues from Iraqi petroleum production into some sort of a grand reconstruction fund to be administered by the UN or something. That way, no one could claim that it was a giant oil grab all along. However, where would those funds be invested? Why not in Treasuries, or other dollar denominated assets for the most part or exclusively? After all, oil revenues are denominated in dollars, aren't they? So the effect would be to generate a large new buyer of $ assets, which would offset a large portion of the current account deficit even though it wouldn't reduce that deficit from an accounting perspective -- the market effects would be the same.
Whether this serves as a long term solution is another matter. An American operation in Iraq will not face a competing nationalist project, but across the Islamic world it will rouse the nationalist passions of people and thereby feed as potential recruiting fodder for organisations such as Al Qaeda. There is the not so trivial possibility that seizures of foreign assets by the US could be read as setting a very poor precedent for any foreign holder of US assets, as it implies a willingness to break the rules of property ownership at the whim of the imperial power. Perhaps the sheer magnitude of American military might will preclude a seizure of American overseas assets, but it is hardly likely to reassure the country’s growing list of foreign creditors.
Which raises another important issue: the US dollar-denominated assets the US authorities want foreigners to keep holding have a decidedly private sector cast to them. Consequently, private sector profitability and creditworthiness is more the issue than balance of payments per se, even if one assesses the latter from an imperial, as opposed to national, perspective. The contemporary constraints facing the US today have much more to do with a collapse in the exchange rate when large quantities of private (and public) liabilities are held abroad, largely unhedged. The constraint is still a financing constraint, and even an external one at that, but it works through currencies and portfolio preferences reducing US financial asset prices and financing availability. The US government may indeed believe it must appear to make its self more creditworthy in the eyes of misinformed creditors to the US by seizing foreign income generating assets in order to continue on the path of imperial overstretch, but this might ultimately prove an unsuccessful strategy, particularly amongst the Asian and European rentier classes.
The war build-up, coupled with detailed US-contingency planning for a post-Saddam Iraq has created the momentum for a vast, if uncertain commitment by the US in the region. How to pay for it at a time of unprecedented financial fragility and economic imbalances? In our view, the inexorable effects of imperial overstretch are clearly driving the US toward occupation of the Iraqi oil fields. We happen to agree with the assessment of Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when he asks, “Why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighbouring Iran.”
http://prudentbear.com/internationalperspective.asp
International Perspective, “Occupying the Iraqi oil fields, or how America restores its international credit rating”, 1/14/03, by Marshall Auerback
Iraq as the “51st state” is obviously not one designed to appease America’s allies. But one can readily see the advantages for the Americans, particularly in regard to the dollar. A major prop for the dollar has long been the simple fact that oil is priced in dollars. If the new Iraqi petroleum authorities announce that they will accept only checks in dollars, invest their surplus in dollars, and swell American exports by contracting principally with American firms for services and goods, both the long and short term prospects of the dollar will brighten. As pleased as Europeans have historically been to seize chances to export under the umbrella of a high dollar, and take advantage of the US consumer as global buyer of the last resort, US control over Iraqi oil fields this will not be what they had in mind when they supported recent UN resolution 1441. At a moment when the costs of empire are mounting for America, her rich European allies/creditors matter financially and Bush cannot choose to ignore that fact...
On the matter of how the objective is achieved, there are many possibilities. There is still talk of marching straight to Baghdad, but this might be part of an elaborate disinformation campaign. One can equally imagine the US forces going after the fields first, all the while saying they were going to march all the way to Baghdad, but then taking their sweet time about the 2nd half of it so as to minimize casualties and hope that the "one-bullet" solution for Saddam would manifest itself at last. So the practical effect would in effect be an occupation of the oil fields.
If this strategy ultimately is pursued, it may be that the US would "magnanimously" agree to put all revenues from Iraqi petroleum production into some sort of a grand reconstruction fund to be administered by the UN or something. That way, no one could claim that it was a giant oil grab all along. However, where would those funds be invested? Why not in Treasuries, or other dollar denominated assets for the most part or exclusively? After all, oil revenues are denominated in dollars, aren't they? So the effect would be to generate a large new buyer of $ assets, which would offset a large portion of the current account deficit even though it wouldn't reduce that deficit from an accounting perspective -- the market effects would be the same.
Whether this serves as a long term solution is another matter. An American operation in Iraq will not face a competing nationalist project, but across the Islamic world it will rouse the nationalist passions of people and thereby feed as potential recruiting fodder for organisations such as Al Qaeda. There is the not so trivial possibility that seizures of foreign assets by the US could be read as setting a very poor precedent for any foreign holder of US assets, as it implies a willingness to break the rules of property ownership at the whim of the imperial power. Perhaps the sheer magnitude of American military might will preclude a seizure of American overseas assets, but it is hardly likely to reassure the country’s growing list of foreign creditors.
Which raises another important issue: the US dollar-denominated assets the US authorities want foreigners to keep holding have a decidedly private sector cast to them. Consequently, private sector profitability and creditworthiness is more the issue than balance of payments per se, even if one assesses the latter from an imperial, as opposed to national, perspective. The contemporary constraints facing the US today have much more to do with a collapse in the exchange rate when large quantities of private (and public) liabilities are held abroad, largely unhedged. The constraint is still a financing constraint, and even an external one at that, but it works through currencies and portfolio preferences reducing US financial asset prices and financing availability. The US government may indeed believe it must appear to make its self more creditworthy in the eyes of misinformed creditors to the US by seizing foreign income generating assets in order to continue on the path of imperial overstretch, but this might ultimately prove an unsuccessful strategy, particularly amongst the Asian and European rentier classes.
The war build-up, coupled with detailed US-contingency planning for a post-Saddam Iraq has created the momentum for a vast, if uncertain commitment by the US in the region. How to pay for it at a time of unprecedented financial fragility and economic imbalances? In our view, the inexorable effects of imperial overstretch are clearly driving the US toward occupation of the Iraqi oil fields. We happen to agree with the assessment of Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when he asks, “Why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighbouring Iran.”
i also find it hard to believe that oil is not a part of the picture...i've heard many mainstream sources within the US report that iraq's daily production could rival saudi arabia's.
as for the black bloc, i don't mean to beat a dead horse, but i think they ought to exercise a bit of discretion for these protests. we all know that the police will be looking for a reason to turn violent - an integral characteristic of state power. we saw in seattle how they justified police-state tactics based on minimal violence (which they allowed until it got to a dangerous point, thereby giving them no option but to crack down mercilessly).
i respect and admire the resolve the black bloc has, but they need to recognize that the vast majority of people are not interested in a violent confrontation, and see the value of a large, peaceful protest. and we all know how the news media will manipulate even the slightest amount of violence to denounce the entire demo.
as for the black bloc, i don't mean to beat a dead horse, but i think they ought to exercise a bit of discretion for these protests. we all know that the police will be looking for a reason to turn violent - an integral characteristic of state power. we saw in seattle how they justified police-state tactics based on minimal violence (which they allowed until it got to a dangerous point, thereby giving them no option but to crack down mercilessly).
i respect and admire the resolve the black bloc has, but they need to recognize that the vast majority of people are not interested in a violent confrontation, and see the value of a large, peaceful protest. and we all know how the news media will manipulate even the slightest amount of violence to denounce the entire demo.
Not about oil eh? Or perhaps not _solely_ about oil. It's true that part of it is the "mafia boss" as argued by Chomsky: the USA has to be seen out there breaking the legs of it's clients that don't give the boss da respect.
When respect and fear are instilled then the USA-boss has control of the region: control of the oil, the primary export. 70% of the oil reserves that have been investigated are in the Middle East. Does the USA want a compliant murderous dictator (Saddam pre-Gulf 1) or an upstart murderous dictator. Why I'll take the cheap one thank ye ma'am!
Here are two good topical sources for information about oil (now I'm not saying that yer Daddy wasn't a wonderful man, but I think either he misled you or else you didn't listen closely enough to what he told you):
1. Robert Fisk "It's About Oil" http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2882
2. Ian Roberts "Car Wars"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,877203,00.html
Most importantly, whatever it's about it's illegal and inhumane.
When respect and fear are instilled then the USA-boss has control of the region: control of the oil, the primary export. 70% of the oil reserves that have been investigated are in the Middle East. Does the USA want a compliant murderous dictator (Saddam pre-Gulf 1) or an upstart murderous dictator. Why I'll take the cheap one thank ye ma'am!
Here are two good topical sources for information about oil (now I'm not saying that yer Daddy wasn't a wonderful man, but I think either he misled you or else you didn't listen closely enough to what he told you):
1. Robert Fisk "It's About Oil" http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2882
2. Ian Roberts "Car Wars"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,877203,00.html
Most importantly, whatever it's about it's illegal and inhumane.
What happens when the US sends their military into other countries under the premise of protecting people?
What happened after the Gulf War?
What happened atfter the Korean War?
What happened after Vietnam?
What is happening is Columbia?
What happened in Libya?
What happened in El Salvador?
What happened in the Phillipines?
What happened in Afghanistan?
We leave the citizens of these countries in shambles, create anti-american sentiment, and subsequently, create "terrorists." The US needs to mind its own business, and stop capitalizing on the rest of the world.
The US is so quick to criticize other nations for having weapons of amss destruction, but have you ever researched the US military? We have over 16,000 nuclear warheads. 16 fucking thousand!!!!!!!
and ummmm what happens to the USA's economy when we parade off into war?
If there aren't economic motives behind this war, then it makes no sense. I mean why would be so concerned with Iraq and not North Korea or Pakistan or Libya or ...?
If you're blind enough to believe the US government does what it does to protect people, read some Noam Chomsky, Jared Diamond, and maybe some Albert Einstein to get you thinking critically. Then get back to me.
What happened after the Gulf War?
What happened atfter the Korean War?
What happened after Vietnam?
What is happening is Columbia?
What happened in Libya?
What happened in El Salvador?
What happened in the Phillipines?
What happened in Afghanistan?
We leave the citizens of these countries in shambles, create anti-american sentiment, and subsequently, create "terrorists." The US needs to mind its own business, and stop capitalizing on the rest of the world.
The US is so quick to criticize other nations for having weapons of amss destruction, but have you ever researched the US military? We have over 16,000 nuclear warheads. 16 fucking thousand!!!!!!!
and ummmm what happens to the USA's economy when we parade off into war?
If there aren't economic motives behind this war, then it makes no sense. I mean why would be so concerned with Iraq and not North Korea or Pakistan or Libya or ...?
If you're blind enough to believe the US government does what it does to protect people, read some Noam Chomsky, Jared Diamond, and maybe some Albert Einstein to get you thinking critically. Then get back to me.
kevin monday....
there is so much that stinks of pro-US blindness in his response it should make most people (homo sapiens) sick.
"Your helping a dictator that kills his own people because he wanted to test a bio weapon, or steals his peoples lives for his own benefits. "
This sounds much like the horrible, "you're either with us or against us"
really original of you kev...
there is so much that stinks of pro-US blindness in his response it should make most people (homo sapiens) sick.
"Your helping a dictator that kills his own people because he wanted to test a bio weapon, or steals his peoples lives for his own benefits. "
This sounds much like the horrible, "you're either with us or against us"
really original of you kev...
It's interesting how "property destruction" is always equated with "violence" it is rather telling of the ways in which capitalism intersects, or mediates through our culture. Is breaking a window the same as breaking a persons (or animals) body? I think not.
Just so you know that your a moron and utterly wrong, violence in no way implies ANYTHING being done to a person, body or animal neccesarily.
Main Entry: vi·o·lence Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&- Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE 3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE 4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
I second the motion XXX is a moron.
it's not worth much.
Copying dictionary definitions is impressive but I am afraid you may need to practice a bit more intellectual work than going to dictonary.com if you want to attempt to refute my statement. Tips for next time:
1) Understand the argument, and if you don't ask someone to explain it to you.
2) Read a book.. or even two.
3) Learn something about semiotics and how meaning is made through language and discourse
4) Don't say anything, so you wont feel so inarticulate.
1) Understand the argument, and if you don't ask someone to explain it to you.
2) Read a book.. or even two.
3) Learn something about semiotics and how meaning is made through language and discourse
4) Don't say anything, so you wont feel so inarticulate.
Thanks XXX your response was more than adequate to support my motion..........................
I was listening to the Propaganda Broadcasting System's (PBS) Charlie Rose Show on Friday and the America Booster Company's Nightline -- they had guests on that were *REALLY* saying that war was *VERY* close. I believe that the commanders have already been given their orders by the White House! I believe that these shows were psychologically PREPARING the public for IMMINENT WAR! -- without actually saying HEY!: IT"S ONNN!!!
(Maybe that's what this weekend's Code Orange--2nd highest alert--stuff is all about. They psychos in Washington are getting ready to have the whole world against us -- especially the Islamic world. The Washington boys aren't worried: they've got mountain bunker 'cities' to hide in and take their families in--just like Saddam.)
And now Washington's bluster might star another devasting war in Korea! -- one that could turn nuclear!!
THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP--OR HALT--WAR IN IRAQ IS ACTION IN THE STREETS AT HOME !!!
Now we ignore our government's reckless foreign policy at the dire peril to our own lives -- if we haven't learned that on 9-11 -- and if the lives of people of color in the Middle East and Asia don't matter as much to most Americans.
The U.S. has *NEVER* directly militarily intervened anywhere in the so-called Third World for the purpose of installing a democracy. On the contrary--even in the Middle East--it has overthrown them.
Your effect, like that of Hamas on Palestine, is not helpful to a peace movement. Your actions diminish respect for the causes of those who receive police violence without provocation.
Stop provoking reaction and violence. Your actions are either stupid or suspicious.
Protest peacefully, as a parade. Protesting otherwise will encourage martial law, something the powers you supposedly are fighting are eager to have justified.
Stop provoking reaction and violence. Your actions are either stupid or suspicious.
Protest peacefully, as a parade. Protesting otherwise will encourage martial law, something the powers you supposedly are fighting are eager to have justified.
What we want is the collapse of the Capitalist Empire. Maybe you are only out when there is a big media-produced war about to happen. But if you paid attention you would know there is ALWAYS war committed with your tax dollars. So have your stupid parade, and leave the hard work to us.
Collapse your rantings are weak. You best keep hiding behind your computer key board....your childhood must have been miserable.
Haha, when all the rightwingers have to say is "your childhood sucked," you know we're winning.
Wont it be funny when George Bush is thrown out of office? I personally cant wait!!! Then we can go on to dismantle the white house.
Thank you, George Bush, for giving us this opportunity.
Wont it be funny when George Bush is thrown out of office? I personally cant wait!!! Then we can go on to dismantle the white house.
Thank you, George Bush, for giving us this opportunity.
Now I'm oiled. Keep me from the rats. - Pietro Aretino
John Rogers did. - John Holmes
Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something. - Francisco "Pancho" Villa
WE ARE WINNING - Anarchist-Communist
John Rogers did. - John Holmes
Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something. - Francisco "Pancho" Villa
WE ARE WINNING - Anarchist-Communist
Seems that these two terms are somewhat incompatable.....I have been to the USSR and the Russian Federation.......Communism is anything but anarchy....what the fuck are you trying to say? "Stupid Ass".
You're confusing "Communism" with communism. "Communism" isn't communism. It's state monopoly capitalism. Real communism is voluntary. Anarchism is laissez faire socialism. Bolshevism is shite.
Acts 2:44-45 isn't communism either. The followers of Christ had all thing in common for they were brothers and sisters through His blood which was shed. There is no commandment of God that believers should have anything in common with non-believers.
Communism isn't state capitalism. Because nessie thinks (?) that is even more reason for all of you to doubt its truth. He is a liar, like his father the devil, who was the father of lies, for there is no truth in him.
Besides, he's in my crosshairs. Patience.
Communism isn't state capitalism. Because nessie thinks (?) that is even more reason for all of you to doubt its truth. He is a liar, like his father the devil, who was the father of lies, for there is no truth in him.
Besides, he's in my crosshairs. Patience.
You are pretty weird....put that in your crosshairs....
If he were alive today, he'd join the anti-capitalist Black Bloc. They are his kind of people.
John Chapter 2
[13] And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
[14] And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
[15] And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
John Chapter 2
[13] And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
[14] And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
[15] And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
Jesus drove the money-changers out of the Temple because they were sinning by violating the Word of God. The anti-capitalist black bloc is sinning by promoting and committing violence, another violation of the Word of God. They will have their place in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone just like the money changers and just like you.
You constantly misuse the scriptures for your own benefit, just like your fellow family-members of Satan like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. For that foolishness, you will pay eternally.
You constantly misuse the scriptures for your own benefit, just like your fellow family-members of Satan like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. For that foolishness, you will pay eternally.
Give me a break. The "Word of God" fairly revels in violence. Read for yourself:
"And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes..." (I Chronicles 20:3)
"Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword." (Judges 8:10)
"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." (Numbers 16:32-35)
"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30
"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)
"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)
"But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." (Psalms 68:21-23)
"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)
"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." (II Samuel 12:31)
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)
"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)
"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)
"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." (Psalms 58:10)
"And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes..." (I Chronicles 20:3)
"Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword." (Judges 8:10)
"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." (Numbers 16:32-35)
"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30
"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)
"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)
"But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." (Psalms 68:21-23)
"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)
"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." (II Samuel 12:31)
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)
"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)
"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)
"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." (Psalms 58:10)
Geez...you don't know crap about what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't "join" groups. He preached his word and people followed.
He was a leader...not a follower, like you.
You're probably like one of those goobers who run around saying "What Would Jesus Drive?" and that SUV's support Terrorism.
Tell ya what, honcho...I KNOW what Jesus would drive.
A work model Ford f-150 with a roof rack and alot of tool cases.
Why?
Because that's what every other carpenter I know drives.
He was a leader...not a follower, like you.
You're probably like one of those goobers who run around saying "What Would Jesus Drive?" and that SUV's support Terrorism.
Tell ya what, honcho...I KNOW what Jesus would drive.
A work model Ford f-150 with a roof rack and alot of tool cases.
Why?
Because that's what every other carpenter I know drives.
LOL,
Once again, you misuse the scriptures for your own purposes. The scriptures you quoted were actions sanctioned by God to take vengence upon those who would disobey Him.
Your sin and the sin of the black bloc is your own burden to bear. In your spritual life, you are fighting against God. If you don't like it, your argument is with Him, not me. Fight God and you will lose.
Once again, you misuse the scriptures for your own purposes. The scriptures you quoted were actions sanctioned by God to take vengence upon those who would disobey Him.
Your sin and the sin of the black bloc is your own burden to bear. In your spritual life, you are fighting against God. If you don't like it, your argument is with Him, not me. Fight God and you will lose.
So what are you trying to say here, "Jack", that Jesus would *lead* the Black Bloc?
From "Car and Driver" Feb. 2002 issue:
Most people assume "WWJD" stands for "What Would Jesus Do?" But the initials really stand for "What Would Jesus Drive?"
One theory is He would drive a Plymouth because the Bible says God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden "in a Fury", but in Psalm 83, the Almighty clearly owns a Pontiac and a Geo -- the passage urges the Lord to "pursue your enemies with your Tempest and terrify them with your Storm."
Perhaps God favors Dodge trucks because Moses' followers are warned not to go up a mountain "until the Ram's horn sounds a long blast." Maybe it was a Honda -- in St. John's gospel, Christ tells the crowd, "For I did not speak of my own Accord." Following the Master's lead, "the Apostles were in one Accord", a car pool.
Meanwhile, Moses rode an old Brit motorcycle, as evidenced by a Bible passage declaring that "the roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills." Brings new meaning to the song "Jesus Built My Hot Rod", doesn't it?
Most people assume "WWJD" stands for "What Would Jesus Do?" But the initials really stand for "What Would Jesus Drive?"
One theory is He would drive a Plymouth because the Bible says God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden "in a Fury", but in Psalm 83, the Almighty clearly owns a Pontiac and a Geo -- the passage urges the Lord to "pursue your enemies with your Tempest and terrify them with your Storm."
Perhaps God favors Dodge trucks because Moses' followers are warned not to go up a mountain "until the Ram's horn sounds a long blast." Maybe it was a Honda -- in St. John's gospel, Christ tells the crowd, "For I did not speak of my own Accord." Following the Master's lead, "the Apostles were in one Accord", a car pool.
Meanwhile, Moses rode an old Brit motorcycle, as evidenced by a Bible passage declaring that "the roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills." Brings new meaning to the song "Jesus Built My Hot Rod", doesn't it?
I know your vest is yellow
It would be wise, before any attack on anarchism or anarchocommunism is posted, for the author to acutally have some basic working understanding of the concepts against which he or she argues.
Libertarian Socialists and other Socialists are responisble for some of the great things we have in our society. The reason all of us aren't working in factories 12-18 hours a day starting at the age of 4 is that Socialists came up with fair labor laws. To say that all anarchists and socialists want to do is distroy things is obviously false, especially when one looks at anarchist history (especially that of 1934-36).
Anarchists maintained a mass transit system, complete utilities (water, power, etc), had an organized military, and had a functional trade system. Among other things they reduced the work week to 3 days a week (it eventually expanded to 5 as more soldiers were needed to fight off the fascists), while at the very same time (in places which maintained the money system) increasing pay. They also established homes for the elderly who had been cast out on the street, and managed to take care of those who couldn't work (in stark contrast with the world of today). There was 100% employment, by the way... and as an interesting side note, Spanish Anarchists invented the M&M.
God help us indeed if Anarchists win. We would be cursed with 100% employment, universal healthcare, and other horrible things. We would have the same system we have today with a huge improvement in social welfare and effeciantcy, at a greatly reduced cost.
Indeed, God help us if the Anarchists win. I think she will, after all, with no State then those who choose God as a master may have no others demanding obediance above her.
Libertarian Socialists and other Socialists are responisble for some of the great things we have in our society. The reason all of us aren't working in factories 12-18 hours a day starting at the age of 4 is that Socialists came up with fair labor laws. To say that all anarchists and socialists want to do is distroy things is obviously false, especially when one looks at anarchist history (especially that of 1934-36).
Anarchists maintained a mass transit system, complete utilities (water, power, etc), had an organized military, and had a functional trade system. Among other things they reduced the work week to 3 days a week (it eventually expanded to 5 as more soldiers were needed to fight off the fascists), while at the very same time (in places which maintained the money system) increasing pay. They also established homes for the elderly who had been cast out on the street, and managed to take care of those who couldn't work (in stark contrast with the world of today). There was 100% employment, by the way... and as an interesting side note, Spanish Anarchists invented the M&M.
God help us indeed if Anarchists win. We would be cursed with 100% employment, universal healthcare, and other horrible things. We would have the same system we have today with a huge improvement in social welfare and effeciantcy, at a greatly reduced cost.
Indeed, God help us if the Anarchists win. I think she will, after all, with no State then those who choose God as a master may have no others demanding obediance above her.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network