In a bookstore yesterday settling up there was at the counter a flier calling for solidarity with some people who are rotting in jail for failure to cooperate with a grand jury. It seems some people who call themselves anarchists may have information about some broken windows at a Federal Courthouse and refuse to say what they know. So off to federal lockup they go.
Each invites you to write, and provides an address, reasonably enough, in the federal lockup.
Now, my first impression was each of the three statements were written by the same person. My suspicions are grounded in the well-established pattern that anyone who advocates violence is an agente-provocateur, working for the state. In this case, people writing these three (who are now no doubt freely provoking violence as agentes-provocateur elsewhere) "prisoners" will have their letters of support read by the authorities.
And if all three were written by the same person, then the authorities really should kick in for more creative writing courses. This just won't do.
The brochure unfolds into a nice poster that incoherently states "Solidarity Defiance Grand Jury" ... OK, which is it? Solidarity or Defiance? And then...
"When confronted with repression the proper form of politeness is attack." Uggghh... that is not even bad execution, the inspiration is too muddled to develop. What makes me doubt the bona fides of this effort is it lacks intelligence. Real resistance movements have a profound intelligence at the hear to it. This whole brochure just feels like stupid cops running a scam.
But what do I know, except having met brilliant resistors and stupid cops running scams.
One line in the document inspired me to write: "When we talk about property, State, masters, government, laws, courts and police we say only we do not want any of them."
I think the pro-violence "anarchists" would all agree with that statement. And I've pointed out before, true anarchists love government, laws, courts, property, police, and masters is in the sense of experts, but not in the sense of superiors. What true anarchists disdain is the State. If all above is voluntary, then a true anarchist could care less what anyone else does in terms of government, laws, courts, property, police, and masters. It is the coercive aspect of the state that is non-negotiable. This anarchist loves the game of chess, and obeys the laws governing chess. I love skiing, and obey the laws of the hill. Intertwined with the violence-addled "anarchists" is an ignorance of what anarchy is.
And in no area are they more misled than in the area of property. In being carte-blanche anti-property, they fail to distinguish legitimate property from capitalist property notions. But I will not rehash that point here, I mean to make an offer:
What if legitimate anarchists such as myself were to give up the demand for property rights? Would the violent anarchists be willing to give up something as important to them in the name of solidarity? Would they give up violence?
If the pro-violence anarchists would give up violence, and the pro-property anarchists were to give up property rights, then the project may be advanced.
Can you really have anarchy without property? No, but you can get pretty close, as in the case of Hong Kong and the Vatican, where no one owns real estate. So there is an offer.
Those who advocate violence, no matter what they call themselves, do not want change, they only want to be in charge. This is invariable. The funny thing is, if you look at violent revolutions, the people from the old order end up in charge of the new order. Look at all of the soviet apparatchiks running liberal democracies. Angela Merckel was a communist youth leader. Putin was a KGB operative. If "anarchists" take over, expect the maximum leader to be named "Bush."
Violence is non-negotiable. It would seem property rights is non-negotiable. The offer is on the table.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Each invites you to write, and provides an address, reasonably enough, in the federal lockup.
Now, my first impression was each of the three statements were written by the same person. My suspicions are grounded in the well-established pattern that anyone who advocates violence is an agente-provocateur, working for the state. In this case, people writing these three (who are now no doubt freely provoking violence as agentes-provocateur elsewhere) "prisoners" will have their letters of support read by the authorities.
And if all three were written by the same person, then the authorities really should kick in for more creative writing courses. This just won't do.
The brochure unfolds into a nice poster that incoherently states "Solidarity Defiance Grand Jury" ... OK, which is it? Solidarity or Defiance? And then...
"When confronted with repression the proper form of politeness is attack." Uggghh... that is not even bad execution, the inspiration is too muddled to develop. What makes me doubt the bona fides of this effort is it lacks intelligence. Real resistance movements have a profound intelligence at the hear to it. This whole brochure just feels like stupid cops running a scam.
But what do I know, except having met brilliant resistors and stupid cops running scams.
One line in the document inspired me to write: "When we talk about property, State, masters, government, laws, courts and police we say only we do not want any of them."
I think the pro-violence "anarchists" would all agree with that statement. And I've pointed out before, true anarchists love government, laws, courts, property, police, and masters is in the sense of experts, but not in the sense of superiors. What true anarchists disdain is the State. If all above is voluntary, then a true anarchist could care less what anyone else does in terms of government, laws, courts, property, police, and masters. It is the coercive aspect of the state that is non-negotiable. This anarchist loves the game of chess, and obeys the laws governing chess. I love skiing, and obey the laws of the hill. Intertwined with the violence-addled "anarchists" is an ignorance of what anarchy is.
And in no area are they more misled than in the area of property. In being carte-blanche anti-property, they fail to distinguish legitimate property from capitalist property notions. But I will not rehash that point here, I mean to make an offer:
What if legitimate anarchists such as myself were to give up the demand for property rights? Would the violent anarchists be willing to give up something as important to them in the name of solidarity? Would they give up violence?
If the pro-violence anarchists would give up violence, and the pro-property anarchists were to give up property rights, then the project may be advanced.
Can you really have anarchy without property? No, but you can get pretty close, as in the case of Hong Kong and the Vatican, where no one owns real estate. So there is an offer.
Those who advocate violence, no matter what they call themselves, do not want change, they only want to be in charge. This is invariable. The funny thing is, if you look at violent revolutions, the people from the old order end up in charge of the new order. Look at all of the soviet apparatchiks running liberal democracies. Angela Merckel was a communist youth leader. Putin was a KGB operative. If "anarchists" take over, expect the maximum leader to be named "Bush."
Violence is non-negotiable. It would seem property rights is non-negotiable. The offer is on the table.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment