Of “liberal sheep” and others who see “pacification of the victim” as “non-violent resistance”

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” …I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…. I would rather … resort to arms in order to defend … honour than…, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to [our] own dishonor. – Mahatma Gandhi

As usual I’m catching some shit for affirming tactics that are considered violent by some – see side bar videos. All this from some of my “liberal friends” who think standing in line for a camping permit so they can “occupy the park” is the revolution. I really struggle with those who have turned “non-violent resistance” into an infallible religious tenet that now stands as the “eighth deadly sin”. They confuse legitimate anger and subsequent action with Wrath. Recently some have had the audacity to “parrot”, “too bad about Bahrain, the movement has gone violent, no one will listen to them now”. Even the US State Department has uttered such nonsense. Seriously??? – …like anyone in the US was listening to begin with, aside from NGOs who are required to hold such lines in order to maintain funding sources… It would seem many find “violence” as a convenient excuse to abandon moral responsibility for the actions of their own government(USA) and a mechanism to reinforce their own “self righteousness”. Anyway, for those of you who might be struggling with such things, I found the article below to be edifying and affirming… – Phlipn

Against Chris Hedges and Some Others
anon – 24 July, 2012 – Anarchist News dot org

– There is a special hatred reserved for the journalists of moral authority. It appears to be difficult for them to conceive that a revolt may be a revolt against them. Their signs of race, class and establishment undermine their writing and the more they harp on the imperfections of those who riot, the more they make themselves the enemy of the different.

– This is nowhere clearer than in the demand that revolt articulate itself eloquently. The value of the journalist’s critique is lost in a social system of dominance in which the journalist is uncritical of his own situation, and dominates. Thus does the academician fall into step with the fat policeman and the great body of so-called intellectual work conforms to that of the night-stick.
[I’ll do the first two for you: Argument from final Consequences, Confusing association with causation]

There are at least two ways in which Black Bloc anarchists are not cancers: one, in a theory of difference (Deleuze) in which the repetitions of the Black Bloc exhibit a difference which is not compossable with the established left – with consciousness raising; the other, in a theory of symbolic retribution (Baudrillard) in which the Black Bloc assumes its position as a violent and evil yang to the beautiful souls’ – to the Business/ Rulers and their journalists’ – white yin.

In a first scenario, the Black Bloc is criticized for having gone too far: they’re undoing the possibilities and great advances (sic) of the official, professional, pacifist and business left; they aggress rather than accept their historical place of punishment and self-sacrifice; they act upon material conditions rather than mouthing the (rather lame) official platform; they’re dangerous to the children in strollers who’ve been brought to witness and legitimize Daddy’s and Mommy’s discontent.

With Deleuze, we can respond that the Black Bloc is a ‘different’ which is comprehended in its repetitions: it is an anarchic, nomadic minority which does not benefit by integrating; which speaks a language of its own in contrast to the King’s English; and which, as a minority exerts its own selectivity in relation to its affections and its repulsions. There’s as little room for this type of difference as there is, say, in a classroom: if you can’t conform, if you can’t speak properly, you’re a failure. This is in fact the central reason why racial, cultural and class Others find little space in majoritarian protests – the dominant hasn’t been undone.

In a second scenario, the Black Bloc is criticized for not having gone far enough: they haven’t really harmed capital, only bumped up its defense mechanisms; they haven’t achieved a real and lasting change to the system which can only happen in attacks on the brain-centers and at connecting nodes in the system; they lack the proper tools, can only destroy and never build the new society which must replace the present one.

With Baudrillard, it is possible to state that the Black Bloc is simply the projection of the established left’s violent and evil twin. In his explanation of symbolic duality, every light has its shadow, every white its black, every yin its yang. When an entity can’t admit to and accept its own violent and evil tendencies it projects them onto a cultural other who becomes the black sheep – the Black Bloc. In this way, the Black Bloc carries all the violent fantasies and the dark eros to which the beautiful soul can’t admit.

There remains then, at least in logic, two tasks for the Black Bloc: to detach itself from the official, professional and established left, refusing to be its shadow; and as an anarchic, and nomadic minority, to increase its strength in the selection of its affections and repulsions. One would think that since it does not benefit from integration into the majoritarian, dominant reality that it should increase its invisibility to that system and pursue its own desires underneath the establishment’s radar. Along with the Black Bloc’s production of a surface for action, one hopes there will be a surface of recording by which others might share in their joy. The only question is whether one has been careful enough.

Long, Live Anarchy!
…source