The Oregonian: PDX Peace airs dirty laundry to corporate media

Hastings is a proponent of nonviolence. I am too. Burning many things is violent and I would never burn an effigy of a soldier. While it is devisive to the peace movement, I see it as a profound statement and accept it. It furthers communication. I do not support the troops as far as their mission is concerned. They are not being responsible by putting "country" over morality. I think those who burned help portray the cause we are seeking, the return of troops NOW. Individual responsibilty must encompass the troops, as well as us. If it includes dramatic burning, so be it.

Those of us in the eco-defence movement figured this one out long ago. The radicals make the not-so-radicals (in this case the gandhian crowd) seem more moderate, thus further legitimizing them in the media. So we ask those who disagree with radical tactics and statements to accept this diveristy of tactics as something that furthers their moderate agenda.

Just to speak the obvious: Burning a doll is not violent. Burning living things IS violent. Burning a flag, a doll, an SUV, or even an empty building is NOT violet. What is it about this that seems to confuse liberals???

Burning ten thousand people to death with incendiary chemicals, white phosphorus, in Fallujah (and then laughing about it, calling it "shake and bake"), now THAT was violent. Burning a doll representing the men who committed that atrocity, that was an expression of outrage, but it was not violent. If they had rounded up a soldier and burned him in the street, that would have been violet.

God, get your head clear. There is a war going on, you dolts. Figure out what fucking violence IS before wielding that word around.

Burning a SUV or a building is violence because it destroys private property. Purposely burning a doll is also violent, but it does not destroy a living being. It was created for the destruction. Burning a flag is violent, but it is a form of freedom of speech which I approve.

Nonviolence is the way to create change!

If you want to create your own definition of words, you are certainly free to do that.
But don't expect people to accept your personal definitions that have been given to you by the very people you claim to oppose.

Are you a vegan GK?

If not, so much for claims of non-violence.

Or does your defintion of violence transform when you need to rationalize your own behavior?

If you want to create your own definition of words, you are certainly free to do that.
But don't expect people to accept your personal definitions that have been given to you by the very people you claim to oppose.

Are you a vegan GK?

If not, so much for claims of non-violence.

Or does your defintion of violence transform when you need to rationalize your own behavior?

private property should never be protected with the same reasoning that human life is.

A reminder of something most of y'all already know: most reporters are not likely to write stories slanted to portray how the movement can be united as well as divided. They are most likely to post the most divisive comments because if it's triggering, people will feel more urgently about it, and want to read it more.

I'm guessing that a lot more was said by a lot more people in this situation. Don't make the same mistake MSM does and represent this story as the entire truth.

I am an opponent of non-violence as currently expressed as a principle in the US peace movement.

This is not to say that I favor violence for I do not. I am essentially a peaceful person. However, in my observation, the creed of non-violence is dogmatic and often fails to openly examine the roots of what it labels violence.

By imposing a behavior from outside, it forces people to adopt a facade that is not real, which pushes the energies that they judge to be negative further within. Those energies become more deeply rooted inside. The outside facade becomes passive, but the real energetic behavior frequently becomes passive-aggressive.

A fair number of times I have seen non-violent peace advocates physically assault radical activists. I have never seen a 'violent radical' actually assault a peace activist. I think there is something worth examining in this observation, and without condemnation of any 'group'.

Repression is unhealthy. If you dam up a stream, it will eventually and even 'violently' break free of that which is holding it back. Repression is a violence to your own innate energies.

So in the article above, it is mentioned that some groups did not like the effigy burning and it mentions that 'Oregon Military Families Speak Out' withdrew its endorsement. Then you have Tom Hastings sarcastically assigning blame. There is nothing admirable in such behavior. He uses the media to attack people he disagrees with. This is behavior that causes harm. But because the peace movement has a very superficial definition of what is violent or not, what causes harm or not, he just goes about this sort of destructive behavior, self righteously confident that he has the 'high moral ground'.

Ironically, it seems to be difficult in this country, which is supposed to be multi-cultural and pluralistic, to recognize that Life is diverse and that such diversity is a source of strength. Difference is barely tolerated and often with disdain. This is the basic quality that is allowing fascism to rear its head in this society. I frequently find this sort of intolerance in the peace movement.

The person who spouts off sometimes or who screams in frustration, will actually be less likely to snap under pressure. Yet peace advocates will condemn them for having done so. In my opinion this does not show a deep or mature understanding of how the human being actually works.

"Burning a SUV or a building is violence because it destroys private property. Purposely burning a doll is also violent, but it does not destroy a living being. It was created for the destruction. Burning a flag is violent, but it is a form of freedom of speech which I approve."

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you for real? Are you saying that legality is a determining factor as to whether or not something is violent? That is by far one of the most absurd things I have ever heard in my life. It's comments like this that show how out of touch many of the "pacifist" within the movement are with reality. To say that burning a cloth dummy is violent just diminishes the severity of the true violence and exploitation that takes place on this planet.

Few things are as violent as the "non violent." I say this because it is so-called "non violence" that is protecting the status quo. So long as we force each other to become small and meek and powerless, the grinding machine of the status quo is free to keep on killing and destroying. And this is how we enforce smallness and weakness on each other: This coming up with, or acquiescing to, ridiculous and outrageous statements like the one above, in which burning a THING, because it's "private property," becomes equated with violence. This is insufferable.

Tell me, GK, were the nuns who went to prison for hammering on a missile silo and pouring blood on it "violent" too? This was, after all, the destruction of property. They beat on it with hammers to symbolize beating swords into plowshares, and they went to jail for this "crime" for years. Was that violent? Wanna give them a lecture?

How about the demonstrators at Woomera, who tore down what amounted to an immigration concentration camp out in the middle of the Australian desert, liberating the people who had been incarcerated there. Was this violence? It was the destruction of "private property." Should they have just left it alone, and had a "peaceful" candlelight vigil outside the fence instead? Should they have gone home after, congratulating themselves for their "non violence," leaving the inmates inside? Is that a better way to get things done?

How about Peter Young? He broke thousands of mink out of their cages and saved them from certain death on a fur farm. This, of course, deprived the fur farmers of what they saw as their "private property." So was he violent too? The government said he was, because of course, he was effective. What do you say, GK? Peter went to jail for this, but the mink went free. Was it more "violent" to liberate the mink than it would have been to let them die? Would it have been better if he had stood out in front of the farm and held a sign for a few hours, maybe sold a t shirt or two, while the mink were clubbed to death? A lot of people would have encouraged him to do so, rather than breaking the mink free. A lot of people said that what he did was "violent." But doing nothing would have meant thousands of beings would suffer and die, and doing what he did saved them. So you tell me, GK. Who is more violent here? The man who saved the mink? Or the people who would have prevented this "violence"?

When we start accusing anyone who has the strength to act of violence and terror, we are doing the work of the police state. We become the enforcers of the status quo.

If you want to talk tactics today, then I ask you: What could be more violent than driving up to a meaningless march, on a weekend, in an SUV? I know, this has been said so often as to become cliche. And yet, it continues. Do we not understand the connection between our own consumption habits and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who stand between us and our gas tank? This is real. This is violence. (Ah, it's so much easier to condemn someone for what they're doing than for what you're doing, though, isn't it? Especially when you have the entire PR apparatus of the police state patting you on the back and supporting you in your ignorance.)

What could be more violent, in this gluttonous, imperialist, First World nation, than going out after the march and buying yourself a bunch of shit you don't need, say at Starbucks or Pioneer Place? Do you not understand where that stuff comes from? There is blood on your hands if you did that today. Can you not see it? Pointless consumption IS violence. Yes. It is. It is violent in a way that burning a doll or an empty building cannot be. Every time you buy some meaningless thing that you don't really need, there is a long, bloody cord stretching through time and space, connecting you to exploitation, deprivation, atrocities and death. Can you not feel that?

And this war that is not stopping, no matter how many t-shirts we buy, no matter how much change we drop into green plastic buckets, no matter how many bumper stickers we plaster on our cars, this war IS VIOLENT. Doing nothing to stop it is violent, and pretending that you're doing something to stop it when you're not is both violent and offensive. Giving speeches and singing songs and waving flags is not ending this war. I'm not saying that burning a doll now and then is going to end it either, but allowing people to be strong in their opposition to it, rather than demanding that they exhibit only weakness and politeness, this is much more likely to build the momentum it's going to take to really end this war.

I have to tell you, I have seen a lot of violence at marches like the one that went on today. But not from the sources you might think. I have been clubbed and pepper sprayed by violent police officers. I have watched people stomped by police horses, and people shot at with projectiles. But the most bizarre and intrusive and revelatory piece of violence that I ever encountered was when a "non violent" WCW organizer stood in the street and screamed at people because they were walking through a police barricade. "The police are not our enemy!" She screamed. "You're ruining our march!" She implored everyone to stop being so "violent." And, when she saw me filming her, she attacked me. She physically assaulted me and my camera. And then later, when I stopped her for an interview, as soon as she realized who I was, she did it again. This is the "non violent" mindset for you.

Later, many of these "non violent" "activists" stood in front of corporate media cameras justifying the actions of police thugs who beat and pepper sprayed and shot at and arrested people, saying the people "deserved it" because they were so "violent." They could not see the violence of guns and force and pepper spray, any more than they could see the violence of their own actions, or the violence in their own hearts. All they could see was the brainwashed, mindless dogma drifting behind their eyelids, telling them that anyone who acted autonomously, without the sanction of the police state, must be violent. It almost goes without saying that none of the people who had been beaten or arrested or pepper sprayed that day was actually being violent. But I will say it anyway. They were not. The thing that they were attacked for, by both liberal peaceniks and by the police, was walking outside of the lines. They did not follow the orders of either the organizers or the police. That is it. Without raising a hand, without drawing a weapon, without hitting anyone or hurting anyone or drawing even a single drop of blood, they simply walked in a direction that was off the parade route. And for that, they were assaulted by the force of the police state, both in police uniforms and in tie-dyed t-shirts. I saw friends and comrades thrown violently to the ground that day, beaten and dragged away in handcuffs. I stood helplessly by while a person with asthma fought desperately for breath after being doused with chemical weapons. And later, I shook my head in disbelief as I listened to "non violent" peaceniks justifying to the corporate media the violence and repression that had been doled out of the barrels of sci fi guns. The people they condemned, for "violence," were not the armed and armored police officers. They were the radical activists who dared to choose their own path.

That kind of mindset is violent.

No amount of soft-eyed chanting or gentle cradling of peace bowls can erase that kind of violence.

Stop talking in unexamined platitudes, peaceniks, and start opening your eyes to what real violence is.

Today's events at the peace rally and march were an awesome adventure. As the march took off, I recall saying, "Look, see all the people. We are the people. We want peace." We are the ones that the Congress and Administration won't listen to. We are the majority! We stand together against the war machines. We have the power if we'd mobilize something more, if we'd vote out the 2 political parties, if we'd blockade military places. If we'd stop business as usual.

Listen, messing with other's property is immoral and violent. Messing with a doll or flag is not. Hammering missiles has a purpose, it's for peace. I am a vegetarian, but not a vegan. My friend Tom Hastings has sat in prison for his nonviolence. I have been arrested 4 times resisting nuke weapons and against the surge. I have experienced police tackle a protester so close to me that they scooped up my personal bag with its id. I stand in solidarity for peace and nonviolence. I've done some work for animals. I will give my tax rebate all to peace groups. I have been fired for my peace arrest when my name was in the news. My conscience and whole being is for peace. I have written for peace with 100's of letters.

Sadly, I'll see you next year for the 6th anniversary.

"Listen, messing with other's property is immoral and violent."

No, it is not.

It might be annoying. It might even be a crime. But it isn't violent.

We have to be careful about this word. Using it frivolously robs it of its meaning. Violence is what US soldiers are doing to people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Violence is what all of us do when we buy products that were tested on animals, or made with the fingers of children in barbed-wired factories. Violence is bombs dropping and bullets tearing into flesh. "messing with property" is not violence.

We also have to be careful about the use of the words "peace" and "nonviolence." Because they are seriously misused in the "peace" movement. I have tried to point that out. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. There is nothing "peaceful" or "nonviolent" about acquiescing to the status quo. It is not "peaceful" to force that status quo down the throats of people who know better. And it is certainly not "peaceful" to use the force of the police state against people who (gasp!) walk outside of the lines.

I am not meaning to direct this solely at you, GK. I apologize if it seems so. I am just really, really, unbelievably frustrated with the mindless rhetoric of the thoughtlessly violent "peace" movement.

I think "it" boils down to ethics. Whether one knows right from wrong. There are unjust laws, but this is not one of them. I am directed by my conscience. To me, setting fires on SUV's is wrong and violence results.

It is clear that new leadership is needed to drive the PDX peace movement.
The white men who are tireless self promoters need to be REPLACED!
I'm not sure if this same dynamic is taking place in other cities, but Portland PRC is REALLY missing out on creating effective alliances for social change. If THEY can't lead, then we need to move right on past them to something new.
No more white men in leadership roles, we deserve better!

"I think "it" boils down to ethics. Whether one knows right from wrong. There are unjust laws, but this is not one of them. I am directed by my conscience. To me, setting fires on SUV's is wrong and violence results."

My suggestion would be that you amend your statement. Setting fire to SUV's is not wrong. Setting fires to SUV's is something you do not want to do. Other people have set them on fire for ethical reasons.

It seems to be a near impossible concept for people to get. What is right for you is not necessarily right for everyone. Nor is life anything like the black and white fantasy you carry.

It was Gandhi who said if you are not capable of putting yourself in front of the bullet, then better to pick up the gun than to stand by and allow people to be harmed. This is the side of Gandhi that has been sanitized out of the US peace movement dogma. Gandhi understood what the peace movement is blind to and if he were alive today and living here, he would be a fierce critic of the peace movement.

Hundreds of people have died in the East because so many people in the West entitle themselves to drive SUVs, and then don't concern themselves with where the resources to do so will come from.

A man in Oregon set fire to a few SUVs some years back, because he believed that destroying the earth through global warming and turning the rest of the world into oil colonies was ethical, and he wanted to do something to stop this.

People are still driving SUVs, but not nearly so many as would have without that act. How do I know? Because I am one of the people he reached by doing that. I had never given a thought to where the gas in my tank came from, or how much it mattered how much of it I used. Never even thought about it. I can't believe that now, but it's true. I am a vegetarian, I recycle everything, I considered myself an activist even then. But what I drove? I had never even thought about it until I heard that he had burned those SUVs. And then I started thinking about why.

Your silly marches have never made me think about anything that I did not already know. But burning those SUVs educated me in a way for which I am grateful.

Driving an SUV is violent. Lighting one on fire, provided no one is in it, is not.

I wonder just how many "peaceful protesters," or quiet objectors, or whatever you call lazy activists, were standing around, near Auschwitz, telling themselves that they were protesting the killing, but they must always be good citizens, and obey the law? That, in effect, is what we all do, whenever we allow ourselves to be fenced in, in "free speech" zones. Whenever we ask permission to voice our dissent, we are once again relinquishing our right to civil liberty, and spitting upon the "damn piece of paper" that this regime is intent upon reducing to shreds. Government, by the people, is OF the people. We are governed by consent, and the kind of liberal "thinking" that I see here is responsible. The liberal is what keeps the masses from obtaining justice and liberty, by acting as a buffer, between the people, and the cartel(s) that are running the government and us into the ground. Make no mistake, no matter how "peaceful" the protest, if it is not done in a manner that is sanctioned by the corporation, it is going to be put down by forceful (VIOLENT) means.

So by your definition having a bar-bq in my backyard is violence. While the bombs drops you idiots want to break everybody down over stupid crap like this, shame on you. Why don't you move out of your comfortable lifestyle and got chain yourself to the tanks then. Oh I forgot you too busy acting like you care from your liberal high horse.

First of all, I was really confused when I read this article because I thought Portland had a Deja vu from last year. But then I realized you guys are arguing over shit that I thought was settled last year.

Secondly, GK, come on dude... You can't categorize violence with property destruction. With that terminology, you could argue that stepping on someone's grass is violent, or writing on your desk at school is violent, or making one too many copies on your companies copy machine is violent, or ripping the tag off of a couch is violent. It's absurd. You can't say some property destruction is violent and some isn't. Violence has to have a universal definition. And that definition, in my my and many others opinion, is an act of physical force against another living being. With your rhetoric, it's just like the word terrorism. The government will call practically anything terrorism, just as long as it goes against their regime. Animal liberators are "terrorists." People who prevent logging companies from plundering old forest growth are "terrorists." It's the looseness of that word that allows the government to redirect it to so many different causes. And luckily, since most of America is made up of football loving, woman beating, shotgun shooting dipshits, all they have to do is hear words like 9/11 and terrorist to blindly follow whatever asshole is saying them. So by perpetuating the misuse of the word violence, you are legitimizing the misuse of the word for police, military, and government. I mean when Cat crafted a well thought out and long rebuttal to your claim, all you could do was say, "Listen, messing with other's property is immoral and violent" and then go on to say how you've been involved with activism for so long and got arrested for this and that. What is ironic is you even claim to want to "blockade military places." Well alright, by blocking it you are taking away the militaries ability to transport war weapons and vehicles over seas, which essentially is causing them to lose money, which is practically property damage, so by your definition that would be "violent."

You see how that word can be slandered so easily by the misuse of it?


But I'll agree with you on one point GK. Burning the effigy was extremely divisive to the peace movement, which I can't stress enough. I think that we need to realize that just because something is non-violent like burning an effigy, it does not mean it is necessarily productive to the movement. The black bloc this year was the smallest it has ever been, and I don't think it was just coincidence. It was a big fuck up to burn that effigy, and I think we've all come to terms with that.

OK folks, here's an indecent proposition for you, an open invitation to action for anyone who is ready:

There's a very conveniently located Oregon Army National Guard facility right here in the greater Portland area that gives us all a perfect place to put into practice what we are preaching. Even the pacifists among us are ready to go further than the "parade" and kick it up a notch (thanks, GK, for giving us this idea by saying you are willing to blockade military facilities!).

Now who knows how crucial Camp Withycombe is to the occupation efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows when the optimal time to blockade it would be? It doesn't matter. As long as the occupations are ongoing, as long as they repair military equipment there, as long as they house ammunition and use the camp as a staging area for deployment of Guard units to the occupations, it will be worthwhile for us to blockade the camp. We've got to do this while we have the momentum! By the way, has anyone even tried this yet? If you can give a good reason not to blockade it (like if the camp is not actually functioning anymore or something) maybe this could be called off, but consider it ON until we're otherwise informed.

So here's the plan: this Wednesday, March 19th, there's an event called Funk the War that is gathering at SW 3rd and Madison downtown at 12:30 pm. Sounds just as symbolic as the parade that happened on Saturday. But at least it gets people off their asses and into active opposition to the occupations! IF that event fails to shut down the war profiteers... :) then everybody still standing, and still feeling they haven't got anything accomplished, is invited to a campout at idyllic CAMP WITHYCOMBE! Right there in front of the entrance gates to the camp, just off Clackamas Road southeast, under the beautiful forested Mount Talbert.

Whether or not we can hold out through the night, the students from the walkout scheduled for the next day (11 am, north park blocks) are welcome to join us, or give the campout another shot. After you guys have your parade and teach-in, if you feel there's something just not "substantial" about your action, well come "Camp Out" with us! Don't worry, if you're under 18 any arrest shouldn't be hard to get expunged from you record...We think...

Watching the Winter Soldier '08 testimonies is highly recommended before you come camp out, so that everyone is on the same page, and so everyone knows what the real stakes are. Watch or listen to all of the testimony at ivaw.org and warcomeshome.org.

So be there. Starting immediately after the fizzling of the Funk the War event, sometime Wednesday afternoon. Bus 72 (or was it 75?) might get you close, but do your research...See you at the campout!

""That's a great way to erode the movement," said Tom Hastings, who has taught a class at Portland State University called the Ecology of War and Peace and worked with PDX Peace."

The people who erode the peace movement are people like Tom Hastings who make comments to the corporate media who profit from the status quo, like the Oregonian.

All you so called peace workers, you fight among yourselves and put each other down if the other is not 100% in the same line of thinking as yourself. You all are a bunch of fascists.

As a peace worker I welcome comments from anyone who wants to contribute to peace, even though their methodology and thinking is not the same as mine.

To quote other piece of the Oregonian article\

As for "We wanted assurances that there wouldn't be actions that disrespect the troops," Kubein said Thursday. "We didn't get those."
The biggest disrespect for the troops is all cititzens sitting on their fat asses in this country while our troops are sacrificing their lives and families, so we can all keep the status quo of SUVs and our habit of mainlining oil regardless of who dies.

"It also led to an internal dispute about the participation of young radicals who have favored disruptive and sometimes violent civil disobedience in the past." As for disruptive and sometimes violent civil disobedience" the only violence I have seen in protests here in Portland is the police tear gassing peaceful demonstrators, police forcing themselves into the peaceful demonstrators with their cavalry, and SWAT teams with armored vehicles and automatic weapons shadowing the peaceful demonstrators.

Look assholes - and I mean all of us! Burning a flag and shitting on an effigy of a soldier is nothing to your complacency! What is more despicable doing that or letting our soldiers and families die for an illegal war so we can keep warm with our oil habit.

As for young radicals, Tom Hastings and most of us old farts are the one who are not going to get drafted into the povery draft. So if the young radicals act-up a bit, so what its not your ass that is going to Iraq.

All I can do is repeat the quote "An injury to one, is an injury to all."
So make this democracy work by listening to each other and work together to end this illegal war by puttin those who lied, unnecessarily put our troops in harms way, destroyed the US constitution, and looted the US treasury out of office and in jail for treason and war crimes.

Get it together, work together and get off your fat asses!

This article, and many others like it, are intentionally created to foster divisiveness. Not just between radicals and liberals and people who don't identify with either label. Not just between those who want to end the war and those (few left) who support it. But even subtle uses of language. Like, "young radicals." This is a subtle repetition of a tired and wholly incorrect stereotype about who is radical and who is not. Some of the most radical people in our movement are old women. And let's face it, there are some very liberal high school kids out there. It's a complete stereotype, not to mention ridiculous, to assume that the black-masked radicals among us are all young high schoolers, and to assert that the "more mature" (!) liberals who choose to get parade permits and scorn direct action are all older people. This is such nonsense.

I guess the fact that the cameras can't see their faces makes it easier to present the black bloc as a bunch of wild eyed teenagers. But, as most of us realize, there is more diversity under those masks than this story reveals.

As many have already said, be careful what you read in the corporate media. I've been in the PDX Peace coalition since it started a year ago, and here's some information you might all find interesting. Tom Hastings went to one planning meeting. Adele Kubein doesn't even live in Portland. Why these individuals felt like they had the authority to speak about the planning process for this march I have no idea. Both have angered the coalition and members within their groups by claiming to speak for something they know little about. While they're both entitled to their opinion and many in the coalition agree with certain points they made, they allowed the Oregonian writer to use them to try and create divisions within the Portland Antiwar movement. Please think twice next time you read or speak to the Oregonian. Come join the PDX Peace Coalition to strategize how we can better prevent things like this happening in the future and build a more thriving and militant antiwar movement in Portland.

Which way forward for the antiwar movement?
with special guest Anthony Arnove, author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal and co-editor, with Howard Zinn, of Voices of a People's History of the United States.

March 29th 6:00 PM
Multnomah Friends Meeting House
4312 SE Stark Street
Portland OR 97215