Musings of an anarchist misfit
Published at 13:16 on 30 May 2014
I don’t completely agree with everything said in it (it’s too dismissive of radical analyses), but this article is in general very accurate and makes some points I have made here myself previously. Warning: it’s not exactly brief.
Published at 13:45 on 2 May 2014
Here’s some comments on this gallery of photos released by the Establishment media. I hope they don’t add or delete pictures and thereby change the numbering. I suppose I could have mirrored them here, but that would have taken time, particularly if I had mirrored the captions (which are truly required as part of this critique).
No. 3. This is missing the context of what happened. The “superheroes” decided to first attack the protesters (myself amongst them) without warning or any apparent provocation. Note the partial view of the red “superhero” 3/4 of the way up and left of center; he had just charged without warning. The purple one was being tackled before he could likewise charge. I know; I was there. That’s my bicycle in the picture.
No. 7. Note the passive voice, as if the pepper spray suddenly materialized as a force of nature out of nowhere, sprayed by nobody.
No. 15 is actually pretty fair; it talks about “a protester” smashing the window, not “an anarchist”. Yes, there were many anarchists in that crowd, but that march had no political affinity test one had to pass to be eligible to participate in it, and a fair number had decided on the spur of the moment to participate. Absent a positive identification of the individual who damaged that window, and his or her political orientation, it’s not possible to say if it was smashed by an anarchist or not. I assume here that the window actually was smashed, and not damaged in some previous incident well prior to the march; perhaps I am being overly generous in my assumption.
No. 18. A “tussle”. No, he attacked without warning.
No. 22. Note the street sign in the background: 6th Avenue. That’s west of the Convention Center, where the attack pictured in No. 3 took place. The march was heading west at the time. So that photo was post-attack, an attack by the individual being flipped off. Offensive though it may be, a raised middle finger is not a violent act and is in fact protected free expression, and the context in which that gesture was made means it actually showed a degree of restraint (an obscene gesture was made, instead of a retaliatory attack).
No. 31. But why were the media censored? They don’t say. Answer: corporate media have shared their full footage with law enforcement in the past. So their cameras are effectively police spy cameras.
No. 41. This guy looks more “stunned” than “enraged” to me. If he was “screaming” wouldn’t his mouth be wide open? Instead he appears to be biting his lip in restraint.
No. 46. This caption actually appears to be fair. So far as I could tell, the driver of that car was not acting aggressively; it merely got caught up in the march (such things are bound to happen on unpermitted marches). I didn’t like the jumping on cars bit myself. (I also didn’t see much of it; basically this once and that was it.)
Published at 07:00 on 2 May 2014
I ran an experiment of sorts yesterday.
I deliberately chose to be as visibly anarchistic as possible (in the sense of what popular stereotypes about anarchist dress and mannerisms are), yet at the same time to scrupulously avoid causing any sort of lasting damage to any living beings or inanimate objects, and to refrain as much as possible from participating in any physical conflicts or clashes.
You see, I normally don’t dress all in black at demonstrations. It’s something I regard as trite (and, face it, it is trite). So yesterday’s experiment was to get an idea, by personal experimentation, of just how much repressive measures are directed against anarchists per se, as opposed to any unlawful conduct by individual anarchists. I don’t normally find myself the least bit personally at risk, even at demonstrations which are later portrayed as violent or unruly. How much of that immunity is the result of not adhering to stereotypes and thus being seen as not an anarchist and therefore not “deserving” repression?
And after narrowly avoiding getting injured or arrested in what can only be described as a brief police riot, and then again avoiding injury pretty narrowly when one of the so-called superheroes assaulted the march pretty much at random and without provocation, well, there’s the answer.
At neither time did I note any violence or property damage happening before either group attacked the march without warning (had I observed any such things, I would have physically distanced myself from them). That’s not to say that neither happened, only that neither happened near me; both conflicts were initiated not by myself or any other anarchist but by forces in opposition to us.
And note, this Seattle May Day is being reported in the media as tamer than other recent ones.
Published at 22:23 on 1 May 2014
I’m 51 years old, I marched in both the permitted immigrants’-rights rally and the unpermitted anarchist/anti-capitalist one. I wore black and chanted anarchist slogans.
I am hardly perfect, nor in my estimation particularly effective, but I have not sold out. Quite the contrary; I’m more radical now than I was in my twenties. Not because I sought out radicalism as a goal but I kept observing the world around me and thinking fearlessly about it.
In short, I am winning.I am winning because I have not sold my life away. Yes, I have a professional job that pays well, but my career is merely something I do to get by in this world, not my identity. The high-tech salary the system pays me can buy my labor but it can’t buy me. My mind is still my own, and I do not love Big Brother.
I could write many more things about today, but this will suffice for now.
Published at 20:11 on 4 March 2014
That’s what the brouhaha between Russia and the West over Ukraine strikes me as.
Really: the country that went into Iraq in an invasion of choice, and whose purportedly “opposition” party leaders refuse to even entertain the thought of prosecuting those responsible, acting as if it has some sort of principled moral objection to imperialist land grabs? It is to laugh.
And on the other side, the country that was so purportedly upset in principle when the West grabbed a chunk of Serbia, doing basically the same thing to the Ukraine? Statecraft, thy name is rank hypocrisy.
If that uprising had toppled a pro-Western regime, you can bet that the same talking heads bleating in unison about national sovereignty would instead be bleating in unison about the need to “restore order” via military intervention.
Pay no attention to the rhetoric; the words have no meaning in any real sense. It’s just how the hyenas snarl.
Published at 08:04 on 2 March 2014
Right wingers have been getting their panties in a knot over some recent remarks by Spike Lee.
Really, where? I don’t see any racial hatred there. There’s plenty of resentment against both a colonialist mentality in more affluent and generally White newcomers, and against a disparity in the quality and level of city services in Black neighborhoods, but that’s a very different thing from asserting that some people are particularly evil or inferior simply because of their race.
It’s actually an anti-racist rant, taking offense at what genuinely does seem to be an instance of White privilege.
I’m a White guy, and I don’t feel threatened or attacked by Lee’s remarks. I can’t even see how I would be should I happen to live in one of those NYC neighborhoods that Lee mentioned. Criticized, perhaps. But being criticized and being hated or threatened are completely different things.
Published at 10:49 on 12 February 2014
This is absolutely not a surprise.
Mark my words, the tunnel part of this project will end up costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion, i.e. about 2.5 times the official estimate. I’ve never committed this number to writing before, but it’s what I’ve long expected, based on the historical record of tunnel megaprojects going way over budget.
Published at 08:44 on 25 November 2013
I don’t care how frustrating and unprecedented the Republican blocking of judicial nominees is, and how hypocritical the Republicans are for opposing the same nuclear option they were advocating enacting when the tables were turned.
The tables will turn again, and when that happens the Democrats will sorely regret “going nuclear” as right-winger after right-winger sails through the Senate and onto the bench.
The foolishness of the current herd mentality is so transparently obvious that it is simply staggering that so many seem unable to see it.
Moreover, it will be made all the worse because the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, are firmly committed to their ideals and willing to pursue them with full vigor, so the rightward shift by the Republican appointees will overwhelm any leftward one put in place by the Democrats.
Published at 20:46 on 15 November 2013
After electing a corporate Democrat to the mayor’s office to replace a bumbling* but at least non-corporate incumbent, Seattle elects a socialist to the City Council.
* And yes, McGinn was bumbling and incompetent. But I’d rather have someone incompetent at doing good things than someone competent at doing bad ones. Of course it’s sort of academic at this point since I’ve moved out of Seattle and have no plans to move back.
Published at 19:36 on 17 October 2013
Executive summary: It’s yet another piece of crap from Tim Eyman. Vote NO.
“WTF?” was my first impression on reading a summary of the thing.
Increase the amount of time for gathering initiative and referendum signatures? Why? It’s not as if the current time limit, which to my knowledge has worked just fine from the day the Washington State Constitution was written, is excessively onerous or anything. It’s not unusual for a measure to get enough signatures then to be shot down at the polls. If that almost never happened, then there would be basis for arguing the existing time limit is too short.
That alone had made for at least a 90% chance I’d vote NO, without having any idea who penned the measure. Or without having yet read this little gem:
The measure would provide that interfering with signature gathering for a state or local initiative or referendum is illegal. Interfering with a person trying to sign a petition, stalking a person who signs a petition, or stalking or retaliating against a person who gathers petition signatures would constitute the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. Such conduct would be subject to the civil anti-harassment procedures available under RCW 10.14, and civil penalties. Interfering with petition signing and signature gathering would be defined to include, but not limited to, pushing, shoving, touching, spitting, throwing objects, yelling, screaming, being verbally abusive, or other tumultuous conduct, blocking or intimidating, or maintaining an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet of a petition signer or signature gatherer. Initiative or referendum petition signing and signature gathering would be legally protected on public sidewalks and walkways and all sidewalks and walkways that carry pedestrians, including those in front of entrances and exits to stores, and inside or outside public buildings.
So, let’s see now. First, if you’re circulating petitions, it’s likely you’re going to be doing so in multiple places at multiple times, particularly since the same Mr. Eyman who authored this measure pioneered the use of paid, professional signature-gatherers in Washington state. If you oppose a petition, it is likely that you will engage in counter-petitioning at multiple places and multiple times. As such, it’s likely the same counter-petitioner will end up opposing the same petitioner more than once, without any motive other than opposing the petition. But this would seem to qualify as “stalking” on the part of the counter-petitioner under I-517.
Second, there’s wording about the vague concept of “an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet,” without ever clearly defining what such a “presence” is. Is it completely in the mind of the petitioner? Does this give a hypersensitive petitioner the right to accuse any person encouraging passersby to not sign the petition of being “intimidating” if said counter-petitioner is within 25 feet?
Given that doing anything within 25 feet seems to become risky under such legislation, one would expect counter-petitioners to stay further away. If so, how on earth would one attract the attention of prospective signers without raising one’s voice? Which neatly falls into the “yelling” or “screaming” categories of prohibited conduct.
Or suppose a counter-petitioner starts out being nice and polite and mild-mannered, and is goaded into an escalating verbal battle by the petitioner (entirely possible, since counter-petitioners have no special protections under the law, only petitioners). Then once the counter-petitioner responds to an insult or a raised voice with a raised voice of his own, bam! guilty of “yelling”.
In short, I-517 would appear to be attempting to criminalize pretty much any sort of counter-petitioning whatsoever. It is simply an attempt to infringe on the freedom of speech of those who wish to oppose the signing of a petition.
Note that actually assaulting or threatening petition gatherers is already illegal under the same laws which make such conduct illegal generally. So it’s not as if a NO vote here is for legalizing actual attacks against anyone.
Make that a 100% chance of earning my NO vote.