Posted on 06/09/2010 1:32:14 PM PDT by cripplecreek
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
From the anarcho-syndicalism web site: “Welcome to Anarcho-Syndicalism 101, your entry point to the global anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary unionist movement. As its name suggests, this website is devoted to aiding and furthering an autonomous global movement of working class solidarity and direct action, based around the ideas and principles of anarcho-syndicalism.”
Thanks-—we were given a heads up on that review, but the publisher isn’t bothered. I guess Pub. Weekly has lost most of its clout. Anyway, we’ll debut at #25 on the non-fiction New York Times list this week!! And that means I’ve got TWO books in the top 35, Patriot’s History and Seven Events. Don’t forget to watch Glenn’s weekend show, cause his interview with me is on it.
7 Events will come out #25 on the NYTimes list this week (nonfiction) giving me two in the top 35! Can’t beat that.
I watched the first half of Glen’s show today and I have to tell you, I got so nervous I had to stop. I will watch the rest of it later. I fear Glen is right!
Search “Black Revolution” (of Blacks, but also in Pakistan) along with “Colour Revolutions”
Our founders were smart enough to want to avoid a direct confrontation with the world’s most powerfull military machine. It obviously didn’t work out that way and they nearly lost but divine intervention prevented it.
Great video (yes, made by PBS!!) is called “The Commanding Heights.” It’s long, but the first disc, called “The Battle of Ideas” is the story of Keynes vs. Hayek in the 20th century. I strongly recommend it.
Ausgezeichnet! Outstanding!
Free copy of “The Coming Insurrection”
http://zinelibrary.info/coming-insurrection
(downloadable in .PDF)
“The coming insurrection - The Invisible Committee”
http://libcom.org/library/coming-insurrection-invisible-committee
I just ordered it.
There are people in this town who were promised one million dollars if they voted for Obama, and he won. So far, none of them got their million bucks. But these people are getting angry and screaming at dems, like Pelosi, demanding their money NOW. It will be pretty ugly soon.
Search on Amazon for “Tarnac 9” (authors of “The Coming Insurrection”)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=tarnac+9
“The Coming Insurrection”
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Insurrection-Semiotext-Intervention/dp/1584350806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276121195&sr=1-1
In French (origin of the pamphlet/book), this book is called L’appell (”The Call”) Now, what does THAT word conjure up? (hint: muezzin)
Interesting book...
The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
reads like a spy novel, but non-fiction
“About the Tarnac 9”
http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10961
For the public record:
“Found from Non Fides Translated from French.
By now the facts are well known. On November 8 2008 a few metal hooks put in the right place uprooted the electric cables of the railway in four different spots, making a mess by blocking 160 high-speed trains. On November 11 police raids carried out in different towns along with a strong media coverage, led to the arrest of ten people who were allegedly responsible for the sabotage. After 96 hours’ questioning, nine of them were charged with ‘criminal association with aims of terrorism’ and five of them were put in jail (three on the basis of ‘having contributed to causing damage’). On December 2 2008, two people were still held in prison, one of them considered the ‘leader’ of the alleged ‘association’. In January 2009 one of the arrested was released with restrictions.
A massive presence of journalists during the very morning of the searches and then the slander against the ‘anarchist-autonomous’ area spread by the media over the following days demonstrate once again how the media are an essential part of the ‘anti-terrorist’ machinery. Craving for sensationalism, playing on personalization and digging in the rubbish, these vultures never change: they are enemies in the service of power. Even if there are still some naïve or idiotic people who think that the media can influence ‘public opinion’, an imaginary and therefore easily malleable concept, we will never be astonished by the tortuous reasoning following which the enemy can be struck only if you collaborate with it.
In the current climate of institutional lies we are witnessing the progressive construction of the characters of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ‘terrorists’. The former, obliging grocers, members of agricultural communities and good students, are the counter-part of the others, all the others, those who don’t have adequate requisites or who, generally speaking, refuse to show that they are good boys and girls when power threatens them.
Not seeking the intervention of elected politicians, interviews and chats on the existence or inexistence of ‘evidence’, many comrades have been rotting in jail for months. They too are accused of belonging to the ‘anarchist-autonomous area’ and (on the basis of traces of DNA) of having set a police car on fire. Others, some of them ‘illegal immigrants’, have been put in jail following the fire at the immigration detention centre in Vincennes, on the basis of CCTV footage. Finally others more are continuously accused of ‘criminal association’, from Villiers-le-Bel to those guilty of trying to survive without having regular jobs. A priori the former are not distinguished from the latter. Unless we accept the categories set by power, the only one that defines who is ‘terrorist’ and who is not; unless we accept the distinction between ‘political’ and ‘social’ prisoners; unless we forget - starting from the names of many support committees (for the 9 of Tarnac) – that others were imprisoned before and maybe others more will be imprisoned; unless we are ready to sacrifice, in the name of the ‘innocence’ of some, all the ‘guilty’ who are captured every day (even if the concept of ‘evidence’ belongs to the judges anyway). Unless we finally take some advantages by helping power in defining a line between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’: between those who are willing to talk to the media and tell their life and sometimes that of others and those who stay silent in front of microphones, between those who are friends with professional intellectuals paid by the State and those who despise all specialisation, between those who exchange their opinions with elected politicians during meetings and those who attack the sites of political parties; in short, between those who talk with power and those who are definitively irrecuperable, mad people who are obstinate in attacking power instead of re-producing it (with its categories and hier-archies) - a reproduction that naturally ends up strengthening it.
But let’s get back to the point. To be against democracy in favour of free self-organization between individuals and against all representative systems, does this mean being ‘terrorists’? To defend sabotage as one of the many instruments of struggle without any hierarchy, does this mean being ‘terrorists’? To fight without mediation for the total destruction of the State and the Capital, in other words to be anarchists in a little more coherent way, does this mean being ‘terrorists’? To have bad intentions, to maintain them and to write about them, does this mean being ‘terrorists’? To find accomplices in the struggle does this mean forming a ‘criminal organization’? In this case, yes, one thousand times yes, we claim our passion for freedom in a loud voice, with all the consequences that are involved. The same passion that belongs to many unknown people who, far away from media celebrity, struggle every day against dominion. In this world based on exploitation, devastation of the environment, war and misery, it is not considered criminal to stay inactive waiting for everything to collapse or, in a more cynical way, to count the score and hope to be safe each one by himself or herself, atomised in his or her own little cage. Because democracy, this way of management of capitalism, is not the most unacceptable of the systems. So far democracy has mainly proved its failure: the world it dominates is still a world of submission and deprivation. It is a system that gives the illusion of participation to the management of the disaster, that is to say of one’s own annihilation, by fomenting and then concealing the division into classes, whose contradictions would be absorbed by permanent concentration.
At the same time, the State is not a neutral instrument that regulates the defects of the market. On the contrary it is one of the allies of market, as demonstrated in this time of ‘financial crisis’ by the massive injection of money in order to save banks and companies, whereas the conditions of exploitation get harder and making ends meet is even more difficult. Yes, we want to destroy the State and not conquer it, because it is one of the pillars of this world of death like its jails, its cops and its tribunals.
As for capitalism, if it is first of all a social relation without heart or centre, it is up to each of us to fight it in its daily aspects. In so-called ‘global’ economy, based on a continuous circulation, flow of goods ( including human ones) is of crucial importance. It is therefore natural that blockage has appeared in struggles of recent years, if not to inflict hard blows, at least to lay the basis for new relations of strength (from the struggle against the CPE to the railway workers’ strikes in France in February 2008, as well as in Germany in 2007, or the struggle of Val Susa in Italy in 2005). The anti-capitalist critique based on direct action and judged useless, obsolete or criminal by the intellectual servants has been put into practise by many exploited in their struggles, because it is they who experience capitalism on their skin. The blockage of the TGV (through damage to the tracks or fire to the cables like in November 2007) – this devastating machinery whose aim is to increase the speed of the circulation of goods – has not happened by chance but is the consequence of the common experience of recent social struggles. Sabotage, moreover, is a widespread practise that finds its reason for being in the very heart of exploitation, be it carried out to steal time from the bosses or to cause damage against oppression.
What power fears is not politically correct demos led by unions during big events of inaction, on the contrary it is the spreading of widespread and anonymous acts in the context of the permanent social struggle, beyond all separatism.
As repression increases everywhere against the dissidents of democracy, to repudiate one’s own past, ideas or even one’s own antagonism seems the last sheet anchor offered by power. To refuse this blackmail is therefore, beyond the worry of not harming anyone, a question of integrity, one of the few things that the State can’t take away from us. Whoever the authors of last November sabotages are, we proclaim our solidarity with the action they did. At the same time, faced with repression that claims to have dismantled an ‘invisible cell’, we don’t care about mere support, which necessarily becomes exterior and relating to what the ‘cell’ is supposed to be, but again we proclaim solidarity against the State and all its hangmen.
Solidarity which, exactly like revolt, cannot be exclusive but must be addressed to all those who struggle for freedom. If the innocent deserve our solidarity, the guilty deserve it even more!
December 2008,
Anarchists in spite of everything.”
http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10961
Note the dismissal of the use of ‘terrorist’ as a word associated with struggle.
Looking over the coming insurrection now. One problem I see is that the french who wrote it and the American marxists who read it, ignore certain realities.
In cities, it may work to eliminate top officials to create chaos but here in flyover country we live without “leadership” on a daily basis. My little town has a township supervisor but he’s not seen as a leader. We don’t even have a local police force any more.
Remember your “Dr. Zhivago,” which is on TV a lot these days:
Yevgrav Zhivago:
“In bourgeois terms it was a war between the Allies and Germany. In Bolshevik terms it was a war between the Allied and German upper classes - and which of them won was a matter of indifference.
[on World War I]
They [the warring powers] were shouting for victory all over Europe—praying for victory to the same God. My task—the Party’s task—was to organize defeat. From defeat would spring the Revolution...and the Revolution would be victory for us
[on World War I]”
Woman on the train: Forest fire, Your Honor? That’s Yuryatin.
Poor souls. First the Reds, then the Whites.
Now the Reds again.
That Strelnikov, his heart must be dead.
Strelnikov(?): As the military struggle nears its close, the political one intensifies.
In victory, the military will have served its purpose.
All men will then be judged politically...
...regardless of their military record.
That concludes the meeting.
Comrade, where are you going?
Are you running away, comrade?
Woman in snow: -Soldiers.
Commissar: Red soldiers or White soldiers?
Woman in snow: Soldiers.
http://www.movietranscriptions.com/272189_Doctor_Zhivago.html
Congratulations on the two books!!! :-) I’m looking forward to reading your works (I’ve got A Patriot’s History of the US & am saving it for a trip I’m taking).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.