Anarchist Discussion Forums

I'm just thinking about Aragorn in "The Lord of the Rings" chopping off the black-rider's head at the end of "Return of the King". Was Aragorn's "violence" justified?" Perhaps not, but the audience cheered uproariously in the theaters. Wars have been fought throughout the ages. And every time, those on the side of Justice and Truth were forced to have and use weapons.

So, when we think about the issues of "violence" and self-defense...perhaps we should extend out scope of thought toward the battles that have been waged all throughout history. A war might possibly be on the way. Right now there's no way to tell definitively.

If the state were to literally wage a war on the people (if say a Critical Mass found out the real deal) would we not form "left wing" militias and take up arms? (this act in itself would not represent the ideals of anarchism obviously, but would be a practical necessity for survival)
I believe that's the idea behind the original writing of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I'm NOT advocating taking up arms, but the possibility of its eventuality might force some to entertain these kinds of thoughts. We are living in the most volatile time since the first Amercan revolution. Only now, it's global.

So perhaps Jefferson was more "violent" than many modern anarchists. But then again, self-defense by nature isn't violent. It's counter-violent.

This issue needs to be layed to rest and placed on our low-priority list because, besides being drawn-out and redundant, this very discussion is a distraction from reaching toward our long-term goals. Perhaps having this very debate provides extra time for our enemies to conceive of more diabolical ways of suppressing our movements and the underclasses at large.

So, bottom line. We are a non-violent movement by nature. Self-defense is a viable option of those who have an aversion toward physical pain (and a love for others) and when it comes to this very topic, out priority must be alerting the public that we mean them no harm. Because unfortunately, there are still many who believe the disinformation that spews forth from the 4th branch of our Corporatocracy (hope I spelled that right). The mainstream media needs to become our next primary focus. Thus far, it has NEVER been. It's always been priority 3 or 4. As the weakest link of the government, the mainstream media must crumble as an institution and be replaced by a Free media. (an ideal Jefferson whole-heartedly believed in)

Thanks! I forgot about that!

Um, I think he was more concerned about the other stuff, it's no shock when liberals look toward the state or statist structures to get their way.

i assume you are referring to the medea benjamin quote...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=me ... em&spell=1

take your pick...

you can also find her "apology" - which is just another excuse to attack anarchists - here:

http://www.zmag.org/benjamin.htm

Anonymous wrote:in seattle, i witnessed peace nazis (teamsters and medea benjamin types) grabbing and assaulting anarchists and, in some cases, turning anarchists over to the police (who refused to arrest them).

when medea benjamin was asked by the NYT what she thought the police should do about anarchists who were smashing windows and spray painting agit-prop, she said "arrest them."

pacifist are violent in the extreme, and historically they have always sided with the state or the occupation.

MLK openly admitted his reliance on potential violence - in essense he said 'deal with me or deal with violence.' the government found him an excellent antidote to the real freedom movements of the day, and now the US has a national holiday for him, and several streets named after him - while of course simultaneously ramming crack down the throats of the black neighborhoods. (when MLK finally became an anti-imperialist, he got offed...)

gandhi relied on the most violent event in human history - WWII. his earlier attempts failed miserably (in the absense of the bankrupting WWII), so he personally put a stop to the more active revolutionary ativities of bhagat singh and others. he backed the UK in the creation of multiple post-occupation states, which lead to a holocaust of millions of people.

oscar romero was a member of one of the most violent institutions in human history - the catholic church. even so, it's not fair to lump him in with mass murderers like MLK and gandhi. afterall, he gave safe haven, comfort, and inspriation to armed guerillas fighting against the most brtual empire the world has ever seen - the USA.

Really? Where are your sources? i would like to see them.

Sure you will, Y. You'll refute everyone one day.

I'm going to refute that stupid guy one day...

Like Huey said, they were singing "We shall be overcome."

Y is another example of an Anarchist is opposed to truly revoloutionary movement who oppose the state.

Non-Violence is a tactic.

Pacifism is not stategic, it is always pathology.

I do not consider those people you idiots are invoking "pacifists" any more than I consider those ANSWER protestors "democratic." So you can assign names to whoever you want, doesn't make it true.

Now, naturally this is involving "personal" attacks, that is, we invoke people we don't like to generalize about a broader idea, but the truth of the matter is this, if MLK, Gandahi, and that other guy who I personally have never heard of were directly responsible, and supportive of authoritarian movements (which I see no evidence for here, except speculation), then they are not pacifists.

Of course, if the state merely managed to do some nasty things to pacifists, you cannot blame the pacifists, that is simply stupid. The state manages to do nasty things to non-pacifists, and in general is far more successful.

in seattle, i witnessed peace nazis (teamsters and medea benjamin types) grabbing and assaulting anarchists and, in some cases, turning anarchists over to the police (who refused to arrest them).

when medea benjamin was asked by the NYT what she thought the police should do about anarchists who were smashing windows and spray painting agit-prop, she said "arrest them."

pacifist are violent in the extreme, and historically they have always sided with the state or the occupation.

MLK openly admitted his reliance on potential violence - in essense he said 'deal with me or deal with violence.' the government found him an excellent antidote to the real freedom movements of the day, and now the US has a national holiday for him, and several streets named after him - while of course simultaneously ramming crack down the throats of the black neighborhoods. (when MLK finally became an anti-imperialist, he got offed...)

gandhi relied on the most violent event in human history - WWII. his earlier attempts failed miserably (in the absense of the bankrupting WWII), so he personally put a stop to the more active revolutionary ativities of bhagat singh and others. he backed the UK in the creation of multiple post-occupation states, which lead to a holocaust of millions of people.

oscar romero was a member of one of the most violent institutions in human history - the catholic church. even so, it's not fair to lump him in with mass murderers like MLK and gandhi. afterall, he gave safe haven, comfort, and inspriation to armed guerillas fighting against the most brtual empire the world has ever seen - the USA.

Ive even met protesters who started shoving, pushing, and spitting on black block participants when they threw something through a non-sentient piece of glass.

Of course they didnt say anything to the cops who were beating people bloody, but instead felt the need to Police their fellow protesters instead.

I wonder what the nightly news portrayed? What do you think? Pacifism isn't necessarily moral, it can also be seen as stragetic. I would not be surprised if the guy throwing the rock was contelpro.

Anonymous wrote:i've never met a pacifist who wasnt a violent authoritarian...

Ive even met protesters who started shoving, pushing, and spitting on black block participants when they threw something through a non-sentient piece of glass. They actualy starting attacking the other protesters for being "violent" even though they didnt hurt anyone, and the only person who is actualy attacking somone else by shoving is the so called pacifist. Of course they didnt say anything to the cops who were beating people bloody, but instead felt the need to Police their fellow protesters instead.

In that case, they must not exist!