September 24 Anti-War March in San Francisco: F*%k the Corporate Media

Good turnout--should force the mainstream right-wing media to pay attention.

So did I. That was a really great experience, but I don't support that kind of vandalism.

I love the anarchists.While listening to speeches at Jefferson Park, I noticed the only ones doing anything were the anarchists....power to y'all.

It is too easily undone.

There is no need to damage one's property to state our message clearly. To engage in vandalism only makes the anti war movement look like criminals, when what we are TRYING to do is show the world that BUSH is the CRIMINAL.
I do NOT support this type of criminal behavior.

if all u want is reform than go vote and hold ur signs up while they pollute our world and kill innocent people... fuck capitalism, but fuck reform even more because we NEED a revolution

Two hundred thousand clear-headed, peace-loving Patriots versus two hundred brainless knuckleheads in D.C. Cheers, Mr. War-mongering Bush!

Do this instead:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1562069_comment.php#1562232

Steve, You're an idiot...but you know that already.

Anyway, for those of us who have eyes we know that the Washington and SF events where HUGE! And, as someone who has gone to all of them since the war began, I was significantly impressed.

No tears for the media van though, the corporate media have sold us a bill of lies which culminated in tens of thousands of U.S./Iraqi/Afgani deaths. They are the spokespeople for a violent/terrorist State and losing a window is nothing compared to the death and destruction they helped perpetrate.

You have said it all!

P.S. "Steve" is a troll construct. No real human being could be that stupid, not even a Bushanista.

I don't give a rats ass about your revolution.
The van you probably participated in destroying has nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq.
It's obvious that the majority doesn't believe the drivel that the media puts out anyway. So you wasted your time.

You only want to use the anti war movement as an excuse to go do some "kewl vandalism". Not to impose a statement about people dying.

There is ENOUGH destruction this country is paying for and what these people did only ADDS to that vein. You want to involve yourself in violent acts fine, but it has nothing to do with bringing home our troops so they can stop killing innocent people.
Do NOT include the antiwar movement as part of YOUR AGENDA.
Next time I hope the fucking pigs catch you and throw your juvenile asses in the tank with all the other losers.

I don't give a rat's ass about your liberal reformism.

The fact that you can't see the connection between corporate media and war does not change the fact that without propaganda, modern war is impossible. If people truly didn't believe the media, this country would not be at war. Nor would it be capitalist and increasingly authoritarian.

I did not participate in breaking this van's window or painting this slogan. The van was not destroyed, but you seem to be incapable of basic observations like this, along with the connection of propaganda to war, or the need for revolution.

You only want to use the anti-war movement as an excuse to impose your bullshit, state and capitalism supporting, can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground, bankrupt liberal ideology. You do not care about people dying. If you cared about that, you would not only burn media vans for their role in propagating the war, you would sabotage weapons factories and ships carrying munitions.

What you want is not to stop the war, which would require stopping the authoritarian capitalist system which drives it, with all the impropriety and illegality which that would entail, but to "impose" your moronic "statement." Clearly you also insist on imposing on others an ideological subordination to your pathetic politics of submission and obedience.

Destruction of news vans and other weapons of modern war are not "violent acts." Paying your taxes is a violent act. Obeying your police is a violent act. Going to work is a violent act. Advocating the jailing of those who damage the property of corporate war propaganda media is a violent act. Everything you do to sustain this war machine is a violent act. Preach all you like about involvement in violent acts, but you are up to your hypocritical neck.

Your preaching has nothing to do with ending the murder and suffering imposed by your government on people everywhere, whether in jails here or warzones abroad. It has nothing to do with bringing your troops home so they can stop killing people, whether or not the victims are people you deem "innocent." Surely you are fine with your troops slaughtering the people fighting to defend their homes and country from U.S. invasion, given your reaction to one broken window in one tiny piece of the machinery of war.

You hope for your cops to jail some kids for a minor act of resistance. Similarly, you stereotype those in this nation's gulags as "losers," despite the only real crime of most inmates being poverty, often compounded by skin color.

Do NOT include the antiwar movement as part of YOUR AGENDA, you fucking liberal scum sucking ass licking sack of shit. Was that "juvenile" enough for you, you mediocre fool?

Tagging NBC's van wasn't 'nice' -- but then neither is manipulating the news to hide the failings of the Bush administration.
They will have it repainted in a jiffy and write off the cost as a deduction. Meanwhile more troops in Iraq risk their lives.
Sort of pales in importance, don't you think?

First, I am not a liberal. I never stated as such so you need to check your reading comprehension skills.

Second, I stand by my belief that the "anarchists" are a group of juveniles who saw this protest as a means to commit vandalism.

You explain to me just HOW FAR they got by spray painting their stupidity on the side of that van?

How in the hell did it STOP the war machine?

How did the bloc group in DC who threatened to smash a window at a Mc Donalds with OUR OWN people eating inside of it STOP THE WAR MACHINE?

You pretentious ignorant piece of street trash. Grow the fuck up.

You missed the part where I said that IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE MAJORITY DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT THE MEDIA SPEWS.

If *I* am at a protest and *I* see some stupid halfwit destroying shit I'll make sure that the pigs come and haul your stupid asses away.

We are there to bring attention to STOPPING THIS FUCKING WAR. Not acting like fucking halfwitted street trash such as yourselves taking some opportune moment to trash something that isn't yours for the thrill of it.

Now shove that up your wannabe anarchist ass.

"Tagging NBC's van wasn't 'nice' -- but then neither is manipulating the news to hide the failings of the Bush administration.
They will have it repainted in a jiffy and write off the cost as a deduction. Meanwhile more troops in Iraq risk their lives.
Sort of pales in importance, don't you think?"

I simply stated that I do not see how a group of thugs spray painting a van is going to stop a war. It won't. Of course the van can be easily fixed. But that is not what the anti war movement is about. It's not about destroying property. It only makes the effort look criminal. We are striving to point out who the criminal is, the entire administration. But no, these vandals want to do their thing and it imposes a view on the rest. *I* don't want their stupidity involved. It is obvious they were not there to protest what is going on in the middle east.
It's the fact that groups like theirs tend to use protests to their advantage. They don't care about anyone but themselves either, otherwise they would not have threatened to smash windows at a Mc Donald's in DC where CHILDREN were eating. Sorry it's not going to wash with me.

They are just a bunch of street vandals pushing their own agenda which has nothing at all to do with bringing home our men and women out of the middle east. And I'm not the only one who takes this view of them.

I wouldnt worry over them. They are but harmless kids that the cops hire to stir up shit in a crowd

It's funny but you could be right. My cousin out in DC who was marching witnessed it and said the pigs were amused and laughing at them. One of them yelled that they were going to smash the window at the Mc Donalds and my cousin said that there were some children eating and playing nearby.
THAT is what pissed me off. No one FUCKS with kids.
Not in this country or any other. I don't give a shit what their personal agendas are.

So were those guys who threw that tea into the harbor that time. So was that guy who knocked over those tables at the temple and chased the money changers out with a whip.

A true anarchist want's nothing to do with government in any form. A "revolution" replaces one govt with another form of govt. I don't understand why some people call themselves anarchists but don't understand what anarchy is.

If you believe in no form of government, what is society like? It's the strongest that survives. That leads to capitalism. It's the purest form of capitalism. If we had true capitalism in this country, we wouldn't have regulations on businesses in this country.

Bush is more of an "anarchist". He wants to reduce the governments role in business. He wants free market. Whoever has the most guns, control of the media, control of the streets... no consequences to taking advantage of your fellow man. If you are stronger, it's your right to dominate and to rule. This is anarchy.

It's not something you just paint on your skateboard and run around vandalizing property. ::laughs:: these kids perception of anarchy is off. Smashing window in starbucks doesn't equate to social revolution.

A revolution does not necessarily equate with acts of vandalism.

Cara, you talk like a liberal even though you say you aren't one. But I do agree with one point of yours, and that is to be destructive during a peace movement negates the point.

Click here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1577293_comment.php#1592936

had the most positive coverage of the event.
They told that it was completely peaceful, not a word about their news van.
ch4 slipped in clips of the cop being beat from a past event.

Get Channel 4 next time, and all the corporate media. Why do we care about their properety "rgihts"?

Even if Channel 11 did a good job at thsidmeo, they are owned by NBC whchih is owned by RCA, a large weapons manufacturer and promoter of all shit that goes out on the NBC, CNBC and MSNBC networks.

Well here is my feeling. Most local stations exist within a moderate to mediocre range of coverage, with some range of quality determined by the station director's selection of story order, but they are not the ones carrying out first-person reporting from Iraq, or even national events. They rely on footage sent to them by the parent network.

A good example of the bad priorities of the national corporate media came during the past month. Even though there are many extremely important underreported events right now, the Saturday before Hurricane Katrina I kept checking MSNBC and so forth to hear about its progress, but all the cable news stations seemed to be devoting 15 minute segments to Day 59 of the search for Natalee Holloway in Aruba. I'm not making this up. Headline News mentioned the hurricane for a few seconds on their cycle, and it was only Sunday that they focused on the evacuation. Then several weeks later when there were *still* bodies floating around, and they were finding barely living survivors in damaged houses that emergency workers had finally checked, the Nancy Grace show was already switching back to coverage of a new set of missing college students, and devoting several minutes of the show to a court case of a husband in Vacaville who killed his wife in San Francisco Bay in a manner similar to Lacey Peterson. Does anyone here question how absolutely offensive it is to label these murder and missing person cases as more significant than the unfinished body count in New Orleans, plus economic devastation and children and family members who haven't even been able to locate each other yet?

Just watch this week. I strongly intuit that because the Rita Hurricane wasn't quite as devastating as they had hoped, they will go into hurricane fatigue and return en masse to the isolated cases of missing middle-class people, out-of-context urban crime incidents, and only have blips about Iraq that lack genuine unfiltered footage.

This discussion about anarchy has been food for thought for me. At times I think we're pathetically short-sighted and incapable of learning from past mistakes. Our commitment to peace seems as short as our media-driven attention span; therefore, anarchy serves an important purpose. But usually I believe that the way to grow a movement is to recruit others en masse to join you, which is not easily achieved through anarchy.

In truth, the most effective strategy for change--even for the anti-war movement--is probably a combination of masterful organization/planning and participation by bold, vigilant citizens, a small number of whom may resort to anarchist tactics. I wish peace could be achieved through completely peaceful means--seems the most logical, right?--but in reality, that's not usually the case. When property is vandalized, it's a turnoff to most, but it also contributes to the overall perception of growing discontent. (Although, of course, I wouldn't want MY van to be trashed!) However, when people start getting hurt, that's when anarchy for me loses all value.

One last thought: I'm no prude, but calling someone an "ass licking" anything is pretty childish. Frankly, when someone is able to express their rage without resorting to such tactlessness, I really take notice. Otherwise, I tend to dismiss their (maybe very legitimate) opinions as ranting by an inarticulate fool. My loss or mistake, perhaps. But I'll bet there are others who agree with me. And isn't the point to convince others of the legitimacy of your views? Just my humble opinion.

Liberals confuse everything with their fair-weather politics. This was not a "Peace Rally/March/Movement." It was an ANTI-WAR march. That is why it is not hypocritical to do non-peaceful demonstration. Anyone who defines breaking a window as violence gets a big dumbass badge to stick to their forehead. and the next person who tells me to look up the definition of anarchy gets to look up the definition of violence! Whine a little more about people threatening to burn down a McDonalds while children were nearby. Did they do it? Get off your high horse. They should have. McDonalds is a worldwide symbol of imperialism.

You just proved my last point.

Whine a little more about people threatening to burn down a McDonalds while children were nearby. Did they do it? Get off your high horse. They should have
--------------------------------------------

With innocent children inside? Or would you get them out before you killed them?

I cannot help but find it humerous when we have folks who are so hyped up, claim they are anarchists, yet I see them eating in corporate food chains, owning Dish Satellite systems, and much more.
Apparently you watch the media, so you feed into it by paying for it if you own a TV and watch cable.

And if real anarchy began to exist, some of these so called anarchists would be crying and pissing their pants because it would be the big guys in their hummers and their guns riding these streets picking you off one by one.
There would be no consequences to their actions and you would be dead first.

An anti war movement is a peace movement. I whole heartedly believe these vandals like to fancy themselves as actual contributers to something important but they are only seen as vandals. Period.

Well, when they achieved an anarcho-syndicalist government (and anarchism *is* a very organized type of government, that just lacks politicians who are given powers that others lack) there were no army trucks with vigilantes. Unfortunately, they were no match for the attack planes financed by Germany which brought in Franco, as illustrated in Picasso's Guernica.
This wasn't the anarchist state that some people locally might extend in their own visions, but the key thing to remember about anarchism is that it is an expression of majority democratic choice by local people... so unlike pure capitalism or communism which try to spread to the whole world, it is understood that each region will take a different route.

The problem is that they vandalize symbols, but not the real thing.

Wow. Going through the national cable channels today, it seems like half of the shows are back to devoting their top story to Natalee Holloway and a boycott of Aruba, and other lost woman and kids who aren't from Louisiana, even though thousands of people died and lost every thing in New Orleans. This choice of priorities is absolutely disgusting.
Fox had Ann Coulter sort of babbling incoherently about how democrats wouldn't have a rule that a house leader cannot be indicted (??) and they let Colmes ask if she still liked Patt Tillman, even though it has been revealed that he was a liberal who opposed the Iraq war and had Chomsky as a favorite author and was setting up a meeting with him. She denied that this could be true.
A couple reporters are better - on CNN, Anderson Cooper/Aaron Brown don't mention any of the lost college student stuff, and I they encountered a corrupt police officer in a hotel who had been with a group looting, and he waved a gun at the journalist and slammed a door, so they are following up on it, except they acted like it was exceptional. But after that they let a New Orleans journalist describe two NO police on death row right now and how 1/3 of the officers were fired for corruption in the 90s.

The demo is nothing more than a cage. If you try to take your message anywhere else you get clobbered and arrested. There is something inherently wrong with this idea that we are only able to have our anti-war message, and our politics inside a contained space. There is a flaw in the basic idea that the demo is used to estimate the amounts of people against the war. Many who are against the war can't make it for very fair reasons, and many who are against the war don't want to go to something that is so controlled, ritualized, and devoid of real substance. The demonstration can be a useful way to meet people, hear information, feel solidarity, and is especially good for people who haven't been exposed to something similar before and can take a lot out of it, but someone who is not interested in this scenario does not have to go. Thus numbers of people participating isn't important. Many anarchists and others that agree, think that this anti-war demo is more effective if it breaks out of the permitted section and trys to spread the message elsewhere and by other means. By it being something that is illegal and spontaneous makes it more engaging and real because finally something is happening that might stir things up, and cause disruption, and unanticipated results. An anarchist black bloc is a core of people that feel it necessary to try to extend this message outside of this contained space and into the real word. Their anger, sense of betrayal, passion, hope, and determination to create a new world and real social change is difficult to channel into real results. To end capitalism, and have equality, cooperation, and liberty is a lofty goal, and how does one get there. Using non-violent property destruction is a tactic that has been implemented in order to try to make it clear that the state, these corporations or maybe private property itself should not exist in our world. Some of it is symbolic, and some of it is done to actually cause monetary and other forms of damage. People get hung up on how this destruction discredits the movement, and makes us look like criminals. But we have to keep in mind that the whole system is criminal, it is insane that we can lose focus over the larger issues, that our country and others are complicit in the murder, and opression of millions and instead scorn a few acts of vandalism that is trying to expose this very issue. We must focus on the larger issue, that the world is a terrible place right now and the United States is one of the worst agents in this. If enough of us start to disrupt, and attack corporations complicit in fueling the war, and other institutions of capitalism than maybe something will change. Maybe its the wrong tactic but there aren't too many other choices, we can't jeapardize our lives always and the level of risk involved in vandalism is minor compared to what really needs to happen. Nothing has ever come to us without a fight. We worry about our image, but we should be worried about images of war that are created by us. By us because everyday we agree to the rules, buy into the system, and yes legitimize this monster. At least criminals tend to not agree with the laws that are the foundation of this mess. Imagine if at the next demo, instead of just a few hundred anarchists and sympathizers breaking away everyone who was able decided to. Not only could we shut down san francisco but we could transform it. While we would probably all be thought of as criminals by the state and those complicit with its effect on the world, and suffer punishment we would open up the possibility for a dialogue on a scale never before created, a sense of empowerment only dreamed of, and a creative vision finally unleashed. It would only be the begining. And the world would forever be changed.

It was terrorism, pure and simple. Any time you force your views on others, it's terrorism. You better pray I never catch you doing it. You'll see a response that is truly swift, certain and severe.