community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
ARA video and discussion
by Pittsburgh Anti-Racist Action
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 10:07 AM
pghara@hotmail.com (email address NOT validated)
This Sunday July 13th at 5:00 at Project 1877 on Penn Ave. in Garfield Pittsburgh Anti-Racist Action will be howing the documentary Invisible Revolutions. The film documents organized racists and Anti-Racist Action and will be followed by a discussion about local fascist organizing and how to stop them.
Check out Invisible Revolutions playing this Sunday at 5:00 at 1877 (a 2000
documentary about organized racists and Anti-Racist Action by Beverly
Peterson)
winner of the Western Psychological Association film festival 2001,
Human Rights Film Festival 2000, What's Happening? series MoMA 2000, this
movie was described as "unsettling and disturbing.." by Diane Sawyer of
good morning america
In response to Nazi boneheads attempting to hand out fliers in Bloomfield and the Strip and fliers in Shady side a discussion on local rascist and fascist organizing and how to stop it
will follow the video at 6 pm.
This will be the beginning of a series of get togethers sponsered by ARA at 1877 every other Sunday at 5:00 PM. Stay tuned for the next event and for more information about all things anti-racist email pghara@hotmail.com
more info
by ARA dude
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 10:36 AM
For all yall who dont know, the exact address and how to get to 1877 is:
4805 penn ave & mathilda across from the allegheny cemetery (not cemetary)
buses: 86b frankstown rd of 54c & walk from liberty to penn on mathilda.
also:
and stay tuned for another video * discussion on sunday july 27, same
antifa time, same antifa place 4moreinfo: pghara@hotmail.com
Nazi boneheads in Bloomfield and the Strip?
by Dan P.
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 03:39 PM
Do we have any information on when this happened, what they were handing out, whether their was any counter-actions, whether there was police intervention?
I don't support Nazis (obviously) but I think we're all curious to know what they're up to, whether first amendment rights are being protected, etc.
nazis
by ARA dude
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 06:40 PM
they were handing out fliers by william pierce (the now dead--HOOORAAAAYYYY!!!!!!--founder of the National Alliance). They were on the origions of the "races" and basically they were how white people are naturally smarter then everyone else. blahblahblah.
in bloomfield they were on liberty by the starbucks (hehe) 2 in 1?
I just had a flier handed to me and told they were handing them out earlier in the day.
So really I dont give a fuck about their first amendment rights but I have to go so i will post more about the fallacy of free speech in reference to fascists later.
shadyside stickers
by kevin
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 07:26 PM
A couple weeks ago someone put up a bunch of National Alliance stickers in shadyside along walnut and ellsworth. Little orange rectangles with a rascist xenophobic rant on them, I took down 2 myself and saw a few other partially removed ones. Kinda freaked me out.
First amendment...
by Dan P.
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 07:27 PM
I can't agree with you enough that these boneheads need to be neutralized, but I'm still gonna have to come down on their side regarding their first amendment rights.
I have friends who have been harassed by police for handing out flyers about Palestine. To you and me, we see the difference, but to the state... not so much so.
I support all sorts of ARA-type actions designed to make these guys look stupid by exposing (true!) facts, but I would defend them to the last stand if, say, the state got involved.
First Amendment Bonehead
by Libertarian Avenger
Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 07:31 PM
The only bonehead is the one who doesn't give a F about the first amendment rights of fascists. If that is what you believe then you don't give a F about the free speech rights of anyone. Worse yet, that could really define you as something that looks a hell of a lot like a fascist. Remember, justice means justice for all ... not just for you.
Nazi folks and First Amendment
by KJ
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 12:39 AM
ok well I see both sides of this argument and i'd say that as much as I hate morons like Nazi-types (I always have considered myself a Leftist) I also believe in first amendment rights and unless what they passed out or said were "fighting words" as deemed by the supreme court to be unconstitutional, then they were within their rights and all people's free speech rights have to be respected.
Fightin' words
by ARA dude
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 09:02 AM
They advocate GENOCIDE people!!! I think that needs to be remembered. I dont think it is up to the state to stop them from organizing. I don't see that as the state's role. It is our job to stop them from organizing. If the brownshirts in Germany had faced greater street opposition pre-holocaust things could have been different.
But hey, come to the event this Sunday and we can talk about it after the documentary (plug plug plug)
Free Speech
by teamsterturtle
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 09:03 AM
One can support the right to free speech for Nazis, and also the right for groups to go and bash their heads in. One is state regulation of speech (dangerous), the other does not involve state regulation.
national alliance and first ammendment
by Brian
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 10:55 AM
artriotmedia@aol.com (email address NOT validated)
NA supporters hadning out flyers on the street is about the equivalent of al-Qadia handing out flyers in the streets. Prior to 9/11 America's first thought when terrorism was mentioned was the Oklahoma City bombing, an act inspired by the National Alliance and a book written by the man who wrote the flyers ARA Dude was refering too. A group that advocates terrorism doesn't realy fall under freedom of speech the same as if I was to tell you I'm going to kill you and then rape your mother wouldn't realy be considered freedom of speech, these are threatening acts. I don't realy recall anyone advocating stoping these boneheads from being able to speak I do however see the attempt of couteraction through education being made which is very vital.
Further on the subject of the NA we must all be aware because the term "nazi-bonehead" doesn't neccesairly describe all members of the NA. The NA typicaly are not skinheads and also tend to have high roles in society. I came from an area where an active NA member was a prison guard who also ran the local NA phone line(try calling one of them for fun sometime), yes I am refering to the famous Hagerstown, MD guy for those of you who have already heard of his position of power. The NA also not to long ago stirred up alot of trouble in York protesting in support of the Mayor there who advocated the beatings of blacks back in the 60's. The NA must be stopped at all costs, we're not talking about some rednecks in sheets here, we're talking about an extremely dangerous domestic terrorist organization. Too many leftists have let these guys get a voice because of the issue of "free speech" as it is....
how to get back
by max
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 11:18 AM
world187peace@aol.com (email address NOT validated)
The way i see it the rights of the racists are protected under the first amendment, as the should be And it isn't the states job to interfear in the thoughts of these neo-nazis only thier actions(and i mean physical action). But what we can do is take the problem into our own hands and organize for anti-racsit action against these people. you know make stickers(and put them near the national allieance head quarters) and flyers(make the flyers theme something like "remeber the holocast") take back the streets and rally infront when the N.A. is having a meeting. Point this group and other facist groups and thier problems to the city of pittsburgh.
good call brian
by ARA dude
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 11:24 AM
Yeah its true the National Alliance is really trying to reach out to wealtheir white folks. They are paterning themselves after fascist parties in Europe. Sort of your whole suit and tie nazis. BUt they do have much contact with teh nazi bonehead scene through Resistance Records. They have less cred. with boneheads since a recent split but the NA has gotten upwards for 400 folks to attend rallies in DC which is pretty damn big for fascists. The rallies were anti-Israel which also shows that the NA is trying to somehow appeal to radicals (they are not very good at it with their overtly anti-semetic message).
Yeah, and they have caused some trouble (along with teh World Church of the Creator) in York PA. However, when these groups (along with the Outlaw Hammerskinds) attempted to have a rally they got kciked the fuck out of town by the residents of York, ARA kids, NEFAC folks and lots of other people.
But yeah, this could all be talked about IN PERSON on Sunday as well (we be pluggin!)
Human Rights vs. Civil Rights
by Mike
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 12:26 PM
unwelcome_guest@hotmail.com (email address NOT validated)
No piece of paper gives you 'rights', not even the Constitution. You are born with them. Racists are fond of hiding behind their 'paper(civil)' rights to aid in their abuse of the human rights of others. The Constituion exists to limit human rights, in it's effort to define civil rights.
Even from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, the State refuses to honor the provisions of the Constitution and adds its own disclaimers and conditions. A good example of this is the 4th Amendment protections against "unreasonable search and seizure". They simply do not exist. The list goes on and on.
Therefore, direct action versus those who seek to violate the human rights of others, and to forment hatred, while hiding behind a piece of paper which the State has long invalidated, is a duty. See you Sunday, if not sooner. Good work ARA!
Re:Good call Brian
by Brian
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 12:54 PM
artriotmedia@aol.com (email address NOT validated)
Yeah, the WTO are another major threat we need to look out for. Both of these organizations have really tricky ways of enacting terroristic attacks that allow them to continue to go unchallenged. Typicaly this involves members of the groups denouncing their membership and then going on their killing rampages. I remember when Columbine happened lots of groups were denouncing their actions as legit racialist attacks because dylan kelighbold was jewish. There's a really good book called "No Random Act" that I know you can pick up in Christian book stores and probably other locations that has alot of info on one of these types of attacks by the WTO on a black pastor. The person who carried out the act left a note stating that he peroformed the actions on his own and renounced his membership to the WTO because they were "not extreme enough.
Re:Good call Brian
by Brian
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 12:55 PM
artriotmedia@aol.com (email address NOT validated)
Yeah, the WCOTC are another major threat we need to look out for. Both of these organizations have really tricky ways of enacting terroristic attacks that allow them to continue to go unchallenged. Typicaly this involves members of the groups denouncing their membership and then going on their killing rampages. I remember when Columbine happened lots of groups were denouncing their actions as legit racialist attacks because dylan kelighbold was jewish. There's a really good book called "No Random Act" that I know you can pick up in Christian book stores and probably other locations that has alot of info on one of these types of attacks by the WCOTC on a black pastor. The person who carried out the act left a note stating that he peroformed the actions on his own and renounced his membership to the WCOTC because they were "not extreme enough".
Beauharnais?
by SCOTUS
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 02:40 PM
See Beauharnais v. Illinois, which established the doctrine of group libel. It has never been overruled, although it has been weakened by subsequent precedent.
http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=343&invol=250
Some more thoughts...
by Dan P.
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 03:08 PM
Again, I want to reiterate my support for the ARA and other groups to take action to counter the effects of facism, but I still believe that the state should not be involved, and should in fact defend the Nazi bastards should a lynch mob come for them (as much as I'd love to see said reversal of roles).
Brian, I think you hit it on the head when you compared NA supporters to "al-Qadia handing out flyers in the streets." Guess what? I'd support the right for al-Qaeda or any other Islamist group to come and pass out flyers short of organizing violent events (i.e. 'take this violent action now' would clearly be crossing the line). Why? Because our free speech is going to hell. If I trusted the state to be enlightened, I'd be fine with them outlawing hate groups and permitting others. However, I don't, because the state is NOT enlightened. To figures in the state, and unfortunately many regular people, they don't see the difference between al-Qaeda passing out flyers and the International Solidarity Movement, or more to the point, the Palestine Liberation Organization, passing out flyers.
As much as slippery slope arguments tend to suck, one is fitting here: it's a very slipperly slope between the state taking action (or failing to give appropriate protection) against the KKK, against Al-Qaeda, and against Palestinian groups.
First they came for the communists, then they came for the Jews
But I wasn't a communist, and I wasn't a Jew...
for the sake of arguement
by wheatpaster
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 08:20 PM
...what is meant by "the state should defend the KKK bastards"? Do you mean the state, aka police, should physically brutalize ARA for trying to throw some 'bows on the KKK? Do you imply the state, aka legal system, should arrest, detain, and financially reprimand ARA actions against KKK leafleting in the name of free speech?
I ask because by calling for free speech of those whose views you abhor on an idealistic level, you must be comfortable with verbalizing what it would look like on a physical level... in your neighborhood... with activists whose mission you respect and agree with.
I'm proud to say I watched People vs. Larry Flynt and disagreed with the film entirely: an abhorant message with terrible reprocussions upon society and such powerful financial backing does not deserve state protection. Hustler, National Alliance, patriarchy, blind nationalism, whatever. I'm all for standing by stopping these juggernaughts by any means necessary.
Thats the power of the phrase "by any means necessary". Sometimes the totality of damage being done by such an organized, wealthy, and tight knit group demands utilizing diversity of tactics, some of which conflict with some ideological values one may hold.
However the state wants to twist this logic into repressing good movements is going to happen regardless... thats what our government does: manipulate good laws to service the wealthy. (That is how we got protections of corporate personhood from the 14th amendment, afterall).
Haven't ranted in a while... that felt gooood!
To wheatpaster
by Dan P
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 08:56 PM
Heavens no, wheatpaster. I said *free* speech.
I think the state should not get involved unless anyone starts to use physical force and/or direct intimidation. That's the * only* time I think it would be appropriate for the state to step in, because then, they're not silencing anyone- they're enabling the would-be victim to continue to speak.
Allowing the NA a voice
by Ras Brian
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 09:57 PM
artriotmedia@aol.com (email address NOT validated)
In DC a little while back the NA held a rally at the German embassy to protest the detainment of people in Germany teaching that the holocaust never happened. In addition to their protests against violations of freedom of speech they also used the oppurtunity to further their racialist agenda. I talked to many of people who refused to go because it was an issue of free speech and they decided it was more important to allow the NA their right to freedom of speech then to stop those bastards from brainwashing more innocent kids.
Imagine if when Fred Phelps group came here people hadn't done counter actions. It is their freedom of speech to come out in public and say such absurd things as "God Hates Fags" and other nonsense, but do you realy think it was wrong for people to stand up and keep the kids at Fred Rogers memorial service from hearing it?
It is of course the role of leftist to take an ideological stance in support of free speech, however I must insist that like many others, some freedom of speech scares me. I feel there are also certain points when I feel that freedom of speech is a threat to me. When it consists of brainwashing children into becoming hatemongers then it is indeed a threat to me. If they want to say it amongst themselves and in their homes, fine, but I really don't want it to be shouted out and leafleted in the same streets where my little cousins walk nor being pushed into the schoolyards where my children will one day play.
The apostle Paul writes in Acts "we should obey God not men". Personaly I feel that the hatred that groups like the National Alliance and Phelps organization teaches is against God and I would prefer to stand with him rather then support a page of legislature written by mere men and defend these groups rights to pollute the minds of our youth.
Don't mean to press you...
by wheatpaster
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 10:14 PM
...and I don't mean to cause any hostility with you Dan: you know your stuff. However, I REALLY would like to see you flesh out what you would accept for the state to do when getting "involved" when anti-hate demonstrators use direct force/intimidation. I want you to think of the words to describe the "involvement" and type them. And after you do type them, I want you to think about how you feel when activists are subjected to such penalties from the state in the name of using any means necessary to oppose such well orchestrated and well funded hate groups as the National Alliance and KKK.
I personally think when the "would be victim" is victimizing such a large number of oppressed people with their message and actions, groups with a "by any means necessary" mission deserve absolute support.
fuck nazi sympathy
by John-RPGH
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 10:52 PM
I believe in freedom of speech, but I don't believe in giving it to people who strive to END it. Im not going to let hatefull terrorist murderers like the NA gain power and take away what freedoms we DO have and persecute blacks, jews, and homosexuals.
"Don't give them freedom, 'cause theyre not gonna give you yours."
so we all agree
by max
Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 11:30 PM
so as i read comment after comment i realize that every one wants to stop these people....(i hope the ARA see this ) lets rally outside of the place while the NA is having a meeting and make them embarest to be in the building. or take that same action they do. as i say this one again hoping that the ARA will see this and organize something. we should pass out flyers in oppisition to the NA. Make stickers with "fuck the NA" slogans. any one agree?
goonies never say die
by mikey
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 02:22 AM
hi,
i see a lot of comments like: "what about the first amendment?" and "they have the right to free speech." and that kind of disappoints me. it says to me that a bunch of radicals (or so i would assume) are looking to the state for direction, from an elitist, authoritarian document written by a slave-owning, paternalistic, patriarchal neo-aristocracy.
i do support free speech, but i dont think we need a government to give it to us.
the first amendment is only (supposed to be) a guarantee against government oppression. and i would say a bonehead handing out flyers is relatively safe from the police.
as it stands, the boneheads do have a right to free speech. but so do we. and tearing down their flyers, like burning a flag, is symbolic speech. they can be out on the streets, but we can be there to confront them.
let nazi's say what they like. there are always ways of drowning them out. and anyway, (if one were to take it so far) beating somebody up because he is a piece of shit is only assault, not an infringement of his right to free speech.
love.mikey.xoxoxo
IMC Hates Free Speech
by 2 beers
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 09:18 AM
Face it guys and gals, Leftists are a confused bunch. They hate the government, but then they want the government to do their bidding when it is convenient. They want free speech so they can stop traffic and generally assault their community at large, but if someone else is handing out leaflets emblazoned with statements which the Leftisits don't like then those people must be stopped. If anyone tries to "confront" the Leftists, then it is a travisty of justice, another attempt by the conspiracy of the corrupt police state to silence the enlightened views of the Left. But it is just cool as ice cream for the Left to confront, shout down, lock out, or otherwise interfere with the rights of free speech of anyone with an idea or opinion different from theirs. And that is especially true around here and on the iMC editors club. So why does any of this surprise you.
FREE THE IMC OPPRESSED !!! FREE EWAN KENKESMEARSE !!!
Confronting NA
by ARA dude
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 11:27 AM
to 2 beers: fuck off. You dont even exist. Come to a god damn meeting and say shit to peoples faces.
Now back to the actual discussion. I would love to confront the NA where they meet. However, I do not know where that is. That is why people showing up to the video and discussion this sunday is very important. We know who some of the local fascist organizers are but they were involved with the WCOTC and have been dealt with for the most part. I dont know if these folks are the same people or not. That said, if anyone has any info. on NA fliers being handed out or other fascist activities please come on Sunday and let us know. Or email ARA at the address posted above.
We hope that these regular discussions will also move beyond just dealing with organized racists and into other areas.
oh yeah
by ARA dude
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 11:30 AM
We have some anti-NA stickers etc. Max, that is a great idea. I agree. We should do a lit. campaign also. Wanna help? Come to the meeting or drop us an email and we can hook up. Gyeeeaaaaaahhh!!
to 2 beers
by Ras Brian
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 11:51 AM
artriotmedia@aol.com (email address NOT validated)
Though who left vs right argument I feel doesn't realy belong to have a place in this discussion. I would hope that we could find a common ground when discussing both the far right and the far left. I'm sure neither of us would want to support the free speech of a leftist advocating the bombing of a federal building or a far right nazi advocating the same action(as Timothy McVeigh carried out inspired by NA publications). For someone on the right in support of the war on terrorism I would think that you'd also want to confront these terrorists at home, unless you also support their violent, narrow minded agenda. In which case any valdiity in your arguments for the war on terror should be lost when you support groups that are only a few biological weapons away from being equals.
As for free speech on the IMC. The IMC is a website hosted on private servers, not the streets of America. It's one thing for you to state an idea openly in the streets or in your own home(or own website), it's quite different if you were to attempt to walk into my home(or my website) and say those things. I'm sure you wouldn't want me just walking into your house saying what ever I felt like, you'd probably shoot me, thus as I would do the same if you walked into my house telling me how I need to bow down to the police, praise Bush, join the military and kill some Arabs for Jesus.
Actually, advocating terrorism is protected
by Sam
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 12:56 PM
As long as such advocacy isn't likely to incite an imminent danger.
I AM ALIVE !!
by 2 beers
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 01:27 PM
Rest assured that I do exist. And I will ive on always in the hearts and minds of freedom loving people everywhere. I exist in the hopes and dreams of young children, crying for a better day. I will always exist, no matter how much you try to delude yourself into believing that there is no one that could possibly exist that does not agree with you and your Leftist ilk. I do exist. I exist for you always, nipping at the heels of narrowminded bigoted Leftist oppressors such as yourselves. But you can only exist by stifling the voice of opposition or even the voice of a different viewpoint.
BTW: IMC is not a "private" service. IMC is a "public" enterprise and a tax exempt organization. It cannot discriminate or arbitrarily permit participation at this site. Besides, IMC says that it doesnt do these things (but we all know that it does, including logging of IPs).
FREE THE IMC OPPRESSED !!!!!
Wheatpaster...
by Dan P
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 02:55 PM
The only time I feel the state should ever be involved is if there is physical force used to silence someone and/or true physical intimidation, in which case the involvement should be at the total minimal level to ensure that everyone is safe.
If I'm flyering for Palestine and a YZOA mob comes at me shouting screams of violence, I think the state should get involved and separate me from them. If I'm flyering (inherently self-deprecating) for the NA, and ARA mobs come for my blood (which, by the way, I have never gotten the feeling that 95%+ of ARA folks are after that- counter-flyering and expressing popular support and even showing that we are willing to defend ourselves if attacked) then I expect the police to do the same.
thanks
by wheatpaster
Thursday July 10, 2003 at 08:46 PM
Well Dan, its two different views on a tactical approach, and maybe we should leave it at that, especially since I agree with your analysis of many issues on this website. This was all for argument sake anyways. However, if the state goes beyond the most appropriate and least restrictive intervention in such a situation, and we both know they will, I hope to see solidarity among the entire activist community out of respect for commonality of ideologies outside of tactics.
not all free speech is the same
by Saleh
Friday July 11, 2003 at 01:01 AM
salehw@yahoo.com (email address NOT validated)
Hey,
I'm all for acting and not just talking like Max suggested, and hope I'm not jumping on something that's dead, but:
obviously not all free speech is the same. Free speech by fascists in the form of stickers, leaflets, etc. is part of their political work to divide the people (masses) and oppress them. When fascists do this they're not just "expressing their opinion" but are working to spread fascism, which we should not tolerate. No one is suggesting that during a mass meeting when someone says something fascist we should jump on them, rather that when they put up stickers, we should rip them down and realize that it's not just expressing an opinion but part of a process of oppressing people.
This needs to be done realistically - i.e. respecting the reality of where most of the people in our society are at. There is a difference between a NA poster and a YZOA poster, for example, in the context of putting up Palestine posters:
Most people in the US are still not clear on the Palestine issue, and the Zionists still have a lot of activists, so tearing down a YZOA poster would be a counter-productive idea in terms of the message not being clear, and could start poster-tearing wars. But the NA and Nazis are something I would say most communities here would be completely against, so there won't be any confusion in taking down their signs (it will be very clear what that is) and in fact if we don't take them down it will just give them more courage to do more political work. It won't risk our own posters/stickers, and it will be clear to most people that when we take down an NA poster we're fighting racism, fascism, etc., and are not suppressing mere opinions and free expressions.
So not all free speech is the same. Expressing an opinion or expressing yourself is different from spreading fear and hatred, from intimidating people. We as a society (regardless of where the state is) *should* shove that kind of intimidation and hate speech out of wherever we see it. This is not the same as beating people up or lynching them just because they express themselves or because of who they are. The "first they came for..." doesn't apply because the people we oppose want to increase inequity and exploitation, not because they want to fight it, like us on the left, or merely because of who they are, like Jews and homosexuals and others the Nazis went after.
Saleh
I still disagree...
by Dan P
Friday July 11, 2003 at 04:20 AM
You guys make great points, wheatpaster and Saleh, but I think that what I believe isn't perhaps coming through.
I don't believe it's up to the state to silence anyone for anything, simply because I do not trust the state to have that power. I do not trust the state to differentiate between Palestine and Al-Qaeda, I do not trust the state to differentiate between nazis and anarchists.
I fully support ARA actions along the lines of presenting a hard, militant front to shut down the NA bastards. It is indeed up to groups like ARA to counteract the hate that groups like NA spew, because they're the only group (a popular movement) that is able to say "we reject this in our neighborhoods." The problem comes, however, when anyone institutes violence or severe intimidation. At this point, the conflict shifts from a group trying to defend a neighborhood to a group trying to destroy another group through the use of force/coersion.
I do not have any problem with tearing down fascist stickers, along these lines. Our community (thankfully) outright rejects these ideas. I would have a problem with the state doing it, however.
What it comes down to, for me, is I don't trust the state to determine what speech needs more protection than others. I believe the state should ensure that everyone can be relatively physically *safe* and it's up to popular movements to do the rest. Messages of non-violence and equality (ARA) will win, in the end, for they are truth and they are virtuous. See writings of Gandhi on ahisma for more.
BTW, wheatpaster, have we met in person?
Speaking of meeting in person
by ARA dude
Friday July 11, 2003 at 10:25 AM
Speaking of meeting in person. Let howsabout yall come to the meeting on Sunday?! It will be fun!
final thought from me
by wheatpaster
Friday July 11, 2003 at 10:11 PM
I understand why you feel the state cannot be trusted to distinguish right from wrong on this issue, Dan. And Saleh, I agree looking at the situation "on its head" is not accurate because the threat of fascism/right is so different than the reactive and defensive position on the left: such as the Palestine/Isreal issue. I personaly cannot completely dismiss militant action, and here is why.
When a bully on the schoolyard beats on a smaller, weaker kid, the bully usually doesn't let up until the smaller kid puts up some sort of defense. Often just telling the teacher or school social worker doesn't produce results and the bullying continues. What is actually defended in many academic journals on education is for the smaller, weaker party to fight back physically. Even by being overpowered, the bullied is safer because the bully will not want the hassle next time. These studies have been conducted outside the US, including Australia if you want to use a google search, and a new vogue in schools handling bullies supports for the administrators to show leniency on the bullied fighting back. Call this a metaphoric examination into why power imbalance is vital when examining the justification of militant actions.
By the way Dan, I lay next to ya during the Die-In (know who I am now?). I just need to be careful about attaching my real name to my personal convictions if I ever get arrested during an action.
Sorry about the public forum for personal conversating, I don't have Dan's e-mail. :-)
Dismissal of militant action?
by Dan P
Saturday July 12, 2003 at 02:17 AM
Who dismissed militant action?
I support militancy at all "threat" levels, so to speak. All action should be militant, otherwise it isn't really worth doing. As for my beliefs on non-violence:
If no fascist elements/direct oppression is involved, personal property, as well as the medium of speech (posters, etc.) should be left alone.
If fascist elements are involved (as is the case here), then what I support widens- I support the minimum amount of action required to silence the hate/counteract the oppression. This can very easily include tearing down posters. I do not support attacks along these lines that bring physical harm to the person.
Finally, I suppose if a fascist government were to seize power and no non-violent means (such as elections) exist to remove it, I suppose I can tolerate the minimum amount of violence needed to neutralize it, which may include people getting hurt. But this is a question of theory, I hope, in this country.
Wheatpaster, I think I know who you are, and if I do, I'll contact you at my last known email I have for 'ya. I fully understand your concern about posting real names- there's a reason I haven't posted my full name. There are, after all, a lot of Dan Ps (I presume).
Yes, but no fascist government has seized power...
by 2 beers
Monday July 14, 2003 at 08:46 AM
Right, and if Darth Vader parked a Death Star between here and Mars then it would be great for everyone to get extremely militant. Until then we have a name for "militant action" ... "Criminal Activity." You want militant action move to Cuba and join the anti-Castro crowd in the militant action against the true fascists.
def. militancy
by bugg (formerly Dan P)
Monday July 14, 2003 at 11:34 AM
mil�i�tant
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
I think, 2beers, with a little thought you can pick out the right definition, and realize that in no way does militancy imply violence or criminal activity.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)