portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

actions & protests | media criticism | political theory a21 bush protests

Thousands of Anarchists in the Streets on a21 and 22

Every anarchist in Eugene will be there, so should you!
I'm curious why liberals help the corporate media vilify anarchists? Some liberals are ordering anarchists to stay home because they fear the mere presence of anarchists will provoke the police to violence. How did liberals come to these ideas of protest ownership and believing the myth of violent anarchists? (I really want to know because I have no fucking clue?)

First off, anarchists were among the first people to spread the word about Bush's trip to cascadia. Anarchists included liberals and others in their plans to confront Bush on A21 in Portland and A22 in Bellevue. Yet liberals carved out their own plans and in some instances explicitly banned anarchists from participating. So much for solidarity, jeez. But most anarchists respect autonomy, so no offense taken.

Secondly, whatever liberals have been led to believe about anarchists through corporate propaganda is false. In this case, as in most cases, the corporate media is lying to you. Ask an anarchist what they think about violence. Most often anarchists hate violence. I've never met a violent anarchist, and I hang out with them.

Thirdly, anarchists don't go to a protest looking for a fight. Some anarchists realize the potential for state violence at any public showing of dissent, and come prepared to defend themselves. But no anarchist shows up to public gatherings these days willing to defend themselves like anarchists and other workers did over one hundred years ago when they would fill town squares fully armed and numbered in the tens of thousands. Anarchists in the US today are more into shielding themselves from police violence and repression than following the footsteps of past anarchists.

Lastly, anarchists are not scary people. They do not provoke the police beyond being in the street and voicing their opinions just like the liberals. It is a shame that the police use chemical weapons and projectiles on their own people, but that is their job. Anarchist did not create the cops and their violent ways. Police and their violence have been around before the concept of anarchy was ever articulated in the western world. Anarchists want to end police, not make them more violent.

"But what about the window smashing?" Property destruction is an effective non-violent tactic employed by pacifist priests and nuns at the school of the amurikas, missile silos and other military facilities across the nation. Anarchists and others fighting the system also use property destruction as a non-violent tactic. Children's history text books could be blamed for glorifying the success of the Boston Tea Party and the continuation of this trend in amurikan resistance. But if I remember correctly, the people who carried out the Boston Tea Party had to knock out a guard or two to dump the tea in the bay.

Although the mass majority of anarchists in the US are peaceful people, they are nonetheless enemies of the state. The state along with the corporate media will continue to vilify anarchists as violent people, but that is their job. Fortunately liberals and others could see through the state's campaign to occupy Iraqi populations and oil fields, but unfortunately some of these same people can't see through the state's campaign to divide anarchists from others speaking out against Bush this Aug. 21st and 22nd.
In the Streets! 14.Aug.2003 08:30

Lars the Infidel

Gotta love those vanguard anarchists!

See ya in the streets, where everyone aughtta be, this Aug. 21 in Portland!


Anarchists... 14.Aug.2003 09:40

Mr. Pilot

I just love the way the anarchists are getting so organized for the events! Look, if it's anarchy, you're not organized...by definition. You couldn't all agree to DO any one thing on any one day or then it's not anarachy. So I don't really think "anarchist" is the correct term. "Ranting socialist" might be more appropriate.

response to mr. pilot 14.Aug.2003 10:13

think for yourself

mr. pilot,

i can't even count the number of definitions of anarchism that i have heard in the last few years. some claim, as you do, that anarchy necessarily excludes organization. i must assume based on your comments that you don't know many, if any, anarchists and that you have never read any anarchist theory. an-archy means no-state. not no-organization. not chaos. not i'll do any damn thing i please no matter what anyone else thinks or wants. one definition of anarchy i read was this "organization from within". as opposed to "organization from on high".
i suggest that before you go accusing people of not understanding the principles they live by, you put a little more effort into understanding those principles yourself.
just a suggestion.

re mr pilot 14.Aug.2003 11:54


...'ranting socialists'? oh! you mean 'socialism for the rich' aka the republican party?

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS 14.Aug.2003 21:23

Red Baron

They hunger for attention.

Here's what I think 17.Aug.2003 14:12


There is a difference between government and society. Society can exist without government, but government can't exist without the support of society. Hence, society is more important than government. The anrchist groups I've seen seem to act on a pure form of Democracy rather than a representative one.

Sittin' and Thinkin' 18.Aug.2003 09:18


To Firetruck:

Your comment is the smartest thing i've ever read here. Thank you.