BBC running with anti-anti-G20 propaganda

[bluestreak]

Oh yeah, that's certainly true. Chris Knight may be speaking for his little group, but he comes across as speaking for all anarchists. enumbers does the same. And even within my small circle there are differences of opinion on the role of popular protest and how to engage with people. None of us speak for all of us, and sadly in the media those with the loudest voices or the scariest stories are the ones who will be listened to. That's natural, and it just means those of us who disagree have to carefully balance comradeship with critique.

 

[e19896]

There's a combination of his own writing and his c&ps - all adding to the confusion. It's not hard to get at what he's saying really. I don't agree with a lot of what I think he means. Not sure that I want to go down the route of aiming at how he puts it though.

Of course it is cut and past as i write in word due to spelling then cut n past here, fuck keep up with the misinformation why not?

kind of know what you're getting at, but i'd say why does there need to be anyone atall? this isn't like when CW went to henley or whatever, and i would have thought there may be a risk of incitement charges being brought after the smoke clears. so why put yourself on the line? if some mug wants to have their five minutes glory threatening to burn the city to the ground and garotte the stock exchange that's their look-out. i kinda doubt they're gonna see their biography stacked anywhere between bakunin and zapata in the near or far future.

If the state desires to place an head on the block and name it as incitement, then all well and good it shows how we are, if the persons or person speaking makes it clear there forced into the circumstance of being what the media and others call a leader or spokesperson, due to nature and structure of capitalism, here is to be quite frank a waisted moment another opportunity pissed up against the wall.

Now it will be with no doubt, the old line of anarchism is violence chaos and disorder:

Anarchism today has begun to encompass a broader analysis of power and inequality, realizing the importance of equal struggles on behalf of class, race, gender, sexual preference and orientation, and every form of oppression that enslaves humanity and keeps people from being free. Anarchism is diverse, broad and demands social and cultural freedom in every sphere of life. Anarchists now, and have always, envision advancing a future world built on principles of freedom, direct democracy, mutual aid, solidarity and equality without rulers or masters.

 

[e19896]

Oh yeah, that's certainly true. Chris Knight may be speaking for his little group, but he comes across as speaking for all anarchists. enumbers does the same. And even within my small circle there are differences of opinion on the role of popular protest and how to engage with people. None of us speak for all of us, and sadly in the media those with the loudest voices or the scariest stories are the ones who will be listened to. That's natural, and it just means those of us who disagree have to carefully balance comradeship with critique.

Yes i spaek for underclassrising.net have a clear mandate to do so, where has this fool got his from, yes i agree 100% with what is said here, and instead of falling silant, we have decided to speak out and put forowrd anarchism, now not all agree with how we do this and the perspective we hold, but Chris Knight may be speaking for his little group but look at the damage and misrepesentation he has given anarchism as a whole, for that alone he need to look as said lampost and think..

 

[cesare]

e19896 - you don't even recognise when I'm suggesting that people cut you some slack on the communication and c&p thing - instead choosing to position it as misinformation. Where the fuck do I go from there?

 

[cesare]

Oh yeah, that's certainly true. Chris Knight may be speaking for his little group, but he comes across as speaking for all anarchists. enumbers does the same. And even within my small circle there are differences of opinion on the role of popular protest and how to engage with people. None of us speak for all of us, and sadly in the media those with the loudest voices or the scariest stories are the ones who will be listened to. That's natural, and it just means those of us who disagree have to carefully balance comradeship with critique.

Tiny groups that shout loudly, even shouting against people that broadly agree with them. And in the meantime, discounting the people that they think they are representing, not even taking them into account. Discord rather than solidarity. Fucking shameful.

 

[bluestreak]

Well, quite.

 

[tangentlama]

Oh yeah, that's certainly true. Chris Knight may be speaking for his little group, but he comes across as speaking for all anarchists. enumbers does the same. And even within my small circle there are differences of opinion on the role of popular protest and how to engage with people. None of us speak for all of us, and sadly in the media those with the loudest voices or the scariest stories are the ones who will be listened to. That's natural, and it just means those of us who disagree have to carefully balance comradeship with critique.

Chris Knight is not an anarchist though - he's ex-SWP, ex-Militant tendency - an avowed revolutionary marxist afaik.

 

[e19896]

Chris Knight is not an anarchist though - he's ex-SWP, ex-Militant tendency - an avowed revolutionary marxist afaik.

and now if the media had there day anarchist whatever, and why are the anarchist (well some) letting this be? Christ this guy is an utter liability and here we are feeding the ego of the loon, every April needs a fool step roll up Chris Knight and when others should speak they have nothing but praise for him.. at a time we need to be placing the truth of anarchism, when the media are interested we give them erm Chris Knight fuck me anarchy in the uk makes me feel sad to say the least, I think and believe in anarchist thought at times, no doubt there will be a riot, well we here at underclassrising we worked out that one, and we might just reclaim anarchy from the current bullshit.

 

[tangentlama]

The Today programme - I've heard too many stories about security and not enough stories about how people are coping or suffering due to the economic crisis.

 

[chico enrico]

The anarchists marginalise themselves though bluey. There's loads that are down to earth and just doing stuff in the community. But there's a tiny minority that are attention seeking and wanting a ruck. Mind you, that's fairly much how every strata in society plays out.

personally, i think as soon as you proclaim yourself/your cause or your group 'anarchist' you're marginalising yourself from the off. it's all very well offering an anarchist 'critique' of G20 (and backing this up with 'praxis' if that is your want hohoho...) but at the end of the day it all just strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. i mean, it's not as if it's exactly an issue that is dividing communities. I'd much rather have @s devoting some of these apparently inexhaustable energies into protesting against the olympics and the obscene waste of better employed public funding that are going into that crock of wank than any of this summit malarkey. But then again, it seems that these days for many, the more abstracted an 'enemy' can be the better, just as the majority of anarchist 'activity' appears to exist in cyberspace.

 

[e19896]

personally, i think as soon as you proclaim yourself/your cause or your group 'anarchist' you're marginalising yourself from the off. it's all very well offering an anarchist 'critique' of G20 (and backing this up with 'praxis' if that is your want hohoho...) but at the end of the day it all just strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. i mean, it's not as if it's exactly an issue that is dividing communities. I'd much rather have @s devoting some of these apparently inexhaustable energies into protesting against the olympics and the obscene waste of better employed public funding that are going into that crock of wank than any of this summit malarkey. But then again, it seems that these days for many, the more abstracted an 'enemy' can be the better, just as the majority of anarchist 'activity' appears to exist in cyberspace.

There is nowt i could disagree with there and you have in words sumed it all up..

 

[catinthehat]

It doesn't exactly work like that. It's just that it presents the "status quo" POV. The establishment doesn't (often) outright tell journalists what to report, but you tend not to get very far if you haven't internalized certain values. That way you can report what you like, because 'what you like' is broadly what they like.

Values like what's 'newsworthy', and what constitutes 'balance', aren't as neutral as many journalists like to think. It's a judgment that filters out a lot of stuff that would be outside of mainstream and so on.

This is classic Chomsky and Herman. It isn't about conspiracies, it's about the shape of the institution, and the parameters within which people can act because of that shape.

Agree 100pc

 

[toblerone3]

Exactly. Strength of feeling akin to poll tax might/will build up anyway. But it's not there yet. It's good that people can protest, we should, let's get in practice. But it's not some great showdown yet. It's a bit like going in with all guns blazing when the rest of the population are saying 'eh, you wot?' Good to get people moving, but stupid as hell to position it as a show down.

This^

This whole Anti-G20 thing lacks still lacks grass roots issues to make it real to most people

 

[brasicritique]

If i may. I personally think that nothing would be better than no one showing up to demonstrate at the G20 as this would expose the propagandists for what they are. Instead any protesters should just attack and occupy as many mega rich bankers houses as possible. As i have said before you are all making it so easy for the state that this G20 protests will yet again be a massive waste of time.

 

[editor]

Instead any protesters should just attack and occupy as many mega rich bankers houses as possible.

If you continue to try and encourage people to take part in illegal acts, you will be banned.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=284248

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This^

This whole Anti-G20 thing lacks still lacks grass roots issues to make it real to most people

Sure, and the lack of any clear connection to grassroots issues to a large extent enables the media to spin it as a 'bunch of anarchists out to smash up Macdonalds and Starbucks'

Whereas a clear connection to, say for the sake of argument, renationalisation of public utilities, something polling indicates that a strong majority of ordinary citizens want to see (or more topically, flat-out nationalising the banks and running them in a socially responsible way after sacking the useless wankers who got us into this mess, which I suspect would also poll well) would make spinning it harder.

 

[tangentlama]

If i may. I personally think that nothing would be better than no one showing up to demonstrate at the G20 as this would expose the propagandists for what they are. Instead any protesters should just attack and occupy as many mega rich bankers houses as possible. As i have said before you are all making it so easy for the state that this G20 protests will yet again be a massive waste of time.

Yeah, you idiot. Didn't you learn anything from the public protests at Seattle and Genoa? The black bloc'ers and those who preach violence against people or mess-up public facilities (e.g. using public bins as roadblocks, or missiles and generally making the city an unpleasant, dangerous environment, e.g. smashing windows, property) ARE SEEN AS AGENT PROVOCATEURS AND ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. These blackguards stand for oppression.

Smashing up someone's house is just not on - it doesn't matter what their profession is. Change will not come about through intimidation - all that will happen is we'll lose more liberties due to the acts of a violent few.

 

[tangentlama]

Sure, and the lack of any clear connection to grassroots issues to a large extent enables the media to spin it as a 'bunch of anarchists out to smash up Macdonalds and Starbucks'

Whereas a clear connection to, say for the sake of argument, renationalisation of public utilities, something polling indicates that a strong majority of ordinary citizens want to see (or more topically, flat-out nationalising the banks and running them in a socially responsible way after sacking the useless wankers who got us into this mess, which I suspect would also poll well) would make spinning it harder.

^This.

Berlusconi's Mousetrap is must-watch. Check the anarchist-bloc who are filmed and listen to what they have to say about non-violence against both people and things that people use (e.g. bins/streets/environment)
Download and watch: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75401

 

[toblerone3]

Sure, and the lack of any clear connection to grassroots issues to a large extent enables the media to spin it as a 'bunch of anarchists out to smash up Macdonalds and Starbucks'

Whereas a clear connection to, say for the sake of argument, renationalisation of public utilities, something polling indicates that a strong majority of ordinary citizens want to see (or more topically, flat-out nationalising the banks and running them in a socially responsible way after sacking the useless wankers who got us into this mess, which I suspect would also poll well) would make spinning it harder.

I would like to see a serious debate taking place on how all the drawbacks that have been idenfified with public ownership in the past can be addressed. State ownership is still seen as an emergency measure until the private sector recovers. But how can public ownership and management work better with

less waste
with less corruption
with less capture by small political and other pressure groups
with more democracy

Until these issues are addressed I can't see advocating public ownership being a rallying cry even when the private sector has so patently messed up.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I would like to see a serious debate taking place on how all the drawbacks that have been idenfified with public ownership in the past can be addressed. State ownership is still seen as an emergency measure until the private sector recovers. But how can public ownership and management work better with

less waste
with less corruption
with less capture by small political and other pressure groups
with more democracy

Until these issues are addressed I can't see advocating public ownership being a rallying cry even when the private sector has so patently messed up.

Well, I wasn't particularly advocating that. I just picked it because I've seen some recent polling that indicates 70ish percent want to see utilities renationalised, so it makes a good example for my purpose. Given that neither electable party would adopt such a policy voluntarily, we have no option to vote for it, despite massive public support, so it makes an excellent example of an appropriate focus for mass demonstrations.

 

[brasicritique]

Yeah, you idiot. Didn't you learn anything from the public protests at Seattle and Genoa? The black bloc'ers and those who preach violence against people or mess-up public facilities (e.g. using public bins as roadblocks, or missiles and generally making the city an unpleasant, dangerous environment, e.g. smashing windows, property) ARE SEEN AS AGENT PROVOCATEURS AND ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. These blackguards stand for oppression.

Smashing up someone's house is just not on - it doesn't matter what their profession is. Change will not come about through intimidation - all that will happen is we'll lose more liberties due to the acts of a violent few.

Actually you are the idiot. IMO its not that the problem is that there are agent provocatuers. There will always be agent provocatuers. The problem is that there violence is directed towards nothing. All successful radical political groups have used a mix of violence and community based politics. And this is the problem first we all know the demo generally speaking will not be really representative of the wider say working class communities in the uk. This is before we even question how radicall this demo is. You see you make my point for me in that the demo will acheive nothing as all you all want to do is either stroll along with a placard or throw stuff at the police and trash the usual multi nationals.

you see this is why nothing you do at the demo will achieve anything or even make brown an co blink.

The fred shred house attack incidents have generated response from people i know saying 'good' , whilst bringing home the message that that gordon brown and co have done nothing to attack the bankers at all. And this is why people are angry whereas when you lot smash up a macdonalds or walk placidly into a pre arranged police containment area people say

this post is in no way intended to encourage acts of violence and should be contextualised with the eds request on another thread

 

[brasicritique]

Sure, and the lack of any clear connection to grassroots issues to a large extent enables the media to spin it as a 'bunch of anarchists out to smash up Macdonalds and Starbucks'

.

exactly

 

[toblerone3]

Well, I wasn't particularly advocating that. I just picked it because I've seen some recent polling that indicates 70ish percent want to see utilities renationalised, so it makes a good example for my purpose. Given that neither electable party would adopt such a policy voluntarily, we have no option to vote for it, despite massive public support, so it makes an excellent example of an appropriate focus for mass demonstrations.

Actually you're right. The G20 is a fantastic opportunity for demos and that would make a good focus for constructive protest. but the word renationalisation is not a good one even if 70% of people support it. I think renationalisation of the banks needs to be rebranded in some way that could bring in support from a broad spectrum of society as a positive, non politically sectarian way forward something like "Community Banks" or Neighbourhood Credit Cooperatives" or "Local Enterprise Centres" or "Building Societies"

 

[chico enrico]

with respect, while i agree it's not a snappy word to mobilise round, i think a lot more folk know what re-nationalisation means than have a clue what the G20 summit even IS. It's just too abstract and divorced from people's tangible lives to have any great resonance withing the general public ie the folk whose voices, protests and resistance MAKE social change. as demonstrated by the poll tax. and i don't mean the riots per se, i mean the grass roots, community based resistance which made it virtually impossible to implement.

people care about their money, their homes, their families, their livelihoods and it seems a bit snooker loopy to me to even think that folk are going to really care that much about the IMF, global debt, let alone the environment at a time of recession. I know i don't.

But, show me the anti G20 propaganda which demonstrates just HOW the G20 actually affects, say, the folk who were on my bus today and I shall retract the above statement.

 

[Blagsta]

^
agreed. Propaganda has to reach beyond the activist ghetto to "normal" people.

 

[chico enrico]

^
agreed. Propaganda has to reach beyond the activist ghetto to "normal" people.

couldnt put it any more succinctly than that mate. sad thing is it doesnt seem to me that ANY of this G20 stuff even ATTEMPTS to do that.

(NB: i stand corrected if i'm wrong)

 

[Blagsta]

What would work (IMO) is something like "They say inflation is low so why do my bills keep going up? 'cos of these bastards making money off me." A call for re-nationalisation (not that it's any long term answer though, but people can relate to it) even a call for a gas bill non-payment campaign might have legs.

 

[tangentlama]

It's the Mohawk Valley formula: these people are dangerous, and you have no common cause with them.

Oh. I thought they were daughters, sons, brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, nieces, nephews, uncles, cousins, aunties, grandfathers, grandmothers who were taking the opportunity to make their protest visible.

The job of the police is to ensure that everyone can safely protest.
The job of the government is to take notice, and listen to the multivocal protest, respond to dialogue and consult with the people, and act on the issues raised if they will bring about positive change.

The job of the media is to report the voices raised during the protest and ensure a balanced viewpoint is put across.

People are disgruntled. Probably someone could work out that every person protesting probably knows around 100 people who knew they were going and who go almost as a blessed representative. That makes each person on the demo very special, in that they're just the tip of the iceberg of people in this country who are appalled at the way in which the government have handled the regulation of financial services over the last decade.

 

[chico enrico]

Oh. I thought they were daughters, sons, brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, nieces, nephews, uncles, cousins, aunties, grandfathers, grandmothers who were taking the opportunity to make their protest visible.

The job of the media is to report on the views, aims, and event of the protest. The job of the police is to ensure that everyone can safely protest.
The job of the government is to take notice, and listen to the multivocal protest, dialogue and consult with the people, and act on the issues raised if they will bring about positive change.

ah, of course...

like the government did about Iraq and the largest public protest Britain has ever seen, not to mention the attendant public order/'anti-terrorist' police powers introduced.



excuse me, but have you just moved here from North Korea?

 

[tangentlama]

ah, of course...

like the government did about Iraq and the largest public protest Britain has ever seen, not to mention the attendant public order/'anti-terrorist' police powers introduced.

You're saying the demo/march tomorrow will acheive nothing. I'm saying that some things ought to be a given. People need to march and I do hope that all the speeches will be covered and circulated, and that reporters will do their job and interview as many people as they can and give some airtime to the demonstrator's voices.


At around 1am, the BBC uploaded an informative, unbiased article about tomorrow's demo:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7968721.stm

My Auntie is going.