Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 20:28:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jamal Hannah x342446 <jah-AT-parsons.iww.org>
Subject: The Not-So Lame pacifists in Eugene


On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Jerald Hellemeyer wrote:

> Chuck writes:
> 
> >As an anarchist, I find the proposed law (anti flag burning amendment) to 
> >be unworthy of my comments.
> 
> la de da.  How very smug.
> 
> >it's nice to see folks trying something different
> >AND willing to get arrested.
> >
> >Hmmm, I wonder where they got this idea? ;-)
> >
> >-- Chuck0
> >My Arrest record:
> >Disorderly conduct - 1985 - Lawrence, KS (divestment protest)
> >Mob Action Against the State - 1986 - Chicago, IL - (anarchist shopping)
> 
> Would this be when you were in high school or college and didn't have to 
> worry about working the next day?  Why would you even post this?  Is it to 
> stroke your ego, to make you feel superior, or is it just an attempt to 
> shame others into behaving as you think they should.

I think you have a point.. many people cannot afford to be repeatedly
arrested... and if the "3 Strikes and You're Out" law is enforced, it will
mean that many basicaly innocent people will end up in jail for a long
time.  We can just complain about this, or we can avoid it altogether
by not doing crazy things.  We simply do not have the public support that
justifies any kind of violent acts.  Educate the people and let THEM
decide what to do.

> >Instead, he should have pointed out to the
> >reporter how the rage exhibited in the riot may have resulted from
> >violent actions commited by the state, such as the use of pepper spray
> >by the Eugene police.
> 
> Oh.  I see.  Two wrongs are supposed to make a right.  How silly of me not 
> to realise it.  The next time I feel I've been done an injustice, I'll just 
> randomly and violently lash out at whatever is handy.

I think that Chuck Munson has a deep psychic/emotional/psychological
connection with ANARCHY magazine. For whatever reason, he will support
what Jason McQuinn says no matter what.  What this means is that when
ANARCHY magazine is criticized for saying positive things about mindless,
uncoordinated, or coordinated but harmful-to-the-movement violence
(like the Unabomber), he will stand behind ANARCHY magazine at all costs,
even if it means advocating violence and saying he'll gladly end up in
jail.  Gee.. what if he gets raped up the ass?  That sort of thing
happends a lot in jail. What if the police torture him like they did to
Lorenzo Komboa Ervin? It is a very different thing to be acting
in solidarity with one's community and have everyone get in trouble
and deal with it, verses some individualistic acts of violence which
mean little.

I also regret the fact that Chuck will even attack his friends and
comrades and call them "liberals" just because they criticize ANARCHY
magazine or Green Anarchist magazine. We are the people who would
help him if he gets in trouble... a bird doesn't shit in it's own nest.

> >He also could have used the opportunity to point
> >out that the violence perpetrated against Yugoslavia is something that
> >folks should be more outraged about than a few scared motorists.
> 
> So, just because there is someone is being terrorized at a greater level, it 
> is justifiable to scare the crap out of innocent motorists.  I don't buy it. 
>   Either terrorism is wrong or it isn't.  Either condemn all terrorism or 
> shut up.  Let's not have any of this moral relativism.

Terrorism has been made cool and chic by the mass media... but it is
not. It has disasterous consequences for a movement such as ours, which
already has a bad reputation from the 1870's. (Propaganda by the Deed)

> >The pacifist has every right to advance his philosophy, but there are
> >better ways to do this,
> 
> In your opinion.  Or is your opinion now law.
> 
> >My message to pacifists is this: put up or shut up.
> 
> My message is this:  "lame pacificists" aren't nearly as annoying as 
> egotistical activists who believe they know the only "way" and preach 
> incessantly at those who dare to take another path.  Despite what you might 
> think, the anarchist movement will not collapse without you (or any one of 
> us for that matter).  Yes, you have put in a lot of work for the movement, 
> but so have many others in a variety of ways.  If this sounds harsh, I'm 
> sorry.  It is just that you have become rather moralizing lately.  As an 
> anarchist, I will do whatever the hell I feel I should for the movement.  If 
> you don't like it or don't approve, that's too bad.  I don't have to justify 
> my actions or inaction to you or anyone else.  None of us do.  If you want 
> to share an opinion, fine, have at it.  If you want to command or berate, 
> you may as well keep it to your self (or join forces with Bill White).
> 
> Jerald

People who oppose mindless violence are not always pacifists.  Chuck
talked about the joy of throwing a brick through a window... the thrill.
I remember ANARCHY magazine and other neo-situationists talking about how
revolutions/insurrections are like some kind of high.  Let me point out
that this kind of demonstration of power and rage is, like any drug,
something with negative consequences.  I wont go telling everyone to use
Coke (I wouldnt make it illegal), and I wouldnt urge people to smash
windows.

The idea of looking for fun to "Fuck Shit Up" (Which was something Tad
Kepley was into) is one of the worst things to affect anarchism in recent
times.  It is not an aspect of anarchy that makes it positive.  When
Bakunin talked about destruction he meant something that was well
thought-out and had the consent of the working class.

The road to mindless violence for violence's sake is one that leads to
misery, failure, jail or years of hiding from the state.

 - JH