Should Occupiers be burning the US Flag?

[Barry]

This is the photo that the AP is running with their story about the protest. I think that is a most unfortunate image for the movement. This shouldn't be happening at our protests. If we are going to be successful, the movement needs to be broad based. This is sure to offend many who might otherwise be allies, and rightly so. If it were the corptocracy flag (with logos rather than stars) it might not be so bad, but even that is not appropriate.

We should be embracing the flag! This movement is about restoring american values and restoring american democracy and restoring american dignity. It is about loving and caring for the US, not hating it.

What do you think??

[Hotspring 44]

This is the photo that the AP is running with their story about the protest. I think that is a most unfortunate image for the movement.

Yes, I agree, but I think what should seriously be considered here is that the opponents of the “movement” would certainly take advantage of the mass media to project in such a way that “everybody” in the “movement” are would-be vandals and so willing to desecrate the American flag as a symbol as the people in the photograph “appear” to be doing... ... but...

...I honestly do not know and cannot tell for sure whether or not all the people that appear to be participating in the burning of the flag in the photo are all merely simplistic vandals, infiltrating “Goons”, or if there is more to what went on there than just that. There could very well be more to it than just (the) ‘that’.

Note the gold fringe on the outer perimeter of the flag that they are burning in the photo; some say that that golden brown colored, tasseled ”fringe” represents “Admiralty Law”, whereas, in part,:

“In federal courts in the United States, there is generally no right to a jury trial in admiralty cases. However, Congress has created some limited rights of jury trial in seamen's personal injury actions brought under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act) where a jury trial is otherwise permitted. In state courts, the right to trial by jury is determined by the law of the state where the case is brought. Consequently, admiralty cases brought in state courts can be tried before a jury.” more about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...w#Jurisdiction

And furthermore, for the purpose of reference:

Just as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure placed law and equity under the same jurisdiction in 1938, the 1966 rules subsumed admiralty. Nonetheless, the Supplemental Admiralty Rules take precedence over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event of conflict between the two. more about that: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Admiralty

Many people believe the following about the flag when it has the golden brown colored, tasseled”fringe”:

“Under Maritime Admiralty law the corporation of the United States, not the constitutional entity, is in control. For those of you unfamiliar with maritime law and its legal implications, here's a brief explanation: Ever wonder why some American flags, especially those in your courts of law, police stations, and even in the lobby of Walt Disney Corporation all have a gold fringe? It’s not to make the flag look more regal, but to make sure that those who are governed by the law of that institution are NOT governed by the United States of America Constitution, but by the bylaws of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION. The Corporation is a headless beast that strives to create profit. Profit to a laymen is money. Profit to those who control the world is control. The gold fringe on any American flag is the greatest level of desecration one could have. This goes for state flags as well. It says to the legal world that you are under the law of the Corporation and NOT the country.” Also: "The Gold Fringe You may have noticed that the national flag of the United States always has a gold fringe when displayed in court or federal buildings, and you see this also in federally-funded schools and on the uniforms of US troops. Under the International Law of the Flags, a gold fringe indicates the jurisdiction of commercial law, also known as British Maritime Law, and, in the U.S., as the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. The gold fringe is not part of the American flag known as the Stars and Stripes, but it is a legal symbol indicating that the court, government building, school or soldier is operating under British Maritime Law and the Uniform Commercial Code; military and merchant law. For example, if you appear in a court with a gold-fringed flag your constitutional rights are suspended, and you are being tried under British Maritime (military/merchant) Law. If it seems strange that a court or building on dry land could be administered under Maritime or Admiralty Law, look at US Code, Title 18 B 7. It says that Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable in the following locations: 1) the high seas 2) any American ship 3) any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state. In other words, mainland America." more about that: https://beforeitsnews.com/story/406/...time_Flag.html

This shouldn't be happening at our protests.

However, considering what I stated above, I do agree with you 100% about that. It's a terrible image and causes disconnectedness between people, which it is necessary to have a cohesive connectedness so as to be able to make the changes that so desperately need to be made.

Some of them there in that photograph of the flag burning may indeed be genuinely rebellious against the Admiralty law of which the fringe on that flag (theoretically) represents, but I think they did more harm to their cause if that is so by doing that like that in that circumstance; the way they look at that photo, at best, makes them look like nothing more than destructive vandals bent on flag burning for the sake of flag burning just for the thrill.
Does anybody know of any so-called stated reason that any of them had for doing that?... ... I wonder if the AP did any follow-up investigation?... ...Probably not.

If it were the corptocracy flag (with logos rather than stars)...

It seems to some that the one with the golden brown colored, tasseled ”fringe” sort of is the “corporate flag”.

...It might not be so bad, but even that is not appropriate.

I agree; “not so bad”, but at this point in time (and may be any other point time in the future too for that matter), definitely not appropriate then or now.

We should be embracing the flag!

I agree with one ever so slight caveat; the correct flag, yes, the one that represents “Admiralty Law”, I am not into that on land based Constitutional and Civil Rights Laws which have conflicts of jurisdictions and interests and also the laws themselves.
But burning the incorrect one (flag) at this point time is absolutely counterproductive and destructive to the cause to say the least.

If we are going to be successful, the movement needs to be broad based.

I agree.

["Mad" Miles]

Before jumping to any conclusions about the flag burner representing Occupy! Oakland (and Everywhere) as a whole, please, please read this first person account of events on Saturday. This is how they do us, by the way.

Keep in mind. Any MSM media account, and many alt ones, focus on the "sexy things", i.e. violence and foolish behavior from individual and minority elements. It's as old as dirt.

How to prevent such action, is a very long discussion. What I've learned, in 37 years of doing this stuff, is that unless you want to impose an absolute orthodoxy on y/our movement, with Peace Police coming out the wazoo (i.e. an Anti-Police Police State) this stuff will happen.

Keep your eye on the ball. Pay attention to the big picture. Cause for whatever reasons, official and covert, or individual adventurist, or many other various options, weird shit is going to go down when people get together and demand their rights and a better future for all.

Count on it. Don't let it detour you from doing the right thing. And know that what everyone defines as the "right thing" will not always match your version.

[Barry]

This is just what I feared...I have to partially agree with the bottom line of this editorial "Leaders in the national Occupy movement need to condemn what's happening in Oakland". I wouldn't say "what's happening in Oakland" but I do call for Oakland and the movement in general to disavow flag burning and re-affirm our commitment to non-violence.

"The establishment" will be looking for any way to de-legitimize the movement. We should avoid giving them such easy fodder.

Barry


PD Editorial: The Occupy movement in ashes
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall


The Occupy movement has officially overstayed its welcome. Any question about that was stomped out by the senseless rioting Saturday by Occupy Oakland activists who, by all appearances, have given up on being persuasive in favor of being destructive.

Police had to use tear gas and flash-bang grenades to disperse rock- and bottle-throwing protesters, some of whom had started tearing down the fences outside the vacant Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center. Later, activists broke into City Hall and vandalized the lobby. The confrontations resulted in 409 arrests and roughly $3 million in damage to a city that's already struggling to plug a $28 million hole in its budget.

But what triggered a national backlash against the Occupy movement were photos and video recordings of the protesters burning an American flag at Oakland City Hall as people in the crowd cried “Burn it. Burn it.” What was the point of that? Within hours, video of the riots had gone viral on social media websites. So had the criticisms.

Courts have validated flag burning as a form of free expression, and we see no reason to retreat from that finding. At the same time, not all speech that's protected is edifying. Some of it, such as stealing a flag from city hall and torching it, is worthy of condemnation,

This is a far cry from the nonviolent roots of a movement, which began on Wall Street as a means to raise awareness of the growing economic and social disparities in America.

After months of railing against Wall Street financiers for profiting off the “99 percent,” Occupy Oakland demonstrators have merely given the public one more quasi-public institution to distrust and oppose. The high cost of all these repairs and overtime for police will need to come from some place, and odds are it won't come from social programs that assist the 1 percent.

Leaders in the national Occupy movement need to condemn what's happening in Oakland or risk being exposed, as with Occupy Oakland, as more a part of the problem than the solution.

[Shepherd]

Dream On, Press Democrat
By Shepherd Bliss

Dream on, Press Democrat editors. Your “Occupy Movement in Ashes” editorial is wishful thinking. Our phoenix will rise during this month. You wait. You watch. You see.

Occupy is still an infant, having been born in New York Sept. 17 with Occupy Wall Street. It is not even five months old and already you seek to editorialize it into ashes. Rumors of our death are premature. We’ve made mistakes, including in Oakland. We’re learning and experiencing what one activist calls “growing pains.”

Provoked in Oakland by excessive police violence, a few cornered occupiers among the 2000 present reacted. That has not happened here. The Sonoma County Occupy Town Hall Affinity Group, of which I am a member, is opposed to violence, as is the overwhelming majority of Occupy groups. I support neither the provocative, unnecessary violence of the police nor the reaction of a few that were cornered by them.

I do, however, respect the right of self-defense. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Violence is the voice of the unheard." And as President John F. Kennedy said at a 1962 speech at the White House, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

What would you do when surrounded by a large group of armed, masked, threatening, charging, and rioting armored men? I praise the brave souls willing to face such police violence as they seek to help all of our lives.

As one occupier questioned, “What’s next? Live ammunition?” If the PD continues to report only one side of this evolving story, they will have that blood on their hands.

Punishing people in a democracy should be the job of the courts, not the police, which Oakland police are notorious for doing. They fan the flames.

Court-appointed monitors, according to The Bay Citizen (https://s.tt/15t9M), recently “wrote in their quarterly report that the police response to Occupy Oakland protests this fall raised ‘serious concerns’ about the department's ability to ‘hold true to the best practices in American policing,’ and promised a thorough investigation of the matter. Last week, a judge moved the police department closer to a federal takeover, writing that he was in ‘disbelief’ that the department had yet to finish a series of court-ordered reforms.”

Why did the PD not report these relevant facts? They carefully select what to report. Why did they leave out essential information? A newspaper's moral purpose should be to represent various voices of its community, rather than just the status quo. The PD's refusal to do that increases the likelihood of violence by those it marginalizes.

Occupy has “officially overstepped its welcome,” the PD alleges. Since when has the PD ever welcomed Occupy or officiated over such matters? The argument that what a few people did in one city reduces the national Occupy movement to ashes is without merit.

The Press Democrat asks occupiers to condemn the violence in Oakland. I condemn the police brutality and criticize the much less violent behavior of a few activists. I have done so within our movement and publicly, as have other Occupy co-leaders. Now, will the Press Democrat denounce the violence of the Oakland police, who apparently have been exercising unlawful authority? Or is there a double standard here?

Burning the American flag is an inflammatory and futile act of frustration that serves to dilute the main message of the majority of occupiers and our many supporters, which is to bring about fundamental changes in our economic and political systems. When I was commissioned an officer in the U.S. Army, I swore an oath to defend my country against external and internal threats. I have kept that oath, which is a big reason that I am part of the Occupy movement, as are many veterans.

Violence by occupiers is a tactical mistake. The guns, other weapons, and media are in the hands of the protectors of the wealthy 1%. Violence is also a strategic and moral error. Most of the Occupy movement adheres to the non-violent teaching of leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The violence of foreclosing on people’s homes and the criminal behavior of banks and corporations are far worse than that of a few frustrated occupiers.

Occupy does need to mature. Young people, especially, are desperate today. Their college debts are astronomical and their job options are minimal. Desperation can lead to violence. Long-term organizing is more likely to be successful.

“Ashes,” you fantasize. Yet on Feb. 9 the Sonoma County Town Hall will host its third of ongoing monthly gatherings in a downtown Sebastopol church; the previous two were attended by 130 to 140 people. On Feb. 17 the new Occupied Press—North Bay will show the film “Battle in Seattle,” about the l999 shut-down of the World Trade Organization. On Feb. 25 Occupy Santa Rosa will support teachers unions in a day of action in support of public education.

These are samples of the dozens of activities lead by Sonoma County Occupy groups as we prepare to move from a reflective winter into an action-heavy spring. Are these signs “ashes?” You wait. You watch. You see.

Perhaps your editorial represents what we can expect from the new conservative Florida owners of the Press Democrat. Perhaps we need a new newspaper here that reflects the 99%

(Shepherd Bliss has owned an organic farm in Sebastopol for 20 years, teaches college, and works with military veterans, of which he is one. He can be reached at [email protected].)

["Mad" Miles]

Video of OPD "kettling" attempt.

[Sara S]

At Firedoglake.com, we voted for the Occupy movements we liked best, and the winner will get a new tent; I voted for Occupy Sebastopol and Occupy Santa Rosa, among others.

[peacetree]

I was so disappointed to see the continued & increasing violence in Oakland and now even the burning of the flag. It is not that I think the flag is such an important thing to ME. It is that the alienation of the great bulk of possible supporters is inevitable. The average person who is really ticked off about the corporate corruption and terrible economic conditions is a potential supporter to all Occupys across the country. However they will not show up or support violence and vandalism. It is obvious that it is either angry folks acting out with a really fantastic opportunity for media coverage, or perhaps some splinter political group hoping to gain some attention.I just know that they are alienating their potential base, and that is sure a stupid strategy if you actually want more folks to join you. Unfortunately , some supposed purists, perhaps with their own political or personal agenda or even personality disorder would rather go down swinging than actually create positive change. There is also the random vandal element that loves the opportunity to act out , kind of like a tantrum,( and just as focused and mature) only more distructive , not just to property, but to potential, actual change. I'm sure there are folks who will take offence to what I say here, but honestly, I don't care. I have seen this over and over and over in the years I have been on this planet. The revolution is a very lonely place if you try to do it alone.

This is the photo that the AP is running with their story about the protest. I think that is a most unfortunate image for the movement. This shouldn't be happening at our protests. If we are going to be successful, the movement needs to be broad based. This is sure to offend many who might otherwise be allies, and rightly so. If it were the corptocracy flag (with logos rather than stars) it might not be so bad, but even that is not appropriate.



We should be embracing the flag! This movement is about restoring american values and restoring american democracy and restoring american dignity. It is about loving and caring for the US, not hating it.



What do you think??

[CSummer]

What I think: Flags and the nationalism they represent are a big part of the problem. They are used to justify aggression against foreign countries and to foment inter-nation prejudice.

Please say more about these "american values," "american democracy," and "american dignity" for which we should embrace the flag.

A quote that expresses my view is: "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."

Thanks for being open to alternative views.

CSummer

This is the photo that the AP is running with their story about the protest. I think that is a most unfortunate image for the movement. This shouldn't be happening at our protests. If we are going to be successful, the movement needs to be broad based. This is sure to offend many who might otherwise be allies, and rightly so. If it were the corptocracy flag (with logos rather than stars) it might not be so bad, but even that is not appropriate.

We should be embracing the flag! This movement is about restoring american values and restoring american democracy and restoring american dignity. It is about loving and caring for the US, not hating it.

What do you think??

[Barry]

Seen in Time Magazine:

"Trashing buildings and fighting with police is not what 99% of the 99-percenters are about"

Ellis Goldberg, a Northern California marketer who as stage Occupy-inspired protests, on Occupy Oakland demonstrators who broke into city hall, vandalized part of the building and burned a U.S. flag

To Clint's comments:

What I think: Flags and the nationalism they represent are a big part of the problem. They are used to justify aggression against foreign countries and to foment inter-nation prejudice.

Please say more about these "american values," "american democracy," and "american dignity" for which we should embrace the flag.

A quote that expresses my view is: "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."

Thanks for being open to alternative views.

CSummer

First, regarding flags and nationalism in general: On one hand, we're all human and we all share the same home, Earth, and on the other hand there are very real subgroupings of us, starting with family, and extended family, and going onto a circle of friends, communities, valleys, islands, watersheds, and continents.

There's also necessary political/administrative zones such as which side of the road to drive on, what's acceptable currency, how electricity works, etc.

Having a name and a visual identity (flag) for a nation-state seems just as normal as people having names and common symbols for a wide range concepts , and businesses having logos.

Sure there's been widespread abuse of nationalism, whether it's for the profit/greed, distacting people from failures of the state, or ego. But I think the notion of a nation-state is valid. Nor do I see an alternative.

Regarding our own nation-state, I think it represented a big step forward in the theory and practice of state-hood, including (rather imperfect) democracy, separation of church and state, bill of rights, etc.

However the imperfections in the original design and un anticipated later developments of the culture (such as corporations) have taken their toll, along with some bad/mistaken judgements that have accumulated to the point that our government no longer represents the people and thus takes many terrible autonomous actions that wide swaths of the citizenry disavows, despite the mass propaganda in support of it. I think the foundation of the Occupy movement is to call attention these problems and restore American democracy.

To my mind the key problem is that the technology of how to implement democracy via elections has gotten seriously off-track. Due to our growing population and corporate ownership of media, and lack of regulations (from the government that was elected via the flawed system and thus has an interest in it persisting) it takes a large amount of time/money to mount a campaign. This is then easily exploited by the powers that have lots of money, namely the rich and the corporations. They end up heavily influencing the elections and are thus overly represented by the government and everything goes downhill from there.

We now have a government, though still better than average, commits wide scale atrocities and misplaced priorities that are a source of shame, rather than pride.

To remedy this, you can either toss out the foundation of our government, starting with the constitution, or you can fix it. As far as I can see, those are the only two options.

If you think revolution is the answer, good luck. I don't think that's what the Occupy movement is about.

If you are going to fix it, it needs to come from a place of affirming the basics on the nation (ie democracy) while calling attention to the places we've lost our way and offering ways to correct the problem. I think this is true about fixing anything, but especially true when it's true when the path to correcting the problem inevitably leads through the ballot box (which leads through the ballot box counters ).

If a change is going to be made, it needs to come from a shift in perception by large portion on the population. What's more, that portion is mostly the political center of the country, the swing voters. Burning the flag and otherwise disgracing the nation as a whole, rather than its systemic errors that lead to objectionable actions and failures, is a really bad way to reach them.

The reason why the Occupy movement is profound, IMO, is that it is taking a much deeper and broader critical look at the problem and the source of the problem, thanks in part to the changes in the form of protests pioneered by the Tea Party and the Arab Spring, and the blatant over-reach of the Citizen's United decision and the extreme positions of the Republican Party.

While we've historically rallied around and universal human values of peace and fairness (civil rights) it apparently that has not been wholly successful. We now have another particularly american rallying point, restoring our democracy. While thoughtful people can have valid differences in policy on many matters (including tax policy, regulations, budget priorities, etc.), democracy is something we can all affirm.

The movement has changed the national conversation and is raising the political and democratic consciousness. If we can show a positive path forward, that affirms american values, especially democracy, we'll be successful in winning the few open-minded people left, correct the errors in judgement (corporations are not people, money is not speech) to restore democracy so that our government can represent and act in the name of the dignity of the american people.

[Sara S]

from the Press Democrat:

Friday's Letters to the Editor



A burning statement

EDITOR: I read with interest your story about the flag burning in Oakland (“Occupy protest rekindles debate over flag burning,” Tuesday).

During the Inquisition, when the Catholic Church burned a heretic, a boon for the condemned was a bundle of gunpowder to hang under the chin to provide a quick death. Let us acknowledge the mercy of Oakland Occupy protesters in giving our flag a quick, easy death. Let us acknowledge their act as one of honor and integrity. Let us view it for what it is: a love of country.


Let us understand that, for Oakland Occupy, that flag represented the authority of those who swore to uphold our nation’s Constitution and laws when they took office, the people we charged with running our country for the good of us all, the people who were supposed to have our backs. Burning it is a quick way of stating quite clearly: Those people are no longer worthy of the authority we gave them. They are no longer worthy of our trust. They, in effect, no longer represent us.

JEREMY SHARP

Bodega Bay

[Shandi]

Another perspective, with an uncommon wisdom.

from the Press Democrat:

Friday's Letters to the Editor



A burning statement

EDITOR: I read with interest your story about the flag burning in Oakland (“Occupy protest rekindles debate over flag burning,” Tuesday).

During the Inquisition, when the Catholic Church burned a heretic, a boon for the condemned was a bundle of gunpowder to hang under the chin to provide a quick death. Let us acknowledge the mercy of Oakland Occupy protesters in giving our flag a quick, easy death. Let us acknowledge their act as one of honor and integrity. Let us view it for what it is: a love of country.


Let us understand that, for Oakland Occupy, that flag represented the authority of those who swore to uphold our nation’s Constitution and laws when they took office, the people we charged with running our country for the good of us all, the people who were supposed to have our backs. Burning it is a quick way of stating quite clearly: Those people are no longer worthy of the authority we gave them. They are no longer worthy of our trust. They, in effect, no longer represent us.

JEREMY SHARP

Bodega Bay

[tommy]

It's clear that the capacity for ego centric behavior, myopia, and self - ishness exists on the left as well as the right. This explains the behavior of the Oakland Occupy people, in their last march, breaking into the City building, selfishly causing all the police resources to caretake them, behaving as little children, ignore crimes and problems elsewhere in Oakland, burning the flag, and further contributing to Oaklands financial problems.

["Mad" Miles]

I fail to see how commenters here can use language like, "the behavior of the Oakland Occupy people", if you have read the detailed account of the events of the day, and watched the video I provided.

Here's a question for all you, "lumpers", condemning OO! in toto.

How, in a leaderless movement, do you expect standards of decorum to be enforced?

I really am interested.

I have not read any account of the GA at OO! consensing on a policy regarding flag burning, or seizing the lobby of public buildings, or for any of the other acts which are so roundly condemned in the comments here.

So, if you understand how Occupy! (Everywhere) is organized, do you think your condemnations make any sense, when applied to specific occupations, or the movement as a whole?

And if you want Occupy! to be a homogeneous social/political event, what are your concrete proposals to bring that about? Because from the get-go and all along until now, I can assure you, there is no "central control" of Occupy! It's being made up, in pockets of resistance across the land, as we go. OWS! is the major node. But so is OO!, ODC!, OP! and numerous others Occupies! What part of that do you not understand?

The discussion of which structure is best for a broad-based political movement, is an old and knotty one. There are good reasons for decentralization, consensus process, General Assemblies, Working Groups and Spokes Councils, leaderless movements and a whole lot more.

This stuff didn't just appear spontaneously. It's a style of organizing and decision making (whatever you think of its efficacy and legitimacy) which evolved out of direct experience in efforts to make real, fundamental political change. In the face of centralized authority willing to use brutality to suppress dissent and revolt.

There's a history to it. Apparently little known to many, many people. And there are reasons why that history is not well known. (Hint: Histories of resistance movements tend to be left out of Public Education curriculum, MSM accounts [except when they're being demonized and marginalized] and popular media. Although there are rare exceptions. And given the competing interests within resistance movements there are many different accounts of what happened. Most of what I've been part of has not been well documented. And what documentation there is, is not widely consumed.)

Even attributing Occupy Wall Street! to David Graeber and AdBusters, ignores the previous history of Non-Violent Direct Action Consensus Process Horizontal Structure organizing. You have to go back to the mid-late Sixties for a start in the U.S. And Republican Spain for the modern origins. And Tribal societies with councils of Elders for the roots. Read up!

Treating Occupy! as a single organization, with a centralized organizing structure, with leaders who call the shots and enforce conduct and message, shows a lack of understanding of what it is.

It's a lot of things. It varies from place to place. To grossly oversimplify and summarize, it is a decentralized, horizontally organized, grass roots protest movement in which every participating individual is a "leader". And a lot more. It is unwieldy, wild and heterogeneous.

The actions of one occupier, or one small group, is/are not the action/s of all Occupy! That may be hard to wrap your head around. But it's closer to the truth than the idea that "those Occupiers" did A, B, C, and it's Bad, Good, Stupid, Courageous, Dangerous, Well Conceived or Ill Conceived.

Will there be a shake out process where some kind of authority will be consensed to by most in the movement? No doubt. That's the pattern for these things.

Will minority interests scream that the movement has been hijacked by Authoritarians who betray the spirit of Occupy! ? I guarantee it.

Will Occupy! achieve a broad consensus about tactics, strategy and organizational structure? I hope so, I know people will give it an honest go. It remains to be seen what will actually happen.

And that's part of the joy, pain and excitement of building a new movement for social change, in the face of unprecedented crises and nearly insurmountable odds.

Same as it ever was. Where've ya all been?

[NathanSW]

I agree with Barry. Regardless of the organizational structure of the various Occupy camps - or lack thereof - each person involved is responsible for his or her own actions, and the question is whether burning the flag is a good idea or not.

I believe it is not. Yes, it is a form of speech, and I would defend our rights as American citizens to burn the flag just as strongly as our right to protest our government and to assemble peacefully. But one thing I've learned over years of debating with those who do not agree with me is that if you want to change a person's heart or mind, you have to make your point without attacking them or their sensibilities. Otherwise the conversation immediately turns away from the issue at hand and becomes a battle of egos. The message gets lost, retaliation is seen as appropriate, and now you're fighting about things that really don't matter. This is why the nonviolent camp of the Civil Rights movement was arguably far more effective in converting White America to its cause than those who embraced violence as an acceptable vehicle for social change.

Burning an American flag - rightly or wrongly, no matter what your intentions - is seen by many as an assault on their proud identity as an American citizen and instantly brands you as anti-American, even by those who might otherwise be sympathetic to your cause. It's a distraction from the real message about corporate greed, and serves only to harden the battle lines when we should be softening them, because we're never going to overcome corporate hegemony unless we - the 99%, which includes proud conservatives, right? - unite as one voice and turn this ship around. Burning a flag creates insurmountable division, which only plays into the hands of the 1%, who can only succeed when we fail to unite.

[CSummer]

Barry wrote:


"We now have a government, though still better than average, commits wide scale atrocities and misplaced priorities that are a source of shame, rather than pride."


Exactly my view! Combine this with a sense of powerlessness on the part of the citizens, is it at all surprising that some would express their outrage with such actions as flag burning (futile though it may be)?


"Sure there's been widespread abuse of nationalism, whether it's for the profit/greed, distacting people from failures of the state, or ego. But I think the notion of a nation-state is valid. Nor do I see an alternative."


Once a nation-state becomes so large that the people cannot really know and talk with their representatives, the people are no longer represented. The legislators work in a community of fellow legislators and lobbyists, rather than with close connections to their constituents. I believe there is an alternative, and one day it may exist. I imagine something that might be called the North American League of Communities and Villages.

"To remedy this, you can either toss out the foundation of our government, starting with the constitution, or you can fix it. As far as I can see, those are the only two options."


The other option I see is to begin creating alternative social, political and economic entities that are cooperative in nature. These would be founded on principles of sharing resources, responsibility and power,
protecting human rights and facilitating the meeting of human needs. At first, this would be done on a small scale in the form of local intentional (though not necessarily live-together) communities. Many such communities could be formed in many areas within a short period of time. The Transition Towns movement is perhaps a first halting step in that direction.


"If a change is going to be made, it needs to come from a shift in perception by large portion on the population."


I believe it can begin whenever and wherever people are ready to come together and explore how we can support each other in meeting our needs in ways that do not support unjust, violent and nonsustainable institutions. Ideally, this would include opting out as much as possible from the dominant monetary system over which we have no control (but the 1% does). My sense is that such communities could meet all basic human needs without the need of any currency within the community.


CSummer

Seen in Time Magazine:

"Trashing buildings and fighting with police is not what 99% of the 99-percenters are about"

Ellis Goldberg, a Northern California marketer who as stage Occupy-inspired protests, on Occupy Oakland demonstrators who broke into city hall, vandalized part of the building and burned a U.S. flag

To Clint's comments:


First, regarding flags and nationalism in general: On one hand, we're all human and we all share the same home, Earth, and on the other hand there are very real subgroupings of us, starting with family, and extended family, and going onto a circle of friends, communities, valleys, islands, watersheds, and continents.

- . . . .-

The movement has changed the national conversation and is raising the political and democratic consciousness. If we can show a positive path forward, that affirms american values, especially democracy, we'll be successful in winning the few open-minded people left, correct the errors in judgement (corporations are not people, money is not speech) to restore democracy so that our government can represent and act in the name of the dignity of the american people.

[Hotspring 44]

...Once a nation-state becomes so large that the people cannot really know and talk with their representatives, the people are no longer represented. The legislators work in a community of fellow legislators and lobbyists, rather than with close connections to their constituents.

Who, unfortunately have an unprecedented extremely powerful military backing them up when; push comes to shove.

.

..I believe there is an alternative, and one day it may exist...

May be after the complete collapse of the planetary monetary system and the world wide disavowing of it or anything like it in it’s present form, and complete dismemberment of all the emphasis on militarisms as a means of control; only then, that would be (hopefully) the “next step in human evolution. May be if human kind survives the nuclear age of militarism anyway.... ...as in possibly:

Barry wrote: "To remedy this, you can either toss out the foundation of our government, starting with the constitution, or you can fix it. As far as I can see, those are the only two options."

“Fixing” it if it is going to happen and be successful will have to involve what Barry said:

"If a change is going to be made, it needs to come from a shift in perception by large portion on the population."

...I believe it can begin whenever and wherever people are ready to come together and explore how we can support each other in meeting our needs in ways that do not support unjust, violent and nonsustainable institutions. Ideally, this would include opting out as much as possible from the dominant monetary system over which we have no control (but the 1% does). My sense is that such communities could meet all basic human needs without the need of any currency within the community.

CSummer

Unless there is a philanthropist willing to "donate" (supply) the land, housing, fuel, tools, etc. for that "experiment”; dream on! Even if so; there would still be an existence based on the “monetary system" and therefore a dependency on it and the 1% would still essentially have jurisdiction and if they wanted to, they could “send in the troops”..
For one thing who would pay the property taxes for the Real Estate? The only places on the continental United States that I am aware of that are "tax exempt" are "Indian" Reservations and maybe a few of the "accepted" religious institutions.

So as far as I can tell, Re: ...

”I believe it can begin whenever and wherever people are ready to come together and explore how we can support each other in meeting our needs in ways that do not support unjust, violent and nonsustainable institutions.”

The way I view it is; that has already begun and the Occupy “movement” is one of many previous and ones to follow examples of that possibility.

[tommy]

Miles, I certainly understand that there is no leader of OO. Unfortunately however, actions of some individuals, such as burning the flag, and breaking into the building, compromise the possibility of a broad social movement, that you refer to. A broad social movement requires the support of a majority of people. When individuals do stuff like this, they're "cutting their nose, to spite their face." This is about tactics, and strategy.

My post was meant to show, that contrary to the self-superiority that many on the left have, their motivations can be as egosyntonic as those most egregious Wall Streeteres on the right.

My opinion was formed after reading this article from last Sunday's Bay Citizen/NYTimes



Occupy Protesters Stretch the Police, Leaving Parts of Oakland Underserved

By SHOSHANA WALTER and AARON GLANTZ

Published: February 4, 2012

On the afternoon of Jan. 28, as the police grappled with Occupy Oakland protesters, dispatchers received a flurry of 911 calls from people at the Port of Oakland who reported something strange swaying in the wind. Was it a leftover Halloween prop? An Occupy ploy?

A nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization providing local coverage of the San Francisco Bay Area for The New York Times. To join the conversation about this article, go tobaycitizen.org.


When the police finally arrived, they discovered it was the body of a San Leandro murder suspect, a man who the authorities said had stabbed to death the 15-year-old mother of his child, then fled and hid for a night before he hanged himself at the Port.
With the Oakland police and neighboring agencies busy arresting about 400 protesters, it would be 12 hours before the man’s body would be cut down, according to police investigators.
The calls about the swaying body were among the 1,700 the police received over the course of 24 hours on the weekend of Jan. 28 while dealing with the largest showdown to date with Occupy Oakland protesters. The movement has, since its inception, provided a lens less into the hypocrisy of the 1 percent than into the deep dysfunction of the beleaguered and depleted Oakland Police Department.
While police were trying to control the Occupy movement over that weekend, police responded to at least five murders and more than 450 calls were made to 911.
As the department faces the impending possibility of a federal takeover — the result of several missed deadlines in a nine-year court-ordered reform effort — showdowns with protesters have consumed the diminished force, leaving crime scenes and emergency calls unattended, protesters and agitators emboldened and a federal judge increasingly exasperated.
“Between the court and Occupy and the chain of command and with the crime — having four, actually five homicides — you take any one of those events and give it to a city of equal size and they would be running frazzled,” said Sgt. Chris Bolton, the Oakland Police Department’s chief of staff. “For us, that’s just day to day.”
In interviews, city leaders said Occupy protests gave the police department little choice but to leave the rest of the city unprotected.
“It’s terrible,” said Ignacio De La Fuente, a city councilman who joined Mayor Jean Quan and top police officials at a downtown command center on the night of Jan. 28. But “when you have hundreds if not thousands of people, and you never know if they are going to break windows or vandalize businesses, you have to respond.” Protesters broke into City Hall that night, smashing display cases, painting graffiti and burning an American flag.
Mr. De La Fuente said the Occupy protesters had also pushed Oakland to the financial brink, costing the city millions of dollars in overtime pay for police officers even as officials tried to cope with the loss of $28 million in state redevelopment money.
The violent clashes have also placed Oakland under nationwide scrutiny, renewed concerns about excessive force and solidified the city’s soiled reputation as a place where protesters and criminals, and even sometimes the police, run amok.
Since the department’s eviction of Occupy Oakland from Frank H. Ogawa Plaza on Oct. 25, it has received hundreds of complaints about police misconduct, including accusations of excessive force and concealed name badges.
The department is still investigating the case of Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran whose skull was fractured on Oct. 25 after he was hit by a projectile allegedly fired by the police at the Occupy encampment. Some other accusations of misconduct have prompted lawsuits.
“A lot of these things would be obviated if they followed their own policies,” said Bobbie Stein, a lawyer affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild who helped draft Oakland’s crowd control policy in 2005. The guidelines were developed under federal court supervision after the police fired wooden bullets and shot-filled beanbags at antiwar demonstrators at the Port of Oakland in 2003.
On Jan. 28, Ms. Stein said, the police repeatedly gave dispersal orders before they had evidence that demonstrators had acted aggressively. She said they fired tear gas canisters unnecessarily, and “corralled people into places where they had no means to escape.”
The department is hurrying to complete a series of changes ordered by a federal judge nearly nine years ago after the Riders case, in which a group of officers were accused of planting evidence, using excessive force and falsifying police reports. Last month, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court in San Francisco, expressed concern about the department’s slow progress.
Judge Henderson ordered the police chief, Howard Jordan, to begin consulting court-appointed monitors before making major changes to policies or tactics. The next step, the judge warned, would be federal receivership.
On Jan. 28, the police fired tear gas at protesters who were tearing down the fences around the city’s unused Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center, a building the Occupy organizers planned to use as a headquarters.
When protesters charged at a skirmish line, pelting officers with bottles, rocks, spray cans and improvised explosive devices, officers fired smoke, tear gas and beanbag projectiles, the department said. The city said that three police officers and one demonstrator were injured and that two television news vans were vandalized.
As the police continued to issue dispersal orders, some 300 protesters began running toward and into the YMCA. With assistance from neighboring law enforcement agencies still en route, and with fewer than 200 officers, Oakland police surrounded protesters.
The officers were still at the YMCA when a smaller group of protesters pried open the doors of City Hall. No officers were on the scene, according to officers who were at the YMCA.
At about 10:30 p.m., as hundreds of police officers continued to handcuff protesters and shuttle them to jail, an agitated police lieutenant announced over the radio that he had four officers working all of East Oakland, the section of the city with the most homicides a year, according to officers at the YMCA.
Of the five homicides, there has been only one arrest — of a teenager who confessed to killing his parents. Homicide investigators who were called to the scenes of the crimes were largely unable to track down witnesses and collect evidence. Officers who would usually assist investigators were arresting protesters.
The protest has produced hundreds of pages of officer reports detailing the department’s use of force, a requirement of the court-ordered changes. More people are in the unit responsible for reviewing the reports, and the hundreds of hours of video footage from officers’ lapel cameras, than there are officers to investigate homicides.
According to booking records, more than half of the 360 people jailed in the Jan. 28 protests were not from Oakland.
So far, the District Attorney’s office has charged 12 people, eight with misdemeanors and four with felonies. All four of the people charged with felonies are from out of town.
Mayor Quan said in a statement: “The Bay Area Occupy Movement has got to stop using Oakland as their playground.”

[Hotspring 44]

Miles, I certainly understand that there is no leader of OO. Unfortunately however, actions of some individuals, such as burning the flag, and breaking into the building, compromise the possibility of a broad social movement, that you refer to...

Yes it does. But does anyone know who the people that burned the flag are? Has the press been able (or willing) to follow-up on those individuals? Have the Oakland police made any arrests of any of the ones who allegedly “broke-in” to the public building and destroyed public property; IE: the flag?

A broad social movement requires the support of a majority of people. When individuals do stuff like this, they're "cutting their nose, to spite their face." This is about tactics, and strategy.

Re: "cutting their nose, to spite their face." Depends on who the “vandals” are and the actual reason/s they did what they did.
It is entirely possible that those vandals or one of those individuals that may have prompted the vandalism were/was (a) stooge\s that were in some way “allowed” to do the vandalisms without being arrested at the scene. You should know about “counterintelligence ops” and the basics of how they work. (which, BTW, is what you seem to be suggesting OO is "responsible" for; police being “diverted” away from their other responsibilities)... ...(BTW, that is an age-old "tactic" of “counterintelligence ops” 'strategy' that authoritarian governments and police routinly utilitize world wide)...
...I predict that at least one of the “vandals” will eventually be arrested on the charge of the so-called “break-in” and vandalism and will be a known “troublemaker”... ...Then "the suspect" will say something that would make OO appear to be somewhat responsible in’ lieu of a stiffer sentence.
Also, the information of the “counterintelligence ops” will be held (concealed) as a "classified" "Top Secret" as a "state secret" in the coffers of the vast intelligence records, in the Library of Congress that may some day in the very distant future be revealed to the public.

My post was meant to show, that contrary to the self-superiority that many on the left have, their motivations can be as egosyntonic as those most egregious Wall Streeteres on the right.

Egosyntonic? The following is what I wrote before looking-up the definition of “Egosyntonic:

If you meant egocentric, I would understand better what I think you are trying to convey. The question I have is; what are the actual things that the vast majority of people at OO were actually there for in the first place, and not weather there was any ego-tripping or how many “self superiority”... ...”on the left”... that were there. Anyway, 'Ego' is a necessary part of individuality.

"Self-superiority that many on the left have"

?
With that statement, I think you have demonstrated that you overlooked the primary point of the Occupy movement in it's most general of terms, yet you seem to me to have liberally generalized the whole Occupy movement so categorically, (generally speaking).

Now that I looked-up the definition of "Egosyntonic", I wonder if you are at least a (licensed) psychologist or psychiatrist because by saying that you have essentially preformed a psychoanalysis on a vast swath of people without even having individual sessions with the (vast) majority of them (may be not even any of them). So I think you are in the realm of either; malpractice (which I doubt), hyperbole (which is more likely), or (possibly) you (also) have a peculiar dislike of certain things that you (correctly or not) perceive as how “many people on the left” think and behave; which is what I really get from your posts on this thread.

[Braggi]

The whole anarchist / Black Block is put in place by the police (or possibly the feds) to split the loyalties and cause infighting among the Occupy movement just like you're seeing on this thread. Come on! They NEVER get arrested or prosecuted yet they've shown up at every major protest since the 1999 Seattle protests. Has anybody pondered that true anarchists would NEVER wear uniforms? ... that true anarchists couldn't afford to buy new black clothes? ... that true anarchists wouldn't give a damn whether they were identified (they wouldn't wear covers over their faces)? And they certainly wouldn't gather as an organized group and march together like an army troop. What nonsense. These aren't anarchists. These are people trained by the cops. When the G20 protests in Toronto turned violent two years ago it was the same "Black Block" responsible and once again, though they were seen in pictures and videos being placed in police vans none were prosecuted. Why? Oh, and one quick photographer took shots of some of them supposedly getting dragged away by cops and noticed the cops and the Black Block wore exactly the same style of shoes. Interesting. Eh?

Back in the 1930s these types were called something like The New Shoes Boys. I wish I could remember exactly because I've been unable to search out any articles on this. Since all the protesters wore worn out shoes if they had any at all it was pretty easy to ID the police provocateurs because they were the ones in the new shoes.

Jus' sayin'.

-Jeff

[Hotspring 44]

The whole anarchist / Black Block is put in place by the police (or possibly the feds) to split the loyalties and cause infighting among the Occupy movement just like you're seeing on this thread. Come on! They NEVER get arrested or prosecuted yet they've shown up at every major protest since the 1999 Seattle protests.

I wouldn’t say “They NEVER get arrested” because part of the COINTELPRO like operations have been known to use tactics that likely would involve troublemaker/s who are looking to cut a deal with the “authorities” to get what they believe to be advantageous to them personally but, of course some have been assassinated while others are infiltrators, and others just get caught in the fray and are used as a stooge or a scapegoat to discredit the “movement” that the "authorities" object to, what ever it may be.

These are people trained by the cops.

I agree with the gist of what you are saying and, I might add; it would be difficult to prove otherwise.

When the G20 protests in Toronto turned violent two years ago it was the same "Black Block" responsible and once again, though they were seen in pictures and videos being placed in police vans none were prosecuted. Why? Oh, and one quick photographer took shots of some of them supposedly getting dragged away by cops and noticed the cops and the Black Block wore exactly the same style of shoes. Interesting. Eh?

Yes!... ...The shiny black Oxfords!... ...LOL!!!...

Back in the 1930s these types were called something like The New Shoes Boys.... ... Jus' sayin' -Jeff.

In the late 1960’s and all through the 1970’s they were called the “Narcs”, "FBI", “Cops”, The "Goon Squad" etc.... ... Jus' sayin'.

["Mad" Miles]

Braggi,

It saddens me to see you forwarding the urban myth that is so popular about the Black Bloc/k. From what I know as a participant in demonstration culture for thirty-seven years, who observed the rise of the BB in the late eighties, and have known "members", it's just not true.

They're not all police agents, they're not all dupes, they're a mixed bag of usually young people coming out of the Anarcho Punk, Squatter, Crunchy scene. There is no central BB "authority" and the idea that they're all "agents" is ridiculous to those who participate and those like me who have known some who participate.

Do real agent provocateurs take advantage of the BB to infiltrate and push for the most illegal, destructive and extreme (especially in the eyes of the general public) actions?

No doubt in my mind. That has been documented. (This discussion is similar to the one I had with Starman about his claim that the Green Party was "destroyed" post 2000 by "agents". Also, anyone not familiar with the RNC8 and this documentary, needs to review that history, as it is directly related to this topic.)

But the truth is far more complex than the, "they're all police agents and that's why they're tolerated by the riot cops." line.

In Genoa Neo-Fascists participated in the G8 protests in '01 and did much of the most violent trashing and provoking of riot squads. Starhawk documented this at the time. But that has not been the case in North America in the last twenty-five years.

This is one of the issues I follow far more closely than most others do. There's a response to Chris Hedges hyperbolic and patronizing screed from yesterday, by those who have organized and participated in the events in Oakland. Here are the relevant links. (See Below.)

Please, before you spread a received truth based on biased MSM media accounts and demonizing from the Liberal Left passive Civil Disobedience demonstration culture crowd, check your sources.

For the record, given this conversation. I do not personally support burning flags, trashing private businesses or damaging property willy nilly in the course of carrying out symbolic demonstrations or Non-Violent Direct Actions. But, as someone steeped in these debates for the last three and a half decades, and who read the competing accounts from previous decades, it really does chap my grits when people oversimplify, repeat rumor as fact, and demonize the "other" without giving them a hearing. It's all too familiar.

And it has absolutely no effect on those who carry out such actions. In fact, the demonizing and patronizing just confirms their bias and encourages them to carry on.

I knew Dread Scott in Chicago in 1988-89 by the way. We weren't close friends, he and I did not agree about political ideology (except for some broad strokes) but I know why he did what he did, from his own mouth.

I also superficially knew John Rossen, who campaigned to bring the U.S. flag back into an honored place in Left events. Sort of two sides of the same coin.

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item...cupy_20120206/

https://starhawksblog.org/?p=675

Be sure to read these two following pieces as well. They're from the "Action Faction" side of this debate.

https://cuntrastamu.com/2012/02/06/a...e-in-assembly/

https://cuntrastamu.com/2012/02/07/t...on-black-bloq/

[Hotspring 44]

Re:

"These are people trained by the cops".

Re my response to it:

"I agree with the gist of what you are saying and, I might add; it would be difficult to prove otherwise."

I should have said: I understand the gist of what you are saying and, I might add; without actual concrete evidence it would be difficult to prove that one way or the other.

Also, thanks “Mad Miles” for a clearer and more concise perspective.

["Mad" Miles]

"Concise"?

[Hotspring 44]

"Concise"?

Now that you mentioned in that way I had to look it up.
After seeing the definition in the free dictionary.com I can certainly see why the .

Again, after looking “concise” up in the merriam-webster.com I had more choices of substitute words to consider using if I were to replace the word “concise”; IE:

Synonyms: aphoristic, apothegmatic, brief, capsule, compact, compendious, crisp, curt, elliptical (or elliptic), epigrammatic, laconic, monosyllabic, pithy, sententious, succinct, summary, telegraphic, terse, thumbnail

The word “compendious” seems to be a closer fit to what I was thinking.

But compared to some of what you, I and some others that write long-winded posts on the BB; that may be about as close as it will get to being “concise” none the less.

[Braggi]

No Miles, what I'm saying isn't all hogwash and BS. I've been following the antics of this crowd since the '99 Seattle protest. I was watching a text feed live when the Black Block came out the back of a police van and proceeded to start breaking windows. You can view the videos which I imagine are still on Youtube. No, nobody caught them leaving the van on video and that's too bad. I was reading an eye witness live account though as it happened. Then the window smashing began and protesters led a cop over to the scene and asked him to arrest the guy who threw the objects that broke the windows (that's on video). The cop looked away and eventually walked away even though protesters surrounded the window breakers and offered to hold them for the cops. They were shouting "Arrest them! Arrest them!" But the cops just left.

So tell me all about it Miles. The cops had nothing to do with it? Bull.

I saw the pics from Toronto with the black block people with cop shoes on.
"By their shoes ye will know them."

Wake up buddy.

-Jeff

PS. No, I don't really think they're all cops. And no, I don't think I could ever prove it, but you should be wondering why it's always them doing the only violent acts, why they always dress the same (anarchists?) and why they show up at every protest everywhere in the world in recent years.

[Hotspring 44]

PS. No, I don't really think they're all cops. And no, I don't think I could ever prove it, but you should be wondering why it's always them doing the only violent acts, why they always dress the same (anarchists?)...

If you mean the uniformed cops (?); there may be something to that.

...and why they show up at every protest everywhere in the world in recent years.

They?... ...Who are the (vague) "they" you are talking about?... ...The two masked men pictured in the forefront of the flag burning pictured in post #1 on this thread or the uniformed cops (not in the aforemenioned photo) that were so bussey elsewhere rounding-up 300+ peacefull protesters who also happened to be vacant from the scene where the Oakland flag burning incident occurred?

BTW, the photo that was in the #1 post of this thread doesn't have anyone wearing the same thing as far as jackets and shirts are concerned. I can not be sure about shoes because there was no view of shoes in the photo.

["Mad" Miles]

Braggi,

My reply to you and others, was to the claim that the Black Block is a police controlled, organized and created phenomenon. It isn't.

Even if the Forces Of Order exploit them, as well as anything else useful, for maintaining the status quo. You say you didn't say that "all" BB'ers were cops. I suggest you, and others reading this, revisit your post. And read my response, carefully, again.

I didn't say that the cops had nothing to do with the BB. In fact I indicated the ways in which I think they do. Grey Area. Like all politics.

As for "eyewitness" accounts. As in all such matters, may I suggest that, the weighing of multiple accounts, from competing and heterogeneous sources, is the only way to begin to figure out where the "truth" lies?

Don't you think that if the interest of the "Power Elite", as Chris Hedges likes to put it (and one area, of many, in which I agree with him) is in demonizing the most active and militant protesters, there might be considerable "evidence" to support the claim that those who push the envelope are in league with The Forces Of Order and their employers?

That the big, bad, "police infiltrated and controlled", BB narrative might be in their interest?

Who benefits? Who suffers?

This stuff really is complex. In the thirty-seven years (I know, I keep beating that dying horse, but it matters to me. Been here, done this!) I've been into this stuff, I haven't reached any absolute and firm conclusions.

That's why, even when people I greatly respect, make sweeping dismissive claims, I tend to weigh in with what I do know.

The Black Bloc/q/k, whoever they are, cannot and should not be reduced to a function of the police state. To what extent they are, and to what extent they are a response, and to what extent they are something in between, and to what extent they are something completely different, is a very interesting question.

Something that some of them are up front about telling us all about. You read the second two links in my last post here, right?

Cause if you haven't, I suggest you listen to them, as well as to their much more vociferous and well placed critics.

Again, read what I wrote, I compose very carefully. Your reply does not seem to indicate the full range of what I said.

Love ya Bro!

[podfish]

"Concise"?

everything's relative...

[Hotspring 44]

Braggi,

My reply to you and others, was to the claim that the Black Block is a police controlled, organized and created phenomenon. It isn't.

RE: “black bloc”: Letters and Politics on KPFA. https://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77663