Recent comments

Maps brings it home, as usual. FUUUUUUU

1. An "embedded" photographer who is WITH BB can be helpful for future studies of strategy and tactics vs. kkkops/DHS/libturds/right-wingers/'superheroes'(lol)/etc.

2. An "embedded" photographer who is WITH BB is good for indentifying reactionaries and kkkops who interfered with the BB for future punishment.

3. Most radicals like "riot porn"; even stoopid-ass Trots. Feed our fetish, God Dammit! Lol.

4. Because of the above 'fatwah' and also how kkkops will also snatch photographers and cameras, whoever this is will have be super discreet.

5. If this is to be the 'new' policy, in particular the penalty side of it, then it should be universally applied to any and all anarchist activities, both 'legal' and 'extra-legal'. Because...

6. We are surrounded by backward, reactionary, amerikkkan a$$hats who, for the most part, know nothing but cowardice, opportunism, 'magical' thinking, dogmatism, snitchcraft, vigilante-ism, hypocrisy, and savagery. And most of them are ARMED.

Therefore, they must be shown, repeatedly, that the BB means 'business' and that 'mercy' is NEVER on the agenda vs. any of them. Their choices must be narrowed down to "join the BB", "stay out of the way of the BB", or "get punished by the BB".

7. This needs to be made 'common knowledge' in a very short period of time.

8. On a side note, I would also like to ask for an indefinite moratorium on the BB punishing private vehicles.

You have a very different definition of revolution than what is understood by most people in society, including most who call themselves revolutionaries or say they are for revolution... My dictionary gives "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." To the extent that revolution means that, I am against revolution. Your definition of revolution is much more similar to my definition of insurrection than what I understand revolution to mean.

You say it is news to you that any anarchist would not be for revolution. That is odd considering the historical track record of revolutions, and what the revolutionaries have consistently done to anarchists. I think the argument, as well as the distinction between revolution and insurrection, was made well by Stirner:

"Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed."

To be clear, I am not objecting to your ideas or positions in themselves. I do object to you taking your own positions and generalizing them as what anarchists are "inevitably" for or against, and what they "need" to do, and that is why I felt compelled to respond to your comment.

I'll address the other points at another time.

In theory, the idea is that you are destroying or harming other people to cover up your actions because your actions are illegal. Since, in theory, you do not believe in the law, the government, the authority of those individuals or their institutions then you do not want nor respect the presence of their courts which are based on their authority and ideaologies and therefore have no problem in breaking their laws and also would prefer to not end up in their jails so you might obscure the view of a journalist (who works for their system anyway) from helping to put you or your comrades in their jails which are based on the government and the cops ability to restrict everyone's freedoms in a material way known as a jail cell.

Actually when you think about it in terms of the safety of those at a protest, it is the media that infringes on freedoms because media footage is used and has been used frequently to convict people at demonstrations of crimes that they commit at demonstrations. So, the easy way around this would be for those who wish to film to be conscious of what they are filming in order to not take any incriminating footage. If someone asks you or tells you not to film them, then don't. They have their own basic freedoms at stake as well that are not equal to the entitlement that many journalists feel toward others bodies and actions.

Also, the mainstream media is not neutral either so when referring them think about that in the terms you think about "ACAB". All cops are bastards because they fulfill the roles that they play as cops not as individuals. In the same way the media is not to be trusted nor respected nor given space because they also fulfill a role as journalist that is already set by their bosses, companies, society, etc. The media functions to maintain the status quo. They have a monopoly on information in the same way that the police have a monopoly on violence, together the two form a united front in maintaing the social order.

By revolution I mean the complete destruction of the current order, classes, authority, control, etc, etc, etc. I don't mean "regime change" or whatever else you alluded to that has happened in the past. I realize that revolution is a utopic and unrealistic ideal, but that is why it is an anarchist ideal, to me. It is news to me that an anarchist would not be for revolution. I don't understand your point about the masses. I don't think everything would have to be on a mass scale nor communicated on a mass scale to "the masses". Anarchy can be spread, communicated, and lived through a decentralized manner from small groups to regional groups to cities and towns by individuals within those spaces. It's a false assumption to paint this picture of "the anarchists" taking anarchy to the mythical "masses" as the only way of furthering and spreading an anarchist project of eventual revolution. So, no to be an anarchist does not mean to be reliant on the masses...although to me, it does not mean to be reliant only on other anarchists nor to be reliant only on the false belief that those around you are your only comrades or potential comrades or the only ones that can hold similar ideas as you. Again, your recurring use of the word "masses" is confusing, unclear, and generalizing. There are many within the masses of society that do not desire the State and many who do. Simply because they don't act out on that desire doesn't make it that less real, as many anarchists also do not put their ideas into practice.

As far as the "propaganda by the deed" goes...the various actions in the early 20th century included leaving leaflets at the bombing site or mailing letters to the targets. The text which I'm sure most are familiarly with "Plain Words" was a flier attached to the June 1919 anarchist bombings; including the site of Carlo Valdinoci's fatal malfunctioning bomb outside the Palmer house. Also, the newspapers Culmine (Argentina-Severino di Giovanni & Cronaca Sovversiva-Luigi Galleani) were known to publish actions and explanations of those actions in their papers. Another leaflet produced at actions in that time period comes to mind, the "American Anarchist Fighters" flier that was in response to the US government's detainment and deportation of anarchist immigrants.

And finally, I think there is some confusion over "justifications" and simple explanations. Someone can be proud and self-secure in their actions and still wish to be detailed and thorough in their explanations which is not the same as justification. Rather the desire can come from the wish to have the action replicated or to hit it's intended audience (prisoner solidarity, specified local solidarity, specific retaliation, something part of a larger target)...basically anything that is not immediately clear because it is not a given that it must be explained as the best things sometimes are that which speaks for itself but that is not always possible for obvious reasons.