#liberty city riots | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 4 months ago

Text

A.5 What are some examples of “Anarchy in Action”?

A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution

The Russian revolution of 1917 saw a huge growth in anarchism in that country and many experiments in anarchist ideas. However, in popular culture the Russian Revolution is seen not as a mass movement by ordinary people struggling towards freedom but as the means by which Lenin imposed his dictatorship on Russia. The truth is radically different. The Russian Revolution was a mass movement from below in which many different currents of ideas existed and in which millions of working people (workers in the cities and towns as well as peasants) tried to transform their world into a better place. Sadly, those hopes and dreams were crushed under the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party — first under Lenin, later under Stalin.

The Russian Revolution, like most history, is a good example of the maxim “history is written by those who win.” Most capitalist histories of the period between 1917 and 1921 ignore what the anarchist Voline called “the unknown revolution” — the revolution called forth from below by the actions of ordinary people. Leninist accounts, at best, praise this autonomous activity of workers so long as it coincides with their own party line but radically condemn it (and attribute it with the basest motives) as soon as it strays from that line. Thus Leninist accounts will praise the workers when they move ahead of the Bolsheviks (as in the spring and summer of 1917) but will condemn them when they oppose Bolshevik policy once the Bolsheviks are in power. At worse, Leninist accounts portray the movement and struggles of the masses as little more than a backdrop to the activities of the vanguard party.

For anarchists, however, the Russian Revolution is seen as a classic example of a social revolution in which the self-activity of working people played a key role. In their soviets, factory committees and other class organisations, the Russian masses were trying to transform society from a class-ridden, hierarchical statist regime into one based on liberty, equality and solidarity. As such, the initial months of the Revolution seemed to confirm Bakunin’s prediction that the “future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free associations or federations of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal.” [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206] The soviets and factory committees expressed concretely Bakunin’s ideas and Anarchists played an important role in the struggle.

The initial overthrow of the Tsar came from the direct action of the masses. In February 1917, the women of Petrograd erupted in bread riots. On February 18th, the workers of the Putilov Works in Petrograd went on strike. By February 22nd, the strike had spread to other factories. Two days later, 200 000 workers were on strike and by February 25th the strike was virtually general. The same day also saw the first bloody clashes between protestors and the army. The turning point came on the 27th, when some troops went over to the revolutionary masses, sweeping along other units. This left the government without its means of coercion, the Tsar abdicated and a provisional government was formed.

So spontaneous was this movement that all the political parties were left behind. This included the Bolsheviks, with the “Petrograd organisation of the Bolsheviks oppos[ing] the calling of strikes precisely on the eve of the revolution destined to overthrow the Tsar. Fortunately, the workers ignored the Bolshevik ‘directives’ and went on strike anyway … Had the workers followed its guidance, it is doubtful that the revolution would have occurred when it did.” [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 123]

The revolution carried on in this vein of direct action from below until the new, “socialist” state was powerful enough to stop it.

For the Left, the end of Tsarism was the culmination of years of effort by socialists and anarchists everywhere. It represented the progressive wing of human thought overcoming traditional oppression, and as such was duly praised by leftists around the world. However, in Russia things were progressing. In the workplaces and streets and on the land, more and more people became convinced that abolishing feudalism politically was not enough. The overthrow of the Tsar made little real difference if feudal exploitation still existed in the economy, so workers started to seize their workplaces and peasants, the land. All across Russia, ordinary people started to build their own organisations, unions, co-operatives, factory committees and councils (or “soviets” in Russian). These organisations were initially organised in anarchist fashion, with recallable delegates and being federated with each other.

Needless to say, all the political parties and organisations played a role in this process. The two wings of the Marxist social-democrats were active (the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks), as were the Social Revolutionaries (a populist peasant based party) and the anarchists. The anarchists participated in this movement, encouraging all tendencies to self-management and urging the overthrow of the provisional government. They argued that it was necessary to transform the revolution from a purely political one into an economic/social one. Until the return of Lenin from exile, they were the only political tendency who thought along those lines.

Lenin convinced his party to adopt the slogan “All Power to the Soviets” and push the revolution forward. This meant a sharp break with previous Marxist positions, leading one ex-Bolshevik turned Menshevik to comment that Lenin had “made himself a candidate for one European throne that has been vacant for thirty years — the throne of Bakunin!” [quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, Prelude to Revolution, p. 40] The Bolsheviks now turned to winning mass support, championing direct action and supporting the radical actions of the masses, policies in the past associated with anarchism (“the Bolsheviks launched … slogans which until then had been particularly and insistently been voiced by the Anarchists.” [Voline, The Unknown Revolution, p. 210]). Soon they were winning more and more votes in the soviet and factory committee elections. As Alexander Berkman argues, the “Anarchist mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviks did not fail to bring results. The masses relied to their flag.” [What is Anarchism?, p. 120]

The anarchists were also influential at this time. Anarchists were particularly active in the movement for workers self-management of production which existed around the factory committees (see M. Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers Control for details). They were arguing for workers and peasants to expropriate the owning class, abolish all forms of government and re-organise society from the bottom up using their own class organisations — the soviets, the factory committees, co-operatives and so on. They could also influence the direction of struggle. As Alexander Rabinowitch (in his study of the July uprising of 1917) notes:

“At the rank-and-file level, particularly within the [Petrograd] garrison and at the Kronstadt naval base, there was in fact very little to distinguish Bolshevik from Anarchist… The Anarchist-Communists and the Bolsheviks competed for the support of the same uneducated, depressed, and dissatisfied elements of the population, and the fact is that in the summer of 1917, the Anarchist-Communists, with the support they enjoyed in a few important factories and regiments, possessed an undeniable capacity to influence the course of events. Indeed, the Anarchist appeal was great enough in some factories and military units to influence the actions of the Bolsheviks themselves.” [Op. Cit., p. 64]

Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in June, 1917 (in response to a rise in anarchist influence), ”[b]y fencing ourselves off from the Anarchists, we may fence ourselves off from the masses.” [quoted by Alexander Rabinowitch, Op. Cit., p. 102]

The anarchists operated with the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution which overthrew the provisional government. But things changed once the authoritarian socialists of the Bolshevik party had seized power. While both anarchists and Bolsheviks used many of the same slogans, there were important differences between the two. As Voline argued, ”[f]rom the lips and pens of the Anarchists, those slogans were sincere and concrete, for they corresponded to their principles and called for action entirely in conformity with such principles. But with the Bolsheviks, the same slogans meant practical solutions totally different from those of the libertarians and did not tally with the ideas which the slogans appeared to express.” [The Unknown Revolution, p. 210]

Take, for example, the slogan “All power to the Soviets.” For anarchists it meant exactly that — organs for the working class to run society directly, based on mandated, recallable delegates. For the Bolsheviks, that slogan was simply the means for a Bolshevik government to be formed over and above the soviets. The difference is important, “for the Anarchists declared, if ‘power’ really should belong to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik party, and if it should belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong to the soviets.” [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 213] Reducing the soviets to simply executing the decrees of the central (Bolshevik) government and having their All-Russian Congress be able to recall the government (i.e. those with real power) does not equal “all power,” quite the reverse.

Similarly with the term “workers’ control of production.” Before the October Revolution Lenin saw “workers’ control” purely in terms of the “universal, all-embracing workers’ control over the capitalists.” [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, p. 52] He did not see it in terms of workers’ management of production itself (i.e. the abolition of wage labour) via federations of factory committees. Anarchists and the workers’ factory committees did. As S.A. Smith correctly notes, Lenin used “the term [‘workers’ control’] in a very different sense from that of the factory committees.” In fact Lenin’s “proposals … [were] thoroughly statist and centralist in character, whereas the practice of the factory committees was essentially local and autonomous.” [Red Petrograd, p. 154] For anarchists, “if the workers’ organisations were capable of exercising effective control [over their bosses], then they also were capable of guaranteeing all production. In such an event, private industry could be eliminated quickly but progressively, and replaced by collective industry. Consequently, the Anarchists rejected the vague nebulous slogan of ‘control of production.’ They advocated expropriation — progressive, but immediate — of private industry by the organisations of collective production.” [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 221]

Once in power, the Bolsheviks systematically undermined the popular meaning of workers’ control and replaced it with their own, statist conception. “On three occasions,” one historian notes, “in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory] committee leaders sought to bring their model into being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. The result was to vest both managerial and control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them.” [Thomas F. Remington, Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia, p. 38] This process ultimately resulted in Lenin arguing for, and introducing, “one-man management” armed with “dictatorial” power (with the manager appointed from above by the state) in April 1918. This process is documented in Maurice Brinton’s The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control, which also indicates the clear links between Bolshevik practice and Bolshevik ideology as well as how both differed from popular activity and ideas.

Hence the comments by Russian Anarchist Peter Arshinov:

“Another no less important peculiarity is that [the] October [revolution of 1917] has two meanings — that which the working’ masses who participated in the social revolution gave it, and with them the Anarchist-Communists, and that which was given it by the political party [the Marxist-Communists] that captured power from this aspiration to social revolution, and which betrayed and stifled all further development. An enormous gulf exists between these two interpretations of October. The October of the workers and peasants is the suppression of the power of the parasite classes in the name of equality and self-management. The Bolshevik October is the conquest of power by the party of the revolutionary intelligentsia, the installation of its ‘State Socialism’ and of its ‘socialist’ methods of governing the masses.” [The Two Octobers]

Initially, anarchists had supported the Bolsheviks, since the Bolshevik leaders had hidden their state-building ideology behind support for the soviets (as socialist historian Samuel Farber notes, the anarchists “had actually been an unnamed coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution.” [Before Stalinism, p. 126]). However, this support quickly “withered away” as the Bolsheviks showed that they were, in fact, not seeking true socialism but were instead securing power for themselves and pushing not for collective ownership of land and productive resources but for government ownership. The Bolsheviks, as noted, systematically undermined the workers’ control/self-management movement in favour of capitalist-like forms of workplace management based around “one-man management” armed with “dictatorial powers.”

As regards the soviets, the Bolsheviks systematically undermining what limited independence and democracy they had. In response to the “great Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections” during the spring and summer of 1918 “Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew the results of these provincial elections.” Also, the “government continually postponed the new general elections to the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had ended in March 1918. Apparently, the government feared that the opposition parties would show gains.” [Samuel Farber, Op. Cit., p. 24 and p. 22] In the Petrograd elections, the Bolsheviks “lost the absolute majority in the soviet they had previously enjoyed” but remained the largest party. However, the results of the Petrograd soviet elections were irrelevant as a “Bolshevik victory was assured by the numerically quite significant representation now given to trade unions, district soviets, factory-shop committees, district workers conferences, and Red Army and naval units, in which the Bolsheviks had overwhelming strength.” [Alexander Rabinowitch, “The Evolution of Local Soviets in Petrograd”, pp. 20–37, Slavic Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 36f] In other words, the Bolsheviks had undermined the democratic nature of the soviet by swamping it by their own delegates. Faced with rejection in the soviets, the Bolsheviks showed that for them “soviet power” equalled party power. To stay in power, the Bolsheviks had to destroy the soviets, which they did. The soviet system remained “soviet” in name only. Indeed, from 1919 onwards Lenin, Trotsky and other leading Bolsheviks were admitting that they had created a party dictatorship and, moreover, that such a dictatorship was essential for any revolution (Trotsky supported party dictatorship even after the rise of Stalinism).

The Red Army, moreover, no longer was a democratic organisation. In March of 1918 Trotsky had abolished the election of officers and soldier committees:

“the principle of election is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree.” [Work, Discipline, Order]

As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:

“Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The death penalty for disobedience under fire had been restored. So, more gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate living quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic forms of organisation, including the election of officers, had been quickly dispensed with.” [“The Bolsheviks and Workers’ Control”, For Workers’ Power, pp. 336–7]

Unsurprisingly, Samuel Farber notes that “there is no evidence indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders lamented the loss of workers’ control or of democracy in the soviets, or at least referred to these losses as a retreat, as Lenin declared with the replacement of War Communism by NEP in 1921.” [Before Stalinism, p. 44]

Thus after the October Revolution, anarchists started to denounce the Bolshevik regime and call for a “Third Revolution” which would finally free the masses from all bosses (capitalist or socialist). They exposed the fundamental difference between the rhetoric of Bolshevism (as expressed, for example, in Lenin’s State and Revolution) with its reality. Bolshevism in power had proved Bakunin’s prediction that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would become the “dictatorship over the proletariat” by the leaders of the Communist Party.

The influence of the anarchists started to grow. As Jacques Sadoul (a French officer) noted in early 1918:

“The anarchist party is the most active, the most militant of the opposition groups and probably the most popular … The Bolsheviks are anxious.” [quoted by Daniel Guerin, Anarchism, pp. 95–6]

By April 1918, the Bolsheviks began the physical suppression of their anarchist rivals. On April 12th, 1918, the Cheka (the secret police formed by Lenin in December, 1917) attacked anarchist centres in Moscow. Those in other cities were attacked soon after. As well as repressing their most vocal opponents on the left, the Bolsheviks were restricting the freedom of the masses they claimed to be protecting. Democratic soviets, free speech, opposition political parties and groups, self-management in the workplace and on the land — all were destroyed in the name of “socialism.” All this happened, we must stress, before the start of the Civil War in late May, 1918, which most supporters of Leninism blame for the Bolsheviks’ authoritarianism. During the civil war, this process accelerated, with the Bolsheviks’ systematically repressing opposition from all quarters — including the strikes and protests of the very class who they claimed was exercising its “dictatorship” while they were in power!

It is important to stress that this process had started well before the start of the civil war, confirming anarchist theory that a “workers’ state” is a contraction in terms. For anarchists, the Bolshevik substitution of party power for workers power (and the conflict between the two) did not come as a surprise. The state is the delegation of power — as such, it means that the idea of a “workers’ state” expressing “workers’ power” is a logical impossibility. If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all. The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to its basic nature, structure and design. For this reason anarchists have argued for a bottom-up federation of workers’ councils as the agent of revolution and the means of managing society after capitalism and the state have been abolished.

As we discuss in section H, the degeneration of the Bolsheviks from a popular working class party into dictators over the working class did not occur by accident. A combination of political ideas and the realities of state power (and the social relationships it generates) could not help but result in such a degeneration. The political ideas of Bolshevism, with its vanguardism, fear of spontaneity and identification of party power with working class power inevitably meant that the party would clash with those whom it claimed to represent. After all, if the party is the vanguard then, automatically, everyone else is a “backward” element. This meant that if the working class resisted Bolshevik policies or rejected them in soviet elections, then the working class was “wavering” and being influenced by “petty-bourgeois” and “backward” elements. Vanguardism breeds elitism and, when combined with state power, dictatorship.

State power, as anarchists have always stressed, means the delegation of power into the hands of a few. This automatically produces a class division in society — those with power and those without. As such, once in power the Bolsheviks were isolated from the working class. The Russian Revolution confirmed Malatesta’s argument that a “government, that is a group of people entrusted with making laws and empowered to use the collective power to oblige each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to its special interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the government is already at odds with the people whose strength it disposes of.” [Anarchy, p. 34] A highly centralised state such as the Bolsheviks built would reduce accountability to a minimum while at the same time accelerating the isolation of the rulers from the ruled. The masses were no longer a source of inspiration and power, but rather an alien group whose lack of “discipline” (i.e. ability to follow orders) placed the revolution in danger. As one Russian Anarchist argued:

“The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the state. The people are being transformed into servants over whom there has arisen a new class of administrators — a new class born mainly form the womb of the so-called intelligentsia … We do not mean to say … that the Bolshevik party set out to create a new class system. But we do say that even the best intentions and aspirations must inevitably be smashed against the evils inherent in any system of centralised power. The separation of management from labour, the division between administrators and workers flows logically from centralisation. It cannot be otherwise.” [The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, pp. 123–4]

For this reason anarchists, while agreeing that there is an uneven development of political ideas within the working class, reject the idea that “revolutionaries” should take power on behalf of working people. Only when working people actually run society themselves will a revolution be successful. For anarchists, this meant that ”[e]ffective emancipation can be achieved only by the direct, widespread, and independent action … of the workers themselves, grouped … in their own class organisations … on the basis of concrete action and self-government, helped but not governed, by revolutionaries working in the very midst of, and not above the mass and the professional, technical, defence and other branches.” [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 197] By substituting party power for workers power, the Russian Revolution had made its first fatal step. Little wonder that the following prediction (from November 1917) made by anarchists in Russia came true:

“Once their power is consolidated and ‘legalised’, the Bolsheviks who are … men of centralist and authoritarian action will begin to rearrange the life of the country and of the people by governmental and dictatorial methods, imposed by the centre. The[y] … will dictate the will of the party to all Russia, and command the whole nation. Your Soviets and your other local organisations will become little by little, simply executive organs of the will of the central government. In the place of healthy, constructive work by the labouring masses, in place of free unification from the bottom, we will see the installation of an authoritarian and statist apparatus which would act from above and set about wiping out everything that stood in its way with an iron hand.” [quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 235]

The so-called “workers’ state” could not be participatory or empowering for working class people (as the Marxists claimed) simply because state structures are not designed for that. Created as instruments of minority rule, they cannot be transformed into (nor “new” ones created which are) a means of liberation for the working classes. As Kropotkin put it, Anarchists “maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges.” [Anarchism, p. 170] In the words of an anarchist pamphlet written in 1918:

“Bolshevism, day by day and step by step, proves that state power possesses inalienable characteristics; it can change its label, its ‘theory’, and its servitors, but in essence it merely remains power and despotism in new forms.” [quoted by Paul Avrich, “The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution,” pp. 341–350, Russian Review, vol. 26, issue no. 4, p. 347]

For insiders, the Revolution had died a few months after the Bolsheviks took over. To the outside world, the Bolsheviks and the USSR came to represent “socialism” even as they systematically destroyed the basis of real socialism. By transforming the soviets into state bodies, substituting party power for soviet power, undermining the factory committees, eliminating democracy in the armed forces and workplaces, repressing the political opposition and workers’ protests, the Bolsheviks effectively marginalised the working class from its own revolution. Bolshevik ideology and practice were themselves important and sometimes decisive factors in the degeneration of the revolution and the ultimate rise of Stalinism.

As anarchists had predicted for decades previously, in the space of a few months, and before the start of the Civil War, the Bolshevik’s “workers’ state” had become, like any state, an alien power over the working class and an instrument of minority rule (in this case, the rule of the party). The Civil War accelerated this process and soon party dictatorship was introduced (indeed, leading Bolsheviks began arguing that it was essential in any revolution). The Bolsheviks put down the libertarian socialist elements within their country, with the crushing of the uprising at Kronstadt and the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine being the final nails in the coffin of socialism and the subjugation of the soviets.

The Kronstadt uprising of February, 1921, was, for anarchists, of immense importance (see the appendix “What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?” for a full discussion of this uprising). The uprising started when the sailors of Kronstadt supported the striking workers of Petrograd in February, 1921. They raised a 15 point resolution, the first point of which was a call for soviet democracy. The Bolsheviks slandered the Kronstadt rebels as counter-revolutionaries and crushed the revolt. For anarchists, this was significant as the repression could not be justified in terms of the Civil War (which had ended months before) and because it was a major uprising of ordinary people for real socialism. As Voline puts it:

“Kronstadt was the first entirely independent attempt of the people to liberate themselves of all yokes and carry out the Social Revolution: this attempt was made directly … by the working masses themselves, without political shepherds, without leaders or tutors. It was the first step towards the third and social revolution.” [Voline, Op. Cit., pp. 537–8]

In the Ukraine, anarchist ideas were most successfully applied. In areas under the protection of the Makhnovist movement, working class people organised their own lives directly, based on their own ideas and needs — true social self-determination. Under the leadership of Nestor Makhno, a self-educated peasant, the movement not only fought against both Red and White dictatorships but also resisted the Ukrainian nationalists. In opposition to the call for “national self-determination,” i.e. a new Ukrainian state, Makhno called instead for working class self-determination in the Ukraine and across the world. Makhno inspired his fellow peasants and workers to fight for real freedom:

“Conquer or die — such is the dilemma that faces the Ukrainian peasants and workers at this historic moment … But we will not conquer in order to repeat the errors of the past years, the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our own hands, to conduct our lives according to our own will and our own conception of the truth.” [quoted by Peter Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 58]

To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up governments in the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of free soviets so that the working people could govern themselves. Taking the example of Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the Makhnovists “immediately invited the working population to participate in a general conference … it was proposed that the workers organise the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their own forces and their own organisations … The first conference was followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed with animation by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas with the greatest enthusiasm … Railroad workers took the first step … They formed a committee charged with organising the railway network of the region … From this point, the proletariat of Aleksandrovsk began to turn systematically to the problem of creating organs of self-management.” [Op. Cit., p. 149]

The Makhnovists argued that the “freedom of the workers and peasants is their own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers and peasants themselves to act, to organise themselves, to agree among themselves in all aspects of their lives, as they see fit and desire .. . The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel … In no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern.” [Peter Arshinov, quoted by Guerin, Op. Cit., p. 99] In Alexandrovsk, the Bolsheviks proposed to the Makhnovists spheres of action — their Revkom (Revolutionary Committee) would handle political affairs and the Makhnovists military ones. Makhno advised them “to go and take up some honest trade instead of seeking to impose their will on the workers.” [Peter Arshinov in The Anarchist Reader, p. 141]

They also organised free agricultural communes which ”[a]dmittedly .. . were not numerous, and included only a minority of the population .. . But what was most precious was that these communes were formed by the poor peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any pressure on the peasants, confining themselves to propagating the idea of free communes.” [Arshinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 87] Makhno played an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional congresses equalised the use of the land between all sections of the peasant community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53–4]

Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve the whole population in discussing the development of the revolution, the activities of the army and social policy. They organised numerous conferences of workers’, soldiers’ and peasants’ delegates to discuss political and social issues as well as free soviets, unions and communes. They organised a regional congress of peasants and workers when they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When the Makhnovists tried to convene the third regional congress of peasants, workers and insurgents in April 1919 and an extraordinary congress of several regions in June 1919 the Bolsheviks viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban them and declared their organisers and delegates outside the law.

The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway and asking ”[c]an there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves revolutionaries, which permit them to outlaw a whole people who are more revolutionary than they are themselves?” and ”[w]hose interests should the revolution defend: those of the Party or those of the people who set the revolution in motion with their blood?” Makhno himself stated that he “consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the workers and peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call conferences on their own account, to discuss their affairs.” [Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129]

In addition, the Makhnovists “fully applied the revolutionary principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press, and of political association. In all cities and towns occupied by the Makhnovists, they began by lifting all the prohibitions and repealing all the restrictions imposed on the press and on political organisations by one or another power.” Indeed, the “only restriction that the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks, the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other statists was a prohibition on the formation of those ‘revolutionary committees’ which sought to impose a dictatorship over the people.” [Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]

The Makhnovists rejected the Bolshevik corruption of the soviets and instead proposed “the free and completely independent soviet system of working people without authorities and their arbitrary laws.” Their proclamations stated that the “working people themselves must freely choose their own soviets, which carry out the will and desires of the working people themselves, that is to say. ADMINISTRATIVE, not ruling soviets.” Economically, capitalism would be abolished along with the state — the land and workshops “must belong to the working people themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say, they must be socialised.” [Op. Cit., p. 271 and p. 273]

The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was fundamentally democratic (although, of course, the horrific nature of the civil war did result in a few deviations from the ideal — however, compared to the regime imposed on the Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were much more democratic movement).

The anarchist experiment of self-management in the Ukraine came to a bloody end when the Bolsheviks turned on the Makhnovists (their former allies against the “Whites,” or pro-Tsarists) when they were no longer needed. This important movement is fully discussed in the appendix “Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?” of our FAQ. However, we must stress here the one obvious lesson of the Makhnovist movement, namely that the dictatorial policies pursued by the Bolsheviks were not imposed on them by objective circumstances. Rather, the political ideas of Bolshevism had a clear influence in the decisions they made. After all, the Makhnovists were active in the same Civil War and yet did not pursue the same policies of party power as the Bolsheviks did. Rather, they successfully encouraged working class freedom, democracy and power in extremely difficult circumstances (and in the face of strong Bolshevik opposition to those policies). The received wisdom on the left is that there was no alternative open to the Bolsheviks. The experience of the Makhnovists disproves this. What the masses of people, as well as those in power, do and think politically is as much part of the process determining the outcome of history as are the objective obstacles that limit the choices available. Clearly, ideas do matter and, as such, the Makhnovists show that there was (and is) a practical alternative to Bolshevism — anarchism.

The last anarchist march in Moscow until 1987 took place at the funeral of Kropotkin in 1921, when over 10,000 marched behind his coffin. They carried black banners declaring “Where there is authority, there is no freedom” and “The Liberation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves.” As the procession passed the Butyrki prison, the inmates sang anarchist songs and shook the bars of their cells.

Anarchist opposition within Russia to the Bolshevik regime started in 1918. They were the first left-wing group to be repressed by the new “revolutionary” regime. Outside of Russia, anarchists continued to support the Bolsheviks until news came from anarchist sources about the repressive nature of the Bolshevik regime (until then, many had discounted negative reports as being from pro-capitalist sources). Once these reliable reports came in, anarchists across the globe rejected Bolshevism and its system of party power and repression. The experience of Bolshevism confirmed Bakunin’s prediction that Marxism meant “the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The people are not learned, so they will be liberated from the cares of government and included in entirety in the governed herd.” [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 178–9]

From about 1921 on, anarchists outside of Russia started describing the USSR as “state-capitalist” to indicate that although individual bosses might have been eliminated, the Soviet state bureaucracy played the same role as individual bosses do in the West (anarchists within Russia had been calling it that since 1918). For anarchists, “the Russian revolution … is trying to reach … economic equality … this effort has been made in Russia under a strongly centralised party dictatorship … this effort to build a communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralised state communism under the iron law of a party dictatorship is bound to end in failure. We are learning to know in Russia how not to introduce communism.” [Anarchism, p. 254]

This meant exposing that Berkman called “The Bolshevik Myth,” the idea that the Russian Revolution was a success and should be copied by revolutionaries in other countries: “It is imperative to unmask the great delusion, which otherwise might lead the Western workers to the same abyss as their brothers [and sisters] in Russia. It is incumbent upon those who have seen through the myth to expose its true nature.” [“The Anti-Climax’”, The Bolshevik Myth, p. 342] Moreover, anarchists felt that it was their revolutionary duty not only present and learn from the facts of the revolution but also show solidarity with those subject to Bolshevik dictatorship. As Emma Goldman argued, she had not “come to Russia expecting to find Anarchism realised.” Such idealism was alien to her (although that has not stopped Leninists saying the opposite). Rather, she expected to see “the beginnings of the social changes for which the Revolution had been fought.” She was aware that revolutions were difficult, involving “destruction” and “violence.” That Russia was not perfect was not the source of her vocal opposition to Bolshevism. Rather, it was the fact that “the Russian people have been locked out” of their own revolution by the Bolshevik state which used “the sword and the gun to keep the people out.” As a revolutionary she refused “to side with the master class, which in Russia is called the Communist Party.” [My Disillusionment in Russia, p. xlvii and p. xliv]

For more information on the Russian Revolution and the role played by anarchists, see the appendix on “The Russian Revolution” of the FAQ. As well as covering the Kronstadt uprising and the Makhnovists, it discusses why the revolution failed, the role of Bolshevik ideology played in that failure and whether there were any alternatives to Bolshevism.

The following books are also recommended: The Unknown Revolution by Voline; The Guillotine at Work by G.P. Maximov; The Bolshevik Myth and The Russian Tragedy, both by Alexander Berkman; The Bolsheviks and Workers Control by M. Brinton; The Kronstadt Uprising by Ida Mett; The History of the Makhnovist Movement by Peter Arshinov; My Disillusionment in Russia and Living My Life by Emma Goldman; Nestor Makhno Anarchy’s Cossack: The struggle for free soviets in the Ukraine 1917–1921 by Alexandre Skirda.

Many of these books were written by anarchists active during the revolution, many imprisoned by the Bolsheviks and deported to the West due to international pressure exerted by anarcho-syndicalist delegates to Moscow who the Bolsheviks were trying to win over to Leninism. The majority of such delegates stayed true to their libertarian politics and convinced their unions to reject Bolshevism and break with Moscow. By the early 1920’s all the anarcho-syndicalist union confederations had joined with the anarchists in rejecting the “socialism” in Russia as state capitalism and party dictatorship.

7 notes · View notes

vote-democrat-president-congress · 4 months ago

Text

Deploying on U.S. Soil: How Trump Would Use Soldiers Against Riots, Crime and Migrants

NYTimes Aug 17, 2024:

The former president’s vision of using the military to enforce the law domestically would carry profound implications for civil liberties.

During the turbulent summer of 2020, President Donald J. Trump raged at his military and legal advisers, calling them “losers” for objecting to his idea of using federal troops to suppress outbreaks of violence during the nationwide protests over the police murder of George Floyd.

It wasn’t the only time Mr. Trump was talked out of using the military for domestic law enforcement — a practice that would carry profound implications for civil liberties and for the traditional constraints on federal power. He repeatedly raised the idea of using troops to secure border states, and even proposed shooting both violent protesters and undocumented migrants in the legs, former aides have said.

In his first term in office, Mr. Trump never realized his expansive vision of using troops to enforce the law on U.S. soil. But as he has sought a return to power, he has made clear that he intends to use the military for a range of domestic law enforcement purposes, including patrolling the border, suppressing protests that he deems to have turned into riots and even fighting crime in big cities run by Democrats.

“In places where there is a true breakdown of the rule of law, such as the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, the next president should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops,” Mr. Trump said at a conservative conference in Dallas in August 2022, shortly before announcing that he was running to be that next president.

During his time out of power, allies of Mr. Trump have worked on policy papers to provide legal justifications for the former president’s intent to use the military to enforce the law domestically. In public, they have talked about this in the context of border states and undocumented immigrants. But an internal email from a group closely aligned with Mr. Trump, obtained by The Times, shows that, privately, the group was also exploring using troops to “stop riots” by protesters.

While governors have latitude to use their states’ National Guards to respond to civil disorder or major disasters, a post-Civil War law called the Posse Comitatus Act generally makes it a crime to use regular federal troops for domestic policing purposes.

However, an 1807 law called the Insurrection Act creates an exception to that ban. It grants presidents the emergency power to use federal troops on domestic soil to restore law and order when they believe a situation warrants it. Those federal troops could either be regular active-duty military or state National Guard soldiers the federal government has assumed control over.

The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush sent troops to help suppress riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of white police officers who had been videotaped beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. In that case, however, the governor of California, Pete Wilson, and the mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, had asked for federal assistance to restore order.

But parts of the Insurrection Act also allow presidents to send in troops without requiring the consent of a governor. Presidents last invoked the act to deploy troops without the consent of state authorities in the late 1950s and early 1960s during the civil rights movement, when some governors in the South resisted court-ordered school desegregation.

Mr. Trump has boasted that, if he returns to the White House, he will dispatch forces without any request for intervention by local authorities. At a campaign rally in Iowa last year, for example, he vowed to unilaterally use federal forces to “get crime out of our cities,” specifically naming New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco as “crime dens” he pointedly noted were run by Democrats.

“You look at what is happening to our country — we cannot let it happen any longer,” Mr. Trump said. “And one of the other things I’ll do — because you are not supposed to be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in — the next time, I am not waiting.”

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that, as part of his group’s contingency planning for how to resist what it sees as potential risks from any second Trump administration, it is drafting lawsuits to challenge invocations of the Insurrection Act against protesters. He said the group sees it as likely that Mr. Trump would be drawn to the authoritarian “theatrics” of sending troops into Democratic cities.

“It’s very likely that you will have the Trump administration trying to shut down mass protests — which I think are inevitable if they were to win — and to specifically pick fights in jurisdictions with blue-state governors and blue-state mayors,” he said. “There’s talk that he would try to rely on the Insurrection Act as a way to shut down lawful protests that get a little messy. But isolated instances of violence or lawlessness are not enough to use federal troops.”

In a statement, a Trump spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, said, “As President Trump has always said, you can’t have a country without law and order and without borders. In the event where an American community is being ravaged by violence, President Trump will use all federal law enforcement assets and work with local governments to protect law-abiding Americans.” She added that he was committed to “using every available resource to seal the border and stop the invasion of millions of illegal aliens into our country.”

Mr. Trump has long been attracted to the strongman move of using military force to impose and maintain domestic political control. In a 1990 interview with Playboy, he spoke admiringly about the Chinese Communist Party for displaying the “power of strength” a year earlier when it used troops and tanks to crush the pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.

Many years later, at a 2016 Republican primary debate, he claimed that his comments in that old interview did not mean he actually endorsed the crackdown. But then, as he continued talking, he described the Tiananmen Square demonstration as a riot: “I said that was a strong, powerful government. They kept down the riot. It was a horrible thing.”

Seeking a Show of Strength

In 2020, the videotaped killing of Mr. Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Derek Chauvin, sparked racial justice protests. Peaceful demonstrations sometimes descended into rioting — especially when anarchists hijacked some of the protests as an opportunity to set fires, smash store windows and take other destructive actions. This was especially visible in Portland, Ore., where the Department of Homeland Security flooded the streets with hundreds of federal officers, many not wearing any identifying insignia.

During a stormy protest in Washington, D.C., centered in Lafayette Square outside the White House, protesters knocked over barricades. The Secret Service whisked Mr. Trump away to take shelter in a bunker underneath the White House. Attorney General William P. Barr later wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump was enraged — in part by the violence but “especially the news reports that he was taken to the bunker.” He wanted to make a show of strength as the world watched.

Because D.C. is a federal enclave, not a state, it has no governor, and its National Guard always reports to the Pentagon. The secretary of defense, Mark Esper, sent National Guard forces to support the Park Police and other civilian agencies protecting federal buildings — and, to particular controversy, National Guard helicopters swooped frighteningly low over crowds of people.

But civilians remained in control of the response in the nation’s capital. Mr. Trump wanted to instead put the military directly in charge of suppressing violent protesters — and to use regular, active-duty troops to do it. Members of his legal team drew up an order invoking the Insurrection Act in case it became necessary, according to a person with direct knowledge of what took place. But senior aides opposed such a move, and he never signed it.

Mr. Barr later wrote that he and the acting Homeland Security secretary had thought using regular troops was unnecessary, and that Mr. Esper and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, had “recoiled at the idea, expressing the view that regular military forces should not be used except as a last resort, and that, absent a real insurrection, the military should not be in charge but should provide support to civilian agencies.”

As Mr. Trump nevertheless publicly threatened to put the regular military in the streets across the country, General Milley issued a memo on June 2, 2020, to top military leaders saying that every member of the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and its values, including the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly.

The next day, on June 3, Mr. Esper contradicted Mr. Trump from the Pentagon podium, saying: “The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.” Mr. Trump was outraged, seeing this as an act of defiance. He fired Mr. Esper that November.

In a comment for this article before President Biden dropped out of the 2024 campaign, Mr. Esper pointed to his earlier remarks, adding, “I think the same standard applies going forward, whether it is a second term for Biden, Trump or for any other future president.”

Back in 2020, the protests or riots eventually ebbed, without any use of regular troops or Mr. Trump’s federalizing a state’s National Guard. But on the 2024 campaign trail, Mr. Trump has rewritten that history, falsely bragging that he personally sent troops into the streets of Minneapolis, who quelled violence there.

In reality, it was Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota — now the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president — who ordered his state’s National Guard to briefly deploy in Minneapolis. Mr. Trump did not direct and was not responsible for the operation.

In a 2021 interview, Mr. Walz recalled consulting with General Milley and Mr. Esper about his decision to use the state’s National Guard at a time when they were resisting Mr. Trump’s desire to send in federal troops — a step that Mr. Walz said would have made the situation worse by exacerbating the anger of people protesting a police murder.

“It was critically important that civilian leadership was seen as leading this, and that the face forward needed to look like your state, it needed to be the National Guard, it needed to be those local folk,” he told the authors Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns.

However, Mr. Walz has faced criticism from some quarters for moving slowly to deploy the guard when some protests in Minneapolis became riots.

Troops at the Border

Mr. Trump has broken with his former subordinates who raised objections to his desire to use federal troops that summer. Those who have stuck with Mr. Trump are working to ensure that a second administration would not contain politically appointed officials or lawyers who would be inclined to see it as their duty to constrain his impulses and desires — one of several reasons a second Trump presidency is likely to shatter even more norms and precedents than the first.

Indeed, even by the standards of various norm-busting plans Mr. Trump and his advisers have developed, the idea of using American troops against Americans on domestic soil stands apart. It has engendered quiet discomfort even among some of his allies on other issues.

Most of the open discussion of it by people other than Mr. Trump has focused on the prospect of using troops in border states — not against American rioters or criminals, but to arrest suspected undocumented migrants and better secure the border against illegal crossings.

In recent years, administrations of both parties — including Mr. Biden’s — have sometimes used the military at the border when surges of migrants have threatened to overwhelm the civilian agents. But the troops have helped by taking over back-office administration and support functions, freeing up more ICE and Border Patrol agents to go into the field.

The idea Mr. Trump and his advisers are playing with is to go beyond that by using regular troops to patrol the border and arrest people.

In an interview with The New York Times last fall, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top immigration adviser, said Mr. Trump’s plans for an unprecedented crackdown on immigration included invoking the Insurrection Act to use troops as immigration agents.

And, in its 900-page policy book, Project 2025 — a consortium of conservative think-tanks that is working together to develop policy proposals and personnel lists to offer Mr. Trump should he win the election — has a brief line saying regular troops “could” be used at the Southwest border for arrest operations in the context of tackling drug cartels.

But the book has no further analysis or discussion of the idea, and Project 2025 is not substantively engaging with the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act in any context, according to multiple people with knowledge of the effort who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

‘Insurrection — Stop Riots ** — Day 1, Easy’

Regular troops are generally trained to operate in combat situations, not as domestic law enforcement, which heightens the risk of serious and, at times, even fatal mistakes — as happened when a Marine on an antidrug surveillance team assisting the Border Patrol shot and killed an American teenager near the border in 1997.

For that reason, the idea of using regular troops to enforce the law on domestic soil — especially away from the border — crosses a line that gives even some in the conservative think-tank world pause. Policy development work on using the Insurrection Act has joined a small number of other policy ideas circulating in Mr. Trump’s orbit, like disengaging with NATO, that are too radioactive to gain a consensus among the conservatives involved in Project 2025.

Instead, legal and policy development work on ideas that are too radical even for Project 2025 are being handled elsewhere, including at a Trump-aligned think tank called the Center for Renewing America that is run by Russell Vought, who was Mr. Trump’s White House budget chief.

An early 2023 email from a member of the center’s staff listed 10 agenda topics for papers that the center planned to write on legal and policy frameworks. An introduction to the email said the goal was to “help us build the case and achieve consensus leading into 2025.” The email went on to circulate more broadly, and The Times reviewed a copy.

The email placed each topic into one of three categories. One set involved Congress. A second involved “broader legal” issues — including “Christian nationalism” and “nullification,” the pre-Civil War idea that states should be able to negate federal laws they don’t like. The third category was “day one” ideas, meaning those whose legal frameworks were already well established, and which could be put into effect by a president unilaterally.

No. 4 on the list: “Insurrection — stop riots ** — Day 1, easy.”

The Center for Renewing America has since published papers about several other agenda items on its list, including arguing that a 1974 law banning presidents from impounding funds — or refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for things the White House dislikes — is unconstitutional (No. 1 on the list) and advocating for the elimination of the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department investigative independence from the White House (No. 5).

The center has not published any paper on invoking the Insurrection Act to use troops to suppress violent protests. But earlier this year, it published a paper on a closely related topic: invoking that law to use troops in Southwest border states to enforce immigration law. The paper was co-written by Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy Homeland Security secretary in the Trump administration.

While the paper focuses on border security, most of its legal analysis applies to any situation in which a president deems the use of troops necessary to suppress lawlessness. It laid out extensive arguments for why the Insurrection Act provides “enormous” leeway for the president to use regular troops directly to make arrests and enforce the law.

It also cited a sweeping Justice Department memorandum written after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, by John Yoo, a Bush administration lawyer with an idiosyncratically broad view of presidential power. Mr. Yoo had argued that the Posse Comitatus Act could not stop a presidential decision to use the armed forces domestically to combat terrorist activities.

In a statement responding to The Times’s reporting, Rachel Cauley, a spokeswoman for the Center for Renewing America, said, “Thank you for confirming that we have made it a priority to articulate that the president has the legal authority to use the military to secure the border.”

While the center’s statement — like its paper — framed the prospect of using troops on domestic soil in the context of securing the border, not suppressing anti-Trump protests, Mr. Vought was more expansive in a hidden-camera video released last week by a British journalism nonprofit, the Centre for Climate Reporting, which spoke with him while deceptively posing as relatives of a wealthy conservative donor.

“George Floyd obviously was not about race — it was about destabilizing the Trump administration,” he said. “We put out, for instance, a 50-page paper designed for lawyers to know that the president has, you know, the ability both along the border and elsewhere to maintain law and order with the military and that’s something that, you know, that’s going to be important for him to remember and his lawyers to affirm. But we’ve given them the case for that.”

Blurry Lines

Mr. Trump and his campaign have tried to distance themselves from Project 2025 and other outside conservative groups, saying that only policy proposals endorsed by the campaign count. Ms. Leavitt said, “As President Trump and our campaign has repeatedly stated, outside groups do NOT speak for him. The ONLY official second-term policies are those that come directly from President Trump himself.”

Still, as a matter of substance, the lines between Project 2025’s work, the materials being developed separately by the Center for Renewing America and the Trump campaign can be blurry.

For example, Mr. Vought has also been in charge of one of the most important components of Project 2025: drafting executive orders and other unilateral actions Mr. Trump could take over the first six months in office. Mr. Vought also remains personally close to Mr. Trump. And the Republican National Committee, which Mr. Trump controls through allies, including his senior campaign adviser, Chris LaCivita, and his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, put Mr. Vought in charge of the committee that developed the party’s platform.

That platform calls for “moving thousands of troops currently stationed overseas to our own southern border” to secure it against migrants.

At the Center for Renewing America, Mr. Vought has also hired Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official in the Trump administration who was indicted in Georgia for working with Mr. Trump to help overturn the 2020 election.

Mr. Clark wrote the center’s paper laying out a legal framework for why the president can take direct control of Justice Department investigations and prosecutions, and was also appointed to co-lead Project 2025’s Justice Department policy efforts.

The federal indictment of Mr. Trump, which deems Mr. Clark an unindicted co-conspirator, recounts how a White House lawyer told Mr. Clark that there had not been outcome-changing election fraud — and warned that if Mr. Trump nonetheless remained in office, there would be riots in every major city in the United States.

“Well,” Mr. Clark responded, according to the indictment, “that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. More about Charlie Savage

Jonathan Swan is a political reporter covering the 2024 presidential election and Donald Trump’s campaign. More about Jonathan Swan

Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent reporting on the 2024 presidential campaign, down ballot races across the country and the investigations into former President Donald J. Trump. More about Maggie Haberman

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 18, 2024 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump’s Vision For the Border: Send In Troops. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

See more on: Donald Trump, American Civil Liberties Union

8 notes · View notes

stephenjaymorrisblog · 8 months ago

Text

How Will All This End?

Stephen Jay Morris

5/4/2024

©Scientific Morality

Ever hear of the expression, “a self-fulfilling prophecy?” What does that mean? You can convince yourself that something negative will happen in the future; you can convince yourself by repeating it repeatedly. Does it usually happen? Well, if you believe in a supernatural belief system, you can make something happen by chanting for it. If you believe in logic, there’s a 50-50 chance that something you predict may happen by coincidence.

I know, I know—in the past I promised not to make any predictions. But America in the year 2024, is too juicy to pass up. Let’s just say, I’m only theorizing. Is that Kosher? OK! Let’s get to it.

Many self-created prophets want that Nostradamus statue on their living room mantel, above the fireplace. But most predictions fall flat on their face. What is America’s number one concern as it is shoved down our collective throats? The presidential election in November 2024. Let’s see. Before the primaries, both political parties declared their candidates for president.

That didn’t happen in 1968. The Democrats had three candidates running for president. RFK, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey. So did the Republican Party. Nelson Rockefeller, Ronny Reagan, and Dick Nixon. (Can you believe that Dick Nixon beat Ronny Reagan?) So, this not like 1968 at all.

Second of all, will there be riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago this summer? Same as in 1968—yes. Will there be any trouble? Not really. In 1968, there were dozens of protest groups, from the Civil Rights movement to the Black Panther Party. Also, from SDS to the Yippies. The City government consisted of Blue Dog Democrats. What are Blue Dog Democrats? Right wing Democrats. Yeah, there was such a thing! After all, Rockefeller was a Liberal Republican. The Mayor, Richard J. Daley, was a Red Neck conservative, and he loved the police force and the military. Now, in 2024, the Chicago city council are mostly left-of-center Democrats. Nothing will happen on the streets of Chicago because the Liberals will negotiate with the protest leaders. And make deals with them. Unless police provocateurs or Israeli agents start some shit. But I highly doubt it.

So, what about the Republican Convention? In 1968, they had theirs in Miami Beach Florida. It’s funny; the Democrats had theirs at the same place in ‘72. There were riots there. Looking back, the so-called media always focused on the Democratic Convention. They loved it when the Left fought Liberals. People forget when the Republicans had a riot near their convention in ’68, Blacks rioted at Liberty City and the media blacked it out. (Pun intended.) In 1970, when White students at Kent State got shot, it was front page news. However, when Black students got shot by cops at Jackson State, that appeared on page 18 in the newspaper. So, when the GOP have their convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this year, the media will downplay any demonstrations. If you still think the media is liberal, maybe you should go to your primary care provider and get tested for early-stage dementia.

Now, between Biden and Trump, who will win? Biden is senile and Trump is demented. A lot can happen before November. Biden could drop out of the race for an elderly illness. Or he could die of natural causes. Keep your eye on Kamala Harris. She might be our first female president. If Biden does survive, he will lose the race.

What about Trump? He could win, but he’d be very ineffectual sitting in a prison cell. Keep your eye on his vice-presidential choice. They might be our next president if Trump wins. It cracks me up how some of his sycophant followers portray him as some type of superhero. He must wear a girdle to keep that fat belly from falling on his dick! His arteries are so clogged with junk food, he might have a massive heart attack while sitting in the prison cafeteria. Plus, he has obvious signs of dementia; just listen to how he talks. I love how supporters of both candidates deny that their candidate has any illness. If Trump survives, he will barely win. The outcome may depend on which candidate dies first.

Now, about this talk over losing our democracy. We never had it! For decades, the Chuds have claimed that we are a Constitutional Republic. The Liberals say we are a Liberal Democracy. Who’s right? Who cares?! This two-party system will always be a two-party system. If we were a true Democracy, we would have 17 political parties—just like Israel. But no, we have this fake rivalry between left and right. “Democrats are for the working man.” No, they’re not. “The Republicans are for individualism and Jesus.” Really?

So, as for this ultimatum of either we elect Biden or we get fascism versus if you vote for Trump, you’ll be raptured and float up to heaven…Fuck off, please! Nothing is going to happen in November. Even if Trump is elected, America will survive. If Biden wins, America will survive.

It’s time for a new constitution! It’s time for a one world anarchy!

Whatever!

#stephenjaymorris #poets on tumblr #american politics #poets of tumblr #anarchopunk #baby boomers #anarchocommunism #satire #anarchism #youtube

15 notes · View notes

aressida · 7 months ago

Text

My entry: "A Dream: The Digital Siege of Australia's Journey into a Digital Prison Island: From Freedom to Fear." - Aressida. 23.5.24.

I looked up and was greeted by digital billboards scattered across the old outer city wall, flashing with an array of propaganda news and bad information. Among them, I noticed the captivating bounty lists of dissenters. I chuckled when I saw my own name there, curiosity taking over.

"Government of Australian Digital ID System - Dissenter Description: Subject: Aressida Fox. Description: Aressida, a known dissenter and member of the resistance movement, is being actively pursued by the Australian Government. Marked as a criminal - Accused of sedition, cyberterrorism and not paying fines. Background: Aressida's profound involvement in the resistance movement is rooted in her unwavering belief in safeguarding individual liberties and challenging the oppressive grip of government control. Public Notice: WARNING: The Australian Government has marked Aressida as a criminal for her involvement in the resistance movement. With her exceptional ability to ghost around undetected, caution must be exercised when approaching her. Exercise caution and report any sightings or information regarding Aressida's whereabouts. Approach with discretion and prioritize personal safety at all times."

I did not feel too conflicted about seeing my name on the bounty list, my participation in the resistance movement, my steadfast commitment to defending individual liberties, and my challenge to governmental power have made me a target. I understand that their portrayal of me as a threat to society is inaccurate, since I am actually a lawfully protesting digital soldier against oppressive restrictions.

I want everyone to know that although though we, the Digital Soldiers, may be perceived as a threat, we consider ourselves to be defenders of the truth and of a society that is free.

The fire of rebellion, the strength of unification, and the power of knowledge are all burning within us. We call for transparency, stage public demonstrations, and enlist the support of our fellow citizens in our struggle for a brighter future. We are going to take back our country from this virtual jailhouse together. But the road to change is filled with peril and death. The government is working harder to apprehend me and put an end to our voices. They have already declared us to be enemies of the state for years, they will not give up easily.

History's scars serve as a reminder of the dangers of unchecked authority, right?

I steadfastly make my way towards the city walls before nightfall.

Before I could meet the other resistance teams, I blend in, a vast symphony of unhappiness is emitted by the multitude of people gathered in the central plaza of the burning city. I knew it had to express their anxieties and urge them to take action, to speak out against the government's overreach. Signs, posters, and banners with the slogans "Down with the Digital ID System", “In the end we said no!” and “Give me liberty, or give me death!" are waving in the wind there, inspiring optimism among the dejected masses.

When tear gas is released, arrests happen often, and riot police are sent in. The government uses intimidation and physical force to suppress dissent and hold power. With their cutting-edge monitoring equipment and unrelenting drones, it’s annoying.

“And remember, the power of the people cannot be silenced. We are still strong and resilient in our pursuit of justice and freedom. Stay united, stay peaceful, and continue to make your voices heard. This is Aressida, standing with you in this city. Let’s move. Over and out.”

To Be Continued…

#aressida #blog #23.5.24

6 notes · View notes

elvenbeard · 1 year ago

Text

AAHHH!!! I *finally* got to play a little more Phantom Liberty today öahjsdföasklfasfhdfs

First I wanted to riot slightly cause GoG didn't find my install anymore (but rescanning folders did the trick).

Man OH MAN. I'm really just rambling about how fucking cool this game is below the cut, but beware of spoilers!!

"How the fuck do I keep ending up in these situations..."

I played all the way up to meeting Reed and agreeing to work with him back in the President's hideout. This was also the point up until I'd seen the gameplay at Phantom Liberty Tour back in August, but I also saw a loooot of new stuff o.o The demo back then started at entering the Stadium (when V walks through that area with cyberarms hanging from the ceiling) - stopped at meeting Myers in the crashed plane - continued at arriving at the hideout with her and then ended, as I said, with shaking hands with Reed.

SO. The whole "how do we get the president to the hideout" sequence was completely new to me AND MAAAN. That Chimera fight was so good like?? The whole setup and everything, I didn't expect such a big and epic boss fight so early on in the expansion at all, really sets the tone I guess xD First V gets his face bashed in by the President, then gets his ribs broken by this thing, things can only get better from here on. That whole section gave me such Bioshock vibes actually like... the Art Deco architecture the "amazing city that turned out so awful" vibes, it's impeccable, and I love it so so much. Really gotta take some time to properly explore everything (and now I gotta wait for Reed to call me back so, best opportunity).

I saw that thing under the tarp and was like "oh yeah, later on in the story this is gonna come back to bite me in the ass" - only that in this case "later" was "five minutes later" not "10 story missions later" as I anticipated XD

Also, I gotta say, I really don't trust Myers or Songbird much at this point with their intentions. I mentioned this previously... how convenient for Songbird to know to contact V via the Relic, but how the hell did she know about it in the first place, that he had it, where he was at, etc.? And then, in the Space Force One Wreck there was the shard with the answer! They knew about the Konpeki heist and two involved mercs through an informant potentially working at Arasaka. Yet, when I then deliberately chose a dialogue later on where V was like "yeah, I got Arasaka's Relic stuck in my head" Myers was all "oh, what really! how peculiar!". And maybe she really didn't know and I'm reading too much into it, but I'm really not liking her vibes atm at all XD (as a character though she's so cool, not at all how I'd picture a typical NUSA president, and I get the impression she doesn't really like the role all that much - I wanna read up on her background lore as soon as I'm done playing XD). AND. The shard on the plane specifically mentions Johnny on the Relic AND I'M CALLING IT NOW like I called it before, I BET they're really after Johnny's engram to do some experimenting with it for some fucked up Militech scheme. And in return V gets to live or some crap. URGH. I hope I'm wrong but I said it before "Phantom Liberty" (if you read it as in "a ghost that was freed" or "no real freedom") screams to me that this all boils down to something happening to Johnny in a messed up way in the end in exchange for V's life. Analogue to the Devil ending, but instead of Arasaka you have Militech/NUSA (if I'm wrong, please don't spoiler it to me, and if I'm right or close, please don't spoiler it either XD I wanna see just how far off I am myself XDD)

Songbird being MIA is hmmm... Not quite suspicious, but I'm wondering if she is still alive or maybe also doomed to be a construct now, but I'm really not sure. It would be kinda disappointing, I'd like to meet her in person still and am excited to see what she is gaining in all of this. I like the tragic "gifted criminal kid turned government asset" trope a lot and I'm curious to see how her story develops.

I'm also loving all the lifepath specific dialogues so much, I'm actually learning something new now and then about what Vince's Arasaka job was actually truly like at the core!

Also Myers roasting him for not having had a high enough security clearance to know about Reed xDD So rude! But I'm so so so curious how Ex-Arasaka agent with occasional homesickness to the corporate world and FIA-Sleeper agent with a big Arasaka-grudge are gonna work together o.o

I feel like, they're either really gonna see eye-to-eye very much or will continue to clash over and over and V is gonna come out as the loser at the end of this xD But currently, me as the player I'm trusting no one, and Vince as being caught up in all of this tries to play nice and be on everyone's good side but behind the scenes does not trust any of them one bit either xD It's really more a one hand washes the other kinda deal for him with no long-term obligations.

I'm also LOVING Johnny in all of this so far like... Vince and he don't get along that well most of the time for a variety of reasons. And so far, even though I got the Sun ending as my canon (as of right now), I feel like Vince acted more out of desperation than real trust or anything in going down that path and not any other. So I think Phantom Liberty *might* be the storyline that has been missing for me personally so far to really legitimize to myself that Vince would trust Johnny enough to let him take over his body for that last mission or go on a suicide run through Arasaka Tower with him. They are really seeing eye to eye on a lot of the stuff that's going on, both paranoid and suspicious, both not liking to swear any oaths or work for the FIA or anything like that. Bonding over their shared dislike for all the secrecy and scheming xD

Speaking of timelines, I found an ingame date for the 16th of June about an meeting Myers was to attend and another meeting scheduled for June 18th - sounding like the 16th is already passed at this point and the plane crash probably happening on the 16th or 17th or something like this... which completely throws my previously established timeline overboard :D But also stretches the canonical timeline a bit, if my assumptions are right, which would be nice and a lot more realistic than "like, a month, for all of that to happen". (For reference, in my timeline for Vince without PL I put the last quest on June 9th).

But that's only speculation ofc!

Then I also had my first vehicle gig for Muamar and omggg I loved this little convo with him so fucking much?? Like, this really built up his character so nicely, and the whole car stealing scheme would also be super down Vince's alley XD

And this exchange I LOVED sm:

Vince, car nerd surpreme, offering to fix the Cap's car, and Muamar's response: certain things I don't do halfway -> my clothes, my cut, my cars. Vince 100% seconds that sentiment XDD Like, so far I have to admit Muamar never really grabbed me that much as a character and I felt like he and Vince probably didn't have much in common. I was wrong XD

I also wanted to pay Mr. Hands a visit in his funky pyramid, but he wouldn't let me in yet. I'm so looking foward to finally playing his gigs now :D And seeing what else Dogtown has to offer in terms of stories and side jobs :o

Others mentioned it already, but I'm loving this place's design so so much... it feels like a different city altogether, the style of the buildings and everything is so unique and it's such a biiiig sprawling place o.o

And a random little thing I noticed, there's a lot of little cinematic moments now (the contextual removal of the HUD for conversations for example is such a good new feature). And occasionally the camera will automatically pan to interesting events or V's optics zoom in automatically - it was a bit weird the first time it happened but I really like it in a way? I noticed it during the part of rescuing Myers where you had to sneak past the huge Barghest drone (also such a good good moment, I'm loving all the stealth, parkour, and whatnot, the level design is *so good* hhhhh).

And finally, when I decided "okay, I'm gonna go to bed now" and was just about to close the game... I got a text message from Kerry I didn't know yet :DDD

(the fucking emojis with noses, Kerry pls, your age is really showing)

Like... I did not expect new texts from the LIs, and yeah, this got me really excited xD (and yeh I obviously had to read all the different outcomes and there *are* some differences depending on what you text back. I love it sm). AND. Then I called him. And there's new conversations about the events of PL too??? Hello?

Man I wish there was something like that for the other missions but obviously, with how late-game Kerry's romance is that sadly doesn't make much sense. So this is also something that made me tremendously happy (and also adds some new depth and bits and pieces to Kerry's character, which I'm always so here for XD). Exicted to see if there's more to talk about with him as the expansion progresses - I doubt it, but I'm ready to be surprised, maybe also by the other main NPCs that you're not in a relationship with.

That one V will definitely bear in mind for whatever is to come. Hhhhh I'm so excited!!

#cyberpunk 2077 #phantom liberty #phantom liberty spoilers #pl spoilers #cyberpunk 2077 spoilers #elven plays cyberpunk 2077 #spoilers #öjkasdjhfafjaköslf I should be sleeping but I CANT my brain is going BRRR

9 notes · View notes

kaijuboarcreations · 2 years ago

Text

Into the Andersonverse: A full timeline of events for the confirmed continuity of Gerry Anderson Supermarionation shows (Fireball XL5 to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons)

(Disclaimer*: i actually opted to follow Thunderbirds are Go canon for ages *don't ask me why it's a process plus the actual ages and birth order for the boys is heavily debated in both the og series and are go so don't at me* Also yes I took a few creative liberties to fill in some blanks they are marked by ** so you know what isn't canon, and yes it doesn't always make sense *aka how Venus is a war orphan if the war ended before she was born* but you can't blame me for that, that's just how it was written)

Anyways yall better love me for this it took me three days to make

1988: Sally "Grandma" Tracy is born (maiden name unknown)

2012: Professor Mathew Matic is born in Britain -Aloysius "Nosey" Parker is born - Jeff Tracy is born in Kansas to Grant and Sally Tracy**

2015: Commander Sam Shore (real name Samuel Arthur)is born in Kansas

2017: Charles Grey (Colonel White) is born in England

2028: European Atomic War and Mass Riots in France

2029: Conrad Turner (Captain Black) is born in Manchester, England

2030: Steve Zodiac is born on Mars -Sam Shore leaves home to join the navy

2031: Edward Wilkie (Dr Fawn) is born in Yalumba, Australia

2033: Professor Matic graduates with 22 degrees in astrophysics, robotic, and astronomy, and becomes a navigator for Zero-X interplanetary missions -Sam Shore is given command of a World Security Service submarine -Bradley Holden (Captain Gray) is born in Chicago

2034: Sam Shore befriends Admiral Jack Denver -Patrick Donaghue (Captain Magenta) is born in Dublin Bay, Ireland -The European Atomic War ends (the war left Venus and Conrad Turner orphaned)

2035: Venus is born in Paris -George Lee "Phones" Sheridan is born in South Carolina -Adam Svenson (Captain Blue) is born in Boston -Richard Fraiser (Captain Ochre) is born in Detroit

2036: Paul Metcalfe (Captain Scarlet) is born in Hampshire, England

2037: Jeff Tracy becomes a Colonel for the US Air Force and later transfers to the Space Agency -Patrick Donaghue and his parents immigrate to the US, living in poverty in Manhattan

2038: Troy Tempest is born in New York City -Jeff Tracy marries Lucielle** -Charles Grey graduates from the University of East Angila -Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward is born to Sir Hugh and Lady Amelia**

2040: War damage fixed -Sam Shore marries Elaine MacDonald -Scott Tracy is born**

-"Brains" is born -The Southeast Asia revolts -Juliette Pontoin (Destiny Angel) is born in Paris

2041: Atlanta Shore is born from Elaine and Sam in California -Seymour Griffiths (Lieutenant Green) is born in Trinidad

2042: John Tracy is born** -The Iceland Dispute -The Panama-Ithsmus rebellion begins -Karen Wainwright (Symphony Angel) is born in Cedar Rapids -Chan Kwan (Harmony Angel) is born in Tokyo

2043: The Panama-Ithsmus rebellion ends -Magnolia Jones (Melody Angel) is born in Atlanta -Dianne Simms (Rhapsody Angel) is born in London

2044: Virgil Tracy is born**

2045: Professor Matic takes the role as a professor for Universe University -Conrad Turner joins the British Air Force

2046: Marina is born -Gordon Tracy is born** -Charles Grey moves up to the rank of 'Captain' -The British Civil War begins (during which Conrad Turner is badly wounded)

2047: Steve Zodiac joints WSP Academy -Tanusha "Kayo" Kyrano/Tintin Kyrano is born** -Britain joins the World Government -Charles Grey becomes Admiral while commanding the World Navy Destroyer fleet -Conrad Turner joins the World Air Force

2048: Charles Grey joins the Universal Secret Service and marries his field partner Elizabeth Sonmers -Edward Wilkie starts medical school in Brisbane

2049: the British sector of the USS is reorganized by Charles Grey

2050: Professor Matic designs and builds the world's first Nutomic Hyperdrive Motor and is given an honorary position as Major while heading the XL project -Alan Tracy is born** -Charles Grey is promoted to the head of the USS British sector

2051: Steve Zodiac becomes an astronaut and sub-lieutenant at Space City -Prototypes of the XL project are debuted including XL1 Alpha -Adam Svenson receives a full ride scholarship to Harvard University at age 16

2052: the Anti-Bereznik Riots (of which Patrick Donaghue was involved where he was later arrested and imprisoned for 90 days)

2053: Steve Zodiac befriends space explorer Jim Ireland who sets off on a 10 year voyage -Seymour Griffiths loses his parents in an air disaster

2054: Richard Fraiser joins the World Government Police Corps after being rejected from university and the Air Force -Bradley Holden graduates from the World Navy Academy in San Diego immediately enlisting in the World Navy submarine service

2055: Steve is promoted to captain and is assigned to co-pilot Fireball XL5 -Conrad Turner joins the World Space Patrol and mans Fireball XL3 -Adam Svenson joins the World Aeronautic Society as a test pilot -Patrick Donaghue finishes his studies and graduates from Yale University with degrees in physics, electrical engineering, and technology and he takes a job as a computer programmer for a firm in Brooklyn but soon quit for a life of crime -Edward Wilkie graduates from Brisbane with degrees in medicine and biology and joins the Australian sector of the World Medical Organization as assistant medical controler. Later that same year he is promoted to health controller of the Scandinavian sector.

2056: Venus joins the World Space Patrol -Colonel Grange suffers a mental breakdown while piloting Fireball XL5 leaving Steve to bring them to safety -Marina's mother dies -Troy Tempest joins the World Navy Academy in San Diego -Lucielle Tracy passes away

2057: All Fireball XL ships are outfitted with the Nutomic Hyperdrive Motor -Paul Metcalfe graduates from Winchester University with degrees in History, Technology, and Mathematics -Adam Svenson is promoted to active field agent for WAS -Patrick Donaghue becomes a kingpin for organized crime in New York due to his leadership over several gangs and hacking abilities -Edward Wilkie revolutionizes the WMO's medical technology through robots which places him in the position of Administrator for Advancements in Medicine and Medical Science -Juliette Pontoin attends University in Rome

2058: Elaine Shore suffers a heart attack and passes away -Phones takes on work as a mercenary -Karen Wainwright attends Yale University at age 16

-Lady Penelope becomes chief operative of the Federal Agents Beareu where she meets Jeff Tracy (wait...... F.A.B..... so that's what that stands for....)

2059: Paul Metcalf begins study at West Point Military University in New York -Richard Fraiser transfers to Chicago and takes on one of the toughest crime syndicates in the country

2060: An attack on his vessel causes Sam Shore to lose use of his legs. He and Atlanta move to Marineville to command the World Aquanaut Security Patrol (which is newly established)

-Gordon Tracy interns with WASP** -Troy Tempest is captured on a failed mission and is rescued by Phones who he convinces to join the navy -Troy Tempest arrives at WASP Marineville -Juliette Pontoin joins the World Army Air Force and is transferred to the Intelligence Corps where she hones her skills as a pilot, leads the Woman's Fighter Squadron

2061: Magnolia Jones joins the World Army Airforce at age 18

-Gordon Tracy suffers an accident while working with a high speed hydrofoil**

2062: the start of the events of Fireball XL5 -Jeff Tracy establishes International Rescue -Seymour Griffiths graduates University in Kingston Jamaica with degrees in telecommunications, technology, and music and joins WASP as a junior hydrophone operator (his brothers followed but were killed in an accident which Seymour transferred as a telecommunications operator at Marineville) -Bradley Holden joins WASP as the Lieutenant commander security chief and takes the role of piloting Stingray in her prototype years -Karen Wainwright becomes a full fledged field agent for Universal Secret Service after several years of training -Magnolia Jones becomes lost while taking the XKF 115 aircraft on a test flight and loses contact with control -Chan Kwan graduates University and is determined to fly solo around the world

2063: Venus earns a degree in Space Psychology -Steve Zodiac is awarded Astronaut of the Year -Paul Metcalfe graduates from West Point and joins the World Air Force -Juliette Pontoin leaves WAAF to start her own pilot contracting firm -Magnolia Jones returns after being lost for almost a year after rebuilding her craft from the wreckage. She shortly leaves to focus on flying and setting up a freelance air taxi service -Dianne Simms meets Lady Penelope and is offered a position in the FAB to train as an agent

2064: Bradley Holden receives a severe back injury taking him out of the line to duty and landing him a desk job at Marineville -Troy Tempest becomes captain of Stingray and takes on Phones as his co-pilot -Chan Kwan attempts her voyage around the world but stops to answer a distress call to rescue a group of men from a burning tanker ship in the Pacific. Six months later she tries again and succeeds

2065: the events of Thunderbirds begins -the Spectrum Organization is established and Charles Grey turns down the position of Supreme Commander of the USS to take on his role as "Colonel White" for Spectrum under the Spectrum Selection Committee -Seymour Griffiths joins Spectrum under the codename "Lieutenant Green" -Conrad Turner joins Spectrum under the codename "Captain Black" and quickly climbs the ranks as Spectrum's top agent -Paul Metcalfe joins Spectrum under the code name "Captain Scarlet" (thanks to recommendation from Conrad) -Adam Svenson joins Spectrum under the code name "Captain Blue" -Patrick Donaghue is pardoned for his crimes and is offered a position as an agent of Spectrum under the code name "Captain Magenta" -Dr Edward Wilkie is approached by Spectrum to become the Supreme Medical Commander of Cloudbase and given the codename "Doctor Fawn" -Juliette Pontoin is approached to join Spectrum's squadron of fighter pilots and is given the codename "Destiny Angel" -Magnolia Jones is selected by Spectrum as a fighter pilot and is given the codename "Melody Angel" -Lady Penelope quits her role in the FAB to focus on her work with International Rescue. The FAB dissolves soon after. -Dianne Simms is forced to leave the FAB and becomes a chief security officer for the Euro-Charter Airline company -Chan Kwan's father dies and she takes over the family air taxi company 2066: Richard Fraiser fakes assassination and joins Spectrum under the code name "Captain Ochre" -Bradley Holden clears a health check under Spectrum and is recruited as an agent under the codename "Captain Gray"

-Karen Wainwright quits her work with the USS to become a pilot full time. Shortly after she passes her exam to join Spectrum and joins the Angel squadron under the codename "Symphony Angel" -Dianne Simms is approached by Spectrum to join the Angel squadron and is given the codename "Rhapsody Angel"

-Chan Kwan is approached by the Spectrum Selection Committee to become an Angel pilot, in which she is accepted and given the codename "Harmony Angel"

2068: the events of Thunderbirds end and the events of Captain Scarlet begin (the Mysterons declare war on Earth after the Zero X Mars expedition comes across their settlement and attacks)

#gerry anderson #Supermarionation #fireball xl5 #stingray 1964 #Thunderbirds #thunderbirds are go #captain scarlet and the mysterons

27 notes · View notes

graymanbriefing · 8 months ago

Photo

Civil Unrest / Societal Collapse / Citizen Actions Brief: National Summary 》In Dearborn, MI; pro-Palestinians gathered at an "International Day of Al-Quds" (annual Palestinian event held on the last Friday of Ramadan) and chanted "death to America"... 》Nationwide on April 13th; activists associated with "Don't Mess with Our Kids" conduct rallies at all 50 state capitals. The Christian centered group, affiliated with "Her Voice Movement" and supported by "Mom's 4 Liberty", conducted prayer rallies/gatherings in the 50 cities and also called for "pro transgender ideologies" to no longer be promoted in public school systems. LGBT activists counter-protested many of the gatherings. At least one rally was attended by Proud Boys. The majority of... 》Nationwide, pro-Palestinians gathered at rallies and celebrated Iran's attack on Israel. Videos show rally leaders teaching U.S. citizens who support Palestine and Hamas, how to chant "death to America" i... 》In Chicago, IL on April 15th; pro-Palestinians blocked the roadway (I-190) entering into Terminal 1 at O'Hare Airport, for... 》In San Francisco, CA on April 15th; pro-Palestinians blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge holding signage that read "stop the world for Gaza". Both directions of travel were halted on the bridge for "multiple miles" for 4+ hours. Protestors tethered themselves to vehicles to prevent LE from removing them from the road. Debrief: U.S. Senator Cotton advised that citizens should "take matters into their own hands" to intervene when pro-Palestinians begin blocking roads. Such e... 》In NYC, NY on April 15th; mass pro-Palestinian protests (15 different protests) occurred throughout the city as the groups celebrated attacks on Israel and called for the U.S. to stop assisting Israel. Pro-Israeli groups counter-protested. Multiple roads were blocked, including Newburgh-Beacon Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge. Protestors were seen waving Hezbollah fla... 》In OR, FL, PA, TX, WA, CA, NY, and at least 12 other states on April 15th; mass pro-Palestinian protests and riots shut dow...(CLASSIFIED, get briefs in real-time unredacted by joining at www.graymanbriefing.com)

#News #Intel #Situational Awareness #Prepping

2 notes · View notes

lightdancer1 · 2 years ago

Text

For MLK Day, a link to his speech "The Other America"

This is the one most famous for the single line that 'Riots are the voice of the unheard.' That line is presented here in its context in the speech:

So these conditions, existence of widespread poverty, slums, and of tragic conniptions in schools and other areas of life, all of these things have brought about a great deal of despair, and a great deal of desperation. A great deal of disappointment and even bitterness in the Negro communities. And today all of our cities confront huge problems. All of our cities are potentially powder kegs as a result of the continued existence of these conditions. Many in moments of anger, many in moments of deep bitterness engage in riots.

Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

Now let me go on to say that if we are to deal with all of the problems that I've talked about, and if we are to bring America to the point that we have one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, there are certain things that we must do. The job ahead must be massive and positive. We must develop massive action programs all over the United States of America in order to deal with the problems that I have mentioned. Now in order to develop these massive action programs we've got to get rid of one or two false notions that continue to exist in our society. One is the notion that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice. I'm sure you've heard this idea. It is the notion almost that there is something in the very flow of time that will miraculously cure all evils. And I've heard this over and over again. There are those, and they are often sincere people, who say to Negroes and their allies In the white community, that we should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem.

I think there is an answer to that myth. And it is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm absolutely convinced that the forces of ill-will in our nation, the extreme rightists in our nation, have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time. Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated Individuals. And without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must help time, and we must realize that the time is always right to do right."

#civil rights movement #martin luther king jr #the other america #mlk speeches

35 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 1 year ago

Text

Sunday, July 2, 2023

Moms for Liberty emerges as a force in the 2024 US presidential election (Reuters) Top rivals for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination on Friday addressed the national conference of Moms for Liberty, appealing to the conservative parents-rights advocacy group with vows to bolster education and keep discussion of gender identity out of the classroom. The appearance of Trump and rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley at the summit served as a testament to the weight their campaigns are placing on race- and gender-based cultural issues related to education heading into next year’s nominating contests. Culture war issues have animated parts of the Republican base, and the Republican rivals are hoping to appeal to parents of school-age children, particularly suburban women, an important voting bloc in U.S. presidential elections. Launched in 2021 at the height of the pandemic, Moms for Liberty increasingly has played an active role in helping to elect conservative members of local school boards, while also lobbying state legislatures for measures such as Florida’s law that prohibits the teaching of gender-identity concepts to elementary- and middle-school students.

French Police Won Authority to Shoot at Drivers, but Got ‘No Training Whatsoever’ (NYT) For years, French police unions argued that officers should get broader discretion over when to shoot at fleeing motorists. Time and again, lawmakers refused. Finally in 2017, after a string of terrorist attacks, the government relented. Eager to be tough on crime and terrorism, lawmakers passed a bill allowing officers to fire on motorists who flee traffic stops, even when the officers are not in immediate danger. Since that law passed, the number of fatal police shootings of motorists has increased sixfold, according to data compiled recently by a team of French researchers and shared with The New York Times. Last year, 13 people were shot dead in their vehicles, a record in a country where police killings are rare. The law has come under fresh scrutiny after a police officer killed a teenage driver during a traffic stop this week, shocking the country and igniting street protests and riots. Several lawmakers have called for a repeal or revision of the law. Union leaders, including those who supported the law, say training on what it permitted was woefully inadequate. “We received no training whatsoever,” one officer said.

In French banlieues, distrust of police runs deep (Reuters) Sports teacher Benjamin Belaidi held a banner reading “no justice, no peace” as he marched in memory of the teenager shot dead by French police, weary of what he described as repressive policing and an absent state in city suburbs. The 38-year-old Belaidi, who grew up in one of the low-income housing estates that ring France’s towns and cities, was among thousands who marched peacefully to denounce what many in the “banlieues” say is a culture of police violence and systemic racism within law enforcement. The fatal shooting of the teenager, who was of North African descent and has been identified as Nahel M., in the western Paris suburb of Nanterre has unleashed three nights of violent unrest across France. For some, the rage on the street is fuelled by a sense of injustice in the banlieues after incidents of police violence against minority ethnic communities—many of whom are from former French colonies.

Ukraine aims to wear down and outsmart a Russian army distracted by infighting (AP) Across the 1,500-kilometer (930-mile) front line, Ukrainian forces are attempting to wear down the enemy and reshape battle lines to create more favorable conditions for a decisive, eastward advance. One strategy could be to try to split Russia’s forces in two so that the Crimean Peninsula, which Moscow annexed in 2014, is isolated from the rest of the territory it controls. Ukraine’s troops were given a boost of morale last week by an armed rebellion in Russia that posed the most significant threat to President Vladimir Putin’s power in more than two decades. Yet how the revolt by Wagner Group mercenaries under the command of Russian warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin affects the trajectory of the war remains to be seen. Experts say the impact on the battlefield so far appears minimal. And with the autumn muddy season only four months away, some Ukrainian commanders say they are racing against time.

U.S. poised to give Ukraine controversial cluster bombs (Washington Post) Confronted with a worrying shortage of artillery ammunition, a counteroffensive that has been slow to launch and increasingly desperate appeals from Kyiv for more weaponry, the Biden administration is facing an imminent decision over whether to supply Ukraine with controversial cluster bombs. Senior administration and defense officials have in recent weeks contacted Capitol Hill and allies long opposed to the use of cluster munitions to make the case that they are needed on the Ukraine battlefield and to provide assurances on how they would be used. The United States is one of nearly four dozen countries—including a handful of other NATO members as well as Russia, China and Ukraine—that retain stockpiles of cluster munitions and have declined to join more than 120 other nations that have signed an international convention banning their use, transfer or production. The weapons, which can be delivered by artillery, rockets, bombs and missiles, explode in the air over a target, releasing smaller submunitions across hundreds of yards. Human rights organizations and other governments have denounced their use as inherently inhumane and indiscriminate, documenting the extent to which these weapons have maimed and killed thousands of civilians around the world, particularly because of their propensity to leave duds scattered across the ground. These explosive charges can be triggered long after the end of a military conflict.

Pakistan gets a lifeline from the IMF with a new $3 billion bailout to help avoid default (AP) The International Monetary Fund has agreed to provide $3 billion to Pakistan in badly needed relief to help bail out the impoverished country’s ailing economy. The nine-month agreement must be approved by the IMF’s Executive Board, which is expected to make a final decision in mid-July. Pakistan’s economy has faced several heavy blows recently, such as the devastating floods last summer that killed 1,739 people, caused $30 billion in damage and impacted millions of Pakistanis. The country was also hit by an international commodity price spike in the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

State Department Report on Afghanistan Exit Urges ‘Worst Case’ Thinking (NYT) The State Department should plan better for worst-case scenarios, strengthen its crisis management capabilities and ensure that top officials hear “the broadest possible range of views,” including ones that challenge their assumptions and decisions. Those were some of the key findings of a State Department review of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, which contributed to the sudden collapse of the Afghan government and required a massive airlift to rescue roughly 125,000 U.S. citizens and Afghans who had assisted the United States. The review also portrayed a department that scrambled to respond to the crisis due to unfilled senior positions, unclear leadership on planning efforts and a shortage of seasoned diplomats in Kabul. The document addresses what even many Democrats call a foreign policy debacle for the Biden administration: its failure to more adequately prepare for the abrupt collapse of the Afghan state and avoid days of harrowing chaos in Kabul surrounding an emergency exit that included a terrorist bombing at the city’s airport that killed as many as 170 civilians and 13 U.S. troops.

Chinese college grads are ‘zombie-style’ on campus (Washington Post) They are not your average graduation photos. There are no beaming graduates holding their diplomas proudly or throwing their mortarboards into the air. There are no proud parents standing alongside their newly credentialed offspring. Instead, a small but sizable cohort of China’s Class of 2023 has marked the occasion by posting photos of themselves looking completely worn-out. Sprawled on the ground, their faces covered by their tasseled caps. Bent over railings with their hands dangling listlessly. On social media, they’re often accompanied by hashtags like “zombie-style” or “lying flat.” The unconventional graduation photos are a response to the ultracompetitive environment that Chinese graduates face as they venture out into the world of work. With the economy struggling to emerge from three paralyzing years of zero-covid policies, the unemployment rate is high, especially among young people. Some 20 percent of people between ages 16 and 24 are jobless, according to the latest statistics. At the same time, a record 11.6 million people have just graduated from college. With their prospects looking bleak, some new graduates are adopting a “lying flat”—or “tangping” in Chinese—mentality. Tangping has emerged as a rallying cry among Chinese millennials and Gen-Z’ers who have had enough of the rat race and want to opt out of China’s intense work culture and the social expectations that come with it.

Indonesia’s Java escapes 6.4 magnitude quake with few casualties, light damage (Reuters) A magnitude 6.4 earthquake struck off the Indonesian island of Java on Friday evening, injuring at least 10 people, while one person died of suspected heart attack during the quake, the country’s disaster mitigation agency said. The tremor caused minor damage to hundreds of houses, some offices, health and education facilities scattered in the region of Yogyakarta and Central Java province.

Settler violence in Israel opens a new split in Netanyahu’s government (Washington Post) The recent spate of settler attacks on Palestinian villages in the West Bank is deepening fissures in Israel’s right-wing government, with hard-line ministers pushing back on calls by military and security chiefs for a crackdown on Jewish extremists. In the attacks, carried out over several days in revenge for the killing of four Israeli settlers by Hamas gunmen, armed mobs marauded through villages, torching homes and cars, cutting power lines and firing weapons. At least one Palestinian civilian was killed, according to health officials, and dozens have been injured. The split over how to respond to the violence is just the latest example of tensions pulling at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fractious governing coalition as it struggles to remake the country’s judiciary and ease strains with the United States, Europe and regional powers. It pits the country’s security establishment against far-right cabinet members, who say the rampages are an understandable reaction to Palestinian violence and reject characterizing them as “Jewish terrorism.”

Flooding in South Africa kills 7 (AP) Seven people have died and another seven are missing after days of heavy rainfall triggered floods in and around the South African city of Durban, local government authorities said Friday. Six people died in Durban and one in Port Sheptsone, a beachside town about 120 kilometers (75 miles) to the south. Rescue teams are still searching for seven more people. Heavy rains and strong winds have battered South Africa’s east coast this week. The unusual weather also resulted in a type of tornado called a “landspout” ripping through one area on the outskirts of Durban, with winds recorded at more than 100 miles per hour (160 kilometres per hour), according to the South African Weather Service.

#headlines #news

3 notes · View notes