Some of the most celebrated social justice victories of the 20th century are attributed to the great pacifists of our time, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. This constitutes a historical whitewash, as these “victories” were achieved when the state weighed its options and chose the lesser of two evils: the pacifists. In this segment Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, Aric Mcbay, Harjap Grewal, Gord Hill and Peter Gelderloos deconstruct the Gandhi myth and show us why militant action plays an important role in movements of resistance.
Archive for pacifism
By Alex Hundert, Infoshop News
Judy Rebick, from her office in downtown Toronto, complained that “when a spontaneous anger against the Black Bloc emerged on social media, people berated us for ‘dividing the movement.'” She says that, in fact, “it is the Black Bloc that is dividing the movement.” She is wrong.
I have been involved in a wide array of coalitions on various issues over the past half decade, and never have I witnessed cross-movement solidarity like I have in the anti-Olympics campaign. In southern Ontario, as in Vancouver, radical groups from a variety of locations in the broader movement have come together to start to develop a shared anti-colonial analysis. This solidarity and unity, on the anti-colonial front, is deeper and stronger now than it has been at any point in the last 10 years.
From Liberty Unchained, Friday, February 26, 2010
Bart Black (aka “HackMKUltra”) and Nathan Coe (aka “ShiftShapers”) answer questions from the GNN community
Number5Toad: You’ve said in the past that things like cars and businesses are “inherently violent” because of the destruction to ecosystems and loss of natural life that are required to create them. By these standards, isn’t all of organic life then inherently violent?
Nathan: This is, if anything, a baited and loaded question, but it itself begs another very important question: at what point do human creations cross the line from “natural” and “organic” to “unnatural” and “inorganic”? This, as I see it, is a matter of semantic interpretation and definition regarding these dichotomous terms. It is certainly possible to pursue a line of logic that leads to the conclusion that nothing that humanity could do or create is “unnatural.” Again, this is a matter of semantics, but I would argue that the real issue is systemic environmental destruction and exploitation, not to mention the human costs, not whether or not we chose to label it as “unnatural” or not. Words are, after all, simply auditory symbols used to communicate ideas. They are mutable and subjective. The real issue is that the system we have created exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet, and is thus fundamentally and terminally unsustainable. Animals exceed the carrying capacity of their land base “naturally” all the time, but it is still not a state of existence you want to be in, particularly if you are a self-aware and self-reflective being who is also aware of your environment and the potential future consequences of your actions in the present. The result of any living being exceeding the carrying capacity of its land base is always a crash and return to sustainable levels of population. All biotic beings are subject to the limited parameters of the natural world, including human beings.
Crazy Horse and Mahatma Gandhi
A dialogue between Bart Black (aka “HackMKUltra”) and Nathan Coe (aka “ShiftShapers”) on the theory & praxis of resistance and revolution
The following is a dialogue between Nathan Coe and Bart Black, both of GNN, on the merits and flaws of “non-violent” vs. “violent” (semantic terms that will be discussed further) resistance to the State as a means for political change. (The dialogue originally occurred in early 2009 and was intended for publication as an article on GNN, but was stymied in the editorial yard. Now that GNN has shut down, we are releasing them.) Nathan has taken the position of supporting armed resistance and insurrection coupled with information warfare, while Bart supports the path of pacifism and non-violence, advocating the “infowar” as the sole vehicle of true revolution, without a component of armed struggle.
The debate is broken into two parts. Part I will include opening statements, questions, critiques, responses, and closing statements by Bart and Nathan. Part II will focus on a Q&A between Bart, Nathan, and the GNN community.