Welcome to the anews podcast. This is episode 65 for May 25, 2018. This podcast covers anarchist activity, ideas, and conversations from the previous week.
Editorial by Rocinante: Cuba II
TOTW: Clear Thinking
This podcast is the effort of many people. This episode was
* sound edited by Dim
* written by jackie
* narrated by chisel and Dim
* the music is 1. El Comandante by Porno Para Ricardo, 2. If I Knew You Were Comin' I'd've Baked A Cake by Eileen Barton, 3. Space Orgy by Lungfish
*the editorial was written by Rocinante
* Thanks to Aragorn! and Ariel for the topic of the week
* Contact us at email@example.com
From: Puget Sound Anarchists
Joey Gibson and his cohorts in Patriot Prayer have yet again called for another rally at a Planned Parenthood in Kent, WA. The facebook event calls for defunding Planned Parenthood, linking the rally to Joey Gibson’s bid for a seat in the US Senate. They also cite a news article that claimed that Washington State politicians were involved in harvesting aborted fetuses and selling them, which has been widely debunked and proved to be a doctored recording. Regardless of the rhetoric, what is most important is that Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer organize their politics around patriarchal violence, misogyny and attacks on freedom of choice. At previous rallies at a Planned Parenthood in Olympia, WA, members of Patriot Prayer along with local Proud Boys initiated violent scuffles with anarchists who had showed up to distract these bigots. Their presence outside Planned Parenthood is part of their larger intention to create a climate of fear around gender, the subservience of women and their own chauvinism.
Planned Parenthood has a policy in place for supporters to ignore protesters at their sites. As anarchists, we know this is impossible and “avoidance politics” is a particular brand of leftist cowardice. This is a call to crew up, roll tight and organize to obstruct yet another targeted attack by Joey Gibson and his rabble of misogynist frat-boys. If we are to continue to call ourselves anti-fascists, these kinds of gendered attacks must be met with the same force as a nazi rally or a white power gathering.
Anarchists and anti-fascists in the Pacific Northwest have learned over the last year that the broader coalition of liberals and socialists who tend to show up to oppose public gathering of the Right are not friendly to tactics of direct action that stray out of the confines of “non-violence.” They will provide no safe space or harbor for those of us willing to carry out direct action against this mob of pond scum, so it is imperative that anarchists and anti-fascists alike organize to keep ourselves safe and protected.
This is a call for anti-fascists region-wide to converge at Planned Parenthood in Kent, WA on Saturday, June 9th to once again oppose Joey Gibson, Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys, and the nazis and fascists alike who flock to his events.
May 24, 2018
In view of the presence in solidarity at the court on 31 March, we are writing these few lines to reaffirm a few fundamental concepts regarding this trial and the court carrying it out. First of all, we reaffirm our closeness to the arrested comrades: for us they are brothers and the pride with which they are confronting this little theatre makes us proud.
We also reaffirm our attachment, stronger than ever, to the anarchist ideal and our hatred of this society that thrives on death and exploitation. We are anarchists, it is normal for the State to attack us, we do not expect anything else from you and this is why your repression does not surprise us except for its clumsiness and scares us even less. In fact, after a year and a half you find us with the same positions of attack on this system. We are accused of terrorism, but we continue to point the finger at the State and its laws that you administer which legitimize the exploitation, exclusion and death of millions of people throughout the world every day, to protect the interests of those who profit from all this. It is you who are under accusation: the dead in the wars in the Middle East and Africa, those who drown while fleeing poverty, the increasingly fierce exploitation of labour, the plundering of resources and the destruction of ecosystems, living conditions more and more like survival and the ever deeper interference in our lives by the State. The law would like to treat the dissent that all this generates with jail, branding it as a crime, but it takes a lot more to shut us up.
War to the State, for Anarchy.
Nothing is finished, everything continues.
Lello The One in the Wheelchair
Translated by Act for freedom now!
On May 15, 2018, at half-past midnight, we set fire to a SUV Toyota Land Cruiser 200, located near House 3 on Heroes of Defense street.
A luxurious white car was parked near a 5-story building and was away from budget cars, so that pouring out 3 liters of a fuel mixture between the windshield and the hood, we were not at all worried that our actions could cause inconvenience to innocent people. Probably, the owner-bourgeois was pleased to contemplate his wheelbarrow, standing at a distance from inexpensive cars of ordinary honest citizens. Well, to tell the truth, we were also pleased to contemplate the column of flame and smoke instantly ascending to a height of about two meters above the top of this very car. We would like to remind you that the price of the new Toyota Land Cruiser 200 in the budget package is $ 61,000, and therefore we hope that our night visit has been appreciated not only by ourselves, but also by the employees of the nearest ambulance that are so often confronted with rudeness of those in power on the roads and whose salary is 7000 – 8000 UAH.
As reported by the State Emergency Service, the fire alarm was received at 00:43, and the fire was eliminated at 01:16, according to the official report, as a result of the fire, the engine compartment, windshield and bumper were damaged. The property of bourgeois should better be completely be destroyed and not subject to further restoration or be expropriated. It is necessary to fight the oppressors by all available means.
Against officials, bourgeois and their henchmen!
For self-management, social equality and spiritual freedom!
And remember, “retribution is not at all difficult, the main thing is just to want it”.
Anarchist cell “Dawn of Freedom”
From It's Going Down
by Unicorn Riot
Unicorn Riot reports on a major turning point in the J20 case. In short, the State has been caught hiding evidence from the defense, as well as knowingly using doctored footage from long disgraced far-Right outfit, Project Veritas.
The United States government has officially been put “on notice” for violating the constitutional rights of anti-Trump protesters. While the second trial of people mass-arrested at an “anti-capitalist, antifascist” protest march during President Trump’s inauguration in DC began last week, hearings for other protest trial groups have also been underway. At a trial readiness hearing today for the June 4 trial group, DC Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Morin delivered a major blow to the prosecution’s case, officially ruling that the US Attorney had illegally withheld evidence from protester defendants.
(As Chief Judge, Judge Morin oversees motions in the inauguration protest cases but has been delegating the actual trials to other DC Superior Court judges who work under him.)
A motion filed last night by the defense counsel argued that the prosecution had committed a ‘Brady‘ violation by withholding portions of a video that has already been used in two trials related to the case.
‘Brady’ refers to case law which requires the government to immediately share with the defense any exculpatory information they come across which might aid in a defendant’s case:
“UNDER WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BRADY RULE, IT IS A VIOLATION OF A DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS FOR THE PROSECUTION TO BE AWARE OF SUCH EVIDENCE AND NOT TURN IT OVER TO THE DEFENSE.” – DEFENDING RIGHTS AND DISSENT
Several defense attorneys had previously accused the government of repeatedly failing to meet their obligations under ‘Brady’. The ‘Motions for Sanctions and Dismissal’ filed by defense counsel this week stated, in part, that,
“THE GOVERNMENT HAS ABUSED ITS POWER BY HIDING DISCOVERY FROM ALL DEFENDANTS, PURPOSEFULLY CHOOSING NOT TO DISCLOSE BRADY INFORMATION, AND CALLING INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF ALL ITS THIRD-PARTY VIDEO EVIDENCE AND PROFFERS IN OPEN COURT.” – MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL
In previous motions hearings, defense counsel had submitted a motion to compel the government to share all unedited copies of videos that had been introduced as evidence in edited and/or redacted form.
In April 2018, the government provided the defense with several additional files they had previously withheld. Included in these files was the larger, ‘unedited’ version of a video taken by operatives of Project Veritas at a January 8, 2017 planning meeting for protests opposing Trump’s inauguration as president later that month.
Prosecutors claimed they had edited the undercover video, but only with two small redactions made to protect the Project Veritas operative and to hide the face of an undercover police officer who was also present at the meeting. In fact, an additional portion of the undercover Project Veritas video had been edited out of previous copies of the video, and was only discovered by the defense just this week. The clip, previously redacted by the government, shows the source of the Project Veritas video, after the meeting is over, stating: “I was talking with one of the organizers from the IWW and I don’t think they know anything about any of the upper echelon stuff”.
Defense counsel for Dylan Petrohilos, who is charged based on his role in facilitating the January 8 planning meeting, wrote in their motion about the significance of this new information for their case:
“THIS IS EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. THE GOVERNMENT PLANS TO ARGUE THAT MR. PETROHILOS AND EVERYONE ELSE AT THAT MEETING WERE INTENDING TO PLAN A VIOLENT PROTEST. WHAT BETTER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE THAN THE WORDS FROM THE PERSON SENT TO CAPTURE A NEFARIOUS MEETING STATING RIGHT AFTER THE MEETING, “I DON’T THINK THEY KNOW ANYTHING”. THIS EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY EXCULPATORY AND BUT FOR THE COURT COMPELLING ITS PRODUCTION, DEFENSE WOULD HAVE NEVER RECEIVED IT.” – MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL
The defense motion describes other instances of the government allegedly withholding evidence from defendants. The legal filing claims that prosecutors had also withheld, until April of this year, another video taken by a Project Veritas operative showing other breakout groups meeting in the same room.
Judge Morin declared that he largely shared the defense’s findings, ruling that the government had in fact failed to point out evidence prosecutors knew could be exculpatory for defendants. Morin stated that while he had decided to sanction the prosecution, he was reserving judgement on what exact forms sanctions might take until a hearing on Thursday, May 31.
The Chief Judge said it was highly likely he would sanction the prosecution by excluding any use of any video of the January 8, 2017 planning meeting in any trial. Morin also hinted at the possibility of Project Veritas being subpoenaed to testify about the video.
Assistant US Attorney Ahmed Basset seemed unprepared to handle the matter without his supervisor, Jennifer Kerkhoff, present. At one point, Judge Morin asked Assistant US Attorney Basset, “Are you really saying that?” when Basset claimed the failure to notify the defense of the exculpatory video material wasn’t a ‘Brady’ violation.
Morin had also asked other similar questions such as: “you don’t think the defense was entitled to that video?” and “why are we saying this is not a Brady issue?”
Most of the courtroom laughed when Judge Morin asked Assistant US Attorney Ahmed Basset “do you want me to rule on the sanction right now?”, and Basset answered “No.” Basset also asked Judge Morin if the court sanctions were against him personally or just the US Attorney’s office in general. Judge Morin clarified the sanctions weren’t directed at him personally, at which point Basset appeared to be extremely relieved.
Downstairs in DC Superior Court, as Judge Knowles continued to preside over the second ongoing inauguration protest trial, lawyers for the current trial defendants argued that the new developments meant the case should be dismissed outright. Knowles declined to make a ruling until all parties had a chance to file new motions.
The current trial is expected to be significantly impacted by Judge Morin finding the prosecution committed a ‘Brady’ violation. The key witness in the case is Detective Greggory Pemberton, who is now implicated in the legal quagmire surrounding the editing of the Project Veritas video.
“These entire proceedings have been tainted,” one attorney told Judge Morin, referring to the central role of the Project Veritas video in past, present, and future trials. The video was played in the first inauguration protest trial, which ended in full acquittals last year, and was also played for the current jury in the second trial last week, casting doubts on just exactly how the case will proceed while Judge Morin decides on sanctions for the prosecution.
All remaining Trump inauguration protest defendants are still charged with six felonies and two misdemeanors and each face up to 60 years in prison if convicted.
From Anarchist Writers - by Anarcho
Murray Bookchin (1921-2006) was for four decades a leading anarchist thinker and writer. His many articles and books – Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Toward an Ecological Society, The Ecology of Freedom and a host of others – are libertarian classics and influential in the wider green movement. However, in 1995 he became involved in a vicious polemic over various negative aspects of (primarily American) anarchism with the publication of his Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism which, in 1999, saw him break with anarchism completely, denouncing it as inherently individualist. Still considering himself a libertarian socialist, he now called his politics “Communalism” rather than “Social Ecology” or “Social Anarchism.”
This context is important in order to understand this often contradictory collection of essays, for the work combines articles written between 1992 and 2002 and so ones before and after his break with anarchism. This means he indicates the anarchist pedigree of his “Commune of communes” in some chapters (63, 95) while proclaiming anarchism as being against organisation in others. So following a preface by the late, great, Ursula Le Guin and an introduction by Debbie Bookchin and Blair Taylor, we have nine chapters by Bookchin on a range of subjects written over a range of times and this produces the key flaw in the work: denunciations of anarchism sit next to praise for it.
What of these denunciations? It is hard to take them seriously. It is depressing to read someone who has actually read anarchist thinkers come out with the same sort of nonsense as a hack of a Marxist party parroting claims made by others about people they have obviously never read. Just as sad is that every one of his claims against anarchism can be refuted by quoting from his early works. For his list of anarchist flaws – individualism, primitivism, etc. – were once directed at his own ideas by Marxists and he refuted them with flair.
Space precludes using Bookchin to refute Bookchin, so I will concentrate on a few issues.
Sadly, post-break Bookchin is not above selective quoting when it comes to anarchism – for example, he quotes Kropotkin on rejecting majority rule (10) when he surely knew that on the page in question Kropotkin was discussing “parliamentary rule, and representative government altogether.” Also, after decades of denouncing syndicalism for impoverishing anarchism, he turned around and proclaimed the superiority of the former as regards the latter – while also ignoring how he had shown that the first of the revolutionary anarchists had advocated syndicalism as a tactic. Likewise, Bookchin asserted post-break that “anarchists conceive of power essentially as a malignant evil that must be destroyed” (139) yet also quotes Bakunin on the need for the “development and organization of the nonpolitical or antipolitical social power of the working class in city and country.” (12) As he himself noted long ago, “power” can mean two things, power to do and power over, and for the former to flourish, it needs the latter to be destroyed. So power over – hierarchy – can be destroyed if we want power to manage our own lives.
Bookchin points to the Spanish Revolution as evidence of Anarchism’s failure here. Yet his discussion of this (“Anarchism and Power in the Spanish Revolution”) ignores the circumstances in which the CNT decided to postpone the social revolution in favour of caricatures on anarchist theory. He position is that anarchism is blind to the need for institutions to replace the State and this blindness lead the CNT not to “seize power.” Yet anarchism has anyways been clear on what to do in a revolution – replace the State by federations of workers’ organisations. The CNT obviously failed to do so in July 1936 with obvious negative results – but the question, as Bookchin surely knew, is why they failed to apply anarchist ideas. To understand that needs context – essentially fear of isolation and the real possibility of having to fight both the Republic and the Fascists if social revolution was pursued – which Bookchin fails to provide.
Instead, we get the same superficial analysis that embarrasses Marxist journals. The only difference is that Bookchin calls this new system a “government” rather than “state.” So Bookchin post-break was against the State but for government – “government” being used to describe collective decision making. Just as Engels equated agreement with authority, Bookchin came to equate governance with government. This is hardly convincing.
So the post-break articles present a travesty of anarchism by someone who knew better. Given Bookchin’s revisionism, it is unsurprising that the authors of the introduction assert that popular assemblies were “viewed with suspicion by anarchists.” (xviii) This in spite of Proudhon praising the popular clubs of the 1848 revolution, Bakunin urging federation by quartier (neighbourhood) and Kropotkin pointing to the popular assemblies of the Great French Revolution -- just as Bookchin did!
Ironically, many of the traits of “anarchism” Bookchin came to deplore and which caused his break with anarchism could be traced to certain elements of his 1960s works – even if these were selectively used and exaggerated to the point of travesty by others, they were there as his critics in the 1990s reminded Bookchin in their polemics against him. Bookchin seems like someone who found it hard to admit being wrong – and so broke with anarchism rather than admit this. Yes, some self-proclaimed anarchists have silly notions (primitivism obviously springs to mind) and some tendencies can have little in common with the main current of social anarchism. Likewise, some anarchist have little time for long term strategy and involve themselves in small-scale, insular projects. Yet this is not anarchism as such. Rather than expect all anarchists to come together it is far better to organise with like-minded people and ignore those whose politics and activities are a dead-end. Instead, Bookchin rejected anarchism – talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
So what of any substantive points between his new politics and anarchism? This are just a few. One is the question of “majority rule.” As he put it in a particularly overheated passage:
‘It is primarily by giving priority to an ideologically petrified notion of an “autonomous individual” that anarchists justify their opposition not only to the state but to any form of constraint, law, and often organization and democratic decision-making based on majority voting. All such constraints are dismissed in principle as forms of “coercion,” “domination,” “government,” and even “tyranny”—often as though these terms were coequal and interchangeable.’ (160-1)
Ignoring the awkward fact – which Bookchin was once aware – that the likes of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc. not only did not speak in those terms but also explicitly attacked such notions, we should note that majority decision making within freely joined associations is hardly the same as majority rule. In addition, anyone acting in the manner Bookchin describes within an anarchist group would be asked to leave, and rightly so. Nor, for that matter, is “consensus” an “authentic” anarchist principle (25) – you would be hard pressed to find any classical anarchist thinker – “authentic” or otherwise! – discussing it. Kropotkin mentions it in passing, when discussing the Russian mir and that is about it.
Why are anarchists concerned about talk of majority rule? It is quite simple: majorities have often oppressed minorities – we need only think of sectarianism, sexism, racism, homophobia and such like to see that the majority need not always be right. Ironically, Bookchin admits this (94) but does not attempt to square it with his fetishization of “majority rule.” And this is an issue. For example, he proclaims that a community which joins a confederation “may withdraw only with the approval of the confederation as a whole.” (15) So Bookchin’s “libertarian” confederation provides less rights than the UK (with regards the referendum on Scottish independence) and the European Union (with regards Brexit). Yet why is it just at a confederal level? If this is a good and democratic principle, why does it not apply to every association? So a worker can only leave their job if the majority of the workplace agrees? So a family can only leave a community if the majority of the local citizenry approve? A wife or husband from a family? Simple: for it would clearly be unfree.
Similarly, his “libertarian” democracy appears less than that guaranteed by our statist ones for he argues that after losing the debate “the minority must have patience and allow a majority decision to be put into practice” (61) and there would be “the commitment of municipal minorities to defer to the majority wishes of participating communities.” (88) Yet, today, the right of minorities to protest exists (if always under threat by the State, always ready to proclaim its “undemocratic” nature). Would libertarian municipalism really not allow minorities to protest, to use direct action, when the majority acts in ways which we cannot wait addressing or simply cannot be undone?
A more flexible perspective is needed, particularly given Bookchin admits that there is no “guarantee” that “a majority decision will be a correct one.” (88) What if the majority make racist, sexist, homophobic or ecologically destructive decisions? Can an “unswerving opposition to racism, gender oppression, and domination as such” (135) be limited to mere words or can minorities protest against them by direct action? If so, then his fetishisation of majority rule needs to be reviewed. True, Bookchin stressed the importance of minority rights (25) – but to do so automatically means admitting (implicitly at least) the flaws of his position and the validity of anarchist concerns over terms like “majority rule.”
Still, this has little bearing on the day-to-day decisions of freely joined associations in which majority-decision making will, undoubtedly, be the norm – with even a written constitution, when appropriate – in the struggle against oppression today and any future free society. Those who fetishise consensus (and there are a few, I am sure) can associate with those who feel the same -- and leave the others to get on with changing the world rather than just discussing.
Yet does Bookchin actually advocate majority rule? The answer is no, for he indicates (52-3) that all revolutions are the work of active minorities and that he does not expect the majority of a population to take part in his neighbourhood assemblies. So we have decisions being made by a majority of a minority, in other words minority rule. So for all his bluster, his “democratic” politics ends up recognising the key role minorities play in social change and that they often have to push forward in the face of the indifference of the majority: as Kropotkin, Goldman and many other anarchists indicated.
So we are left with Bookchin agreeing that the majority cannot, say, ban women from leaving the house without being accompanied by a man nor that neighbourhood assembly decisions are invalid unless a majority of people in the community attend. Which makes you wonder why he was so focused on majority rule to the extent of destroying his own legacy.
As for “libertarian municipalism,” it is clear why few anarchists embraced it: “Communalists do not hesitate to run candidates in municipal elections who, if elected, would use what real power their offices confer to legislate popular assemblies into existence.” (30) The notion of standing in local elections as a means of creating popular assemblies and then federating them was always unconvincing. Particularly given the all-to-correct predictions of anarchists on the effects of electioneering. Indeed, Bookchin himself repeats these and provides examples of it (83-4) – but seems to think this only happens at a national level. He also seems unaware that the national State can and does control the autonomy of local municipal councils and this strategy could easily mutate into national electioneering in the mistaken view of ensuring needed reforms for the local strategy. Electioneering is indeed a slippery slope which even the repeated experience of history does not seem to affect.
Anarchists, regardless of Bookchin’s revisionism, are well aware of the need for federations of community assemblies in both the struggle for liberation and as part of the structure for the post-capitalist society. Kropotkin, for example, discussed their role in his book The Great French Revolution and indicated that “the libertarians would no doubt do the same today.” However, these were viewed as a genuine dual-power created in opposition to the State – a community syndicalism, as it were – rather than something bestowed by a suitably enlightened local municipal council. Nor was this considered the only means – Kropotkin also advocated a syndicalist strategy as both a means of winning reforms now and for providing the framework of managing workplaces during and after a social revolution. Bookchin knew all this and so it is depressing to read him pretend otherwise.
Rejecting Bookchin’s electioneering does not mean rejecting building federations of community assemblies, especially within the context of building other federations of associations (such as radical unions). Likewise, his notion of dissolving all associations into a single communal one does not take into account the complexities of modern life. Such community assemblies would be the forum for overseeing the others – to protect against, say, workplaces becoming proprietary as Bookchin rightly warns (19, 72) – but they can hardly be called upon to actually manage them on a day-to-day basis.
Kropotkin and other anarchists bemoaned the State and its attempts to centralise all aspects of social life and place them in the hands of a few representatives who had no real notion of what they were deciding upon. Doing the same but at the base of society may not be as problematic but it does have issues – not least, the volume of issues that would need to be discussed. So there is a pressing need for a functional federalism as well as a communal federalism. This suggests a diverse associational life embracing all aspects of the world – so if Kropotkin and Malatesta argued that syndicalists focused on one aspect of society (the economic) and ignored the other two (community and leisure), Bookchin likewise focused on one (the community) at the expense of the others.
So, to conclude. This is a mixed selection of articles – with the pre-break ones being by far the best. The post-break ones often just repeat what Bookchin previously – rightly! – called anarchism but with snide anti-anarchist remarks added.
Where does that leave Bookchin’s legacy?
I still remember the joy I experienced reading Post-Scarcity Anarchism thirty years ago – here was someone who both understood anarchism and built upon it. Yet in the last decade of his life he produced works which were marred by anti-anarchist tirades which he surely knew were nonsense. Which leaves us with a conundrum: if you utilise his earlier works, could not his later works be quoted to show that even a leading anarchist eventually saw its deep flaws? If you embrace his later anti-anarchist works, how could you reference in good-faith his earlier contributions?
Yes, Bookchin did do the latter but then he also sought to rewrite his past to suggest he had seen through anarchism at a very early stage or had never “really” been an anarchist at all. This was all very unbecoming – particularly given the numerous quotes from the early 1990s proclaiming his long-standing and continuing commitment to anarchism.
Ultimately, Bookchin left a wealth of books and articles between the 1960s and 1990s which anarchists today can draw upon, even if his strategy of “libertarian municipalism” is deeply flawed. So while The Next Revolution does contain important pieces which activists today would benefit from reading, it pales against his earlier works. These should be read first, simply to ensure that when reading the anti-anarchist remarks in this book the pre-break Bookchin will be fresh in your memory to refute them.
The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy
Edited by Debbie Bookchin and Blair Taylor
Preface by Ursula K. Le Guin
This union is a free and voluntary agreement, and each individual or group will continue to operate independently in addition to being in the union
In the union, all anarchist tendencies, except for religious, pacifist and so called capitalist anarchists, have the potential to be volunteered
All persons and groups are required to sign any call or announcement with the name of the union. If no collective agreement is reached, each individual or group can independently and with the name or group itself sign the item
At the beginning of the formation of the union, the highest level of cooperation will be in the joint signing of the Union of Anarchists. Over time, with more familiarity with individuals and groups, there will be a possibility to expand the level of cooperation
Anarchist Union of Afghanistan and Iran include the following anarchist groups
The collection of the anarchist era (it’s a community of anarchists of Iran and Afghanistan both inside and outside the country.)
Anarchist group “Aleyh” (who are based in Afghanistan)
The revolutionary radical anarchist front (who are present in Iran)
P.S:The possibility of joining new people and groups of anarchists will be permanent
۳- عصر آنارشیسم در توئیتر
۷ – فیسبوک دفاع از زندانیان و اعدامیان غیر سیاسی
۸ – فیسبوک کارگران آنارشیست ایران
۹- فیسبوک کتابخانه آنارشیستی
۰ ۱– فیسبوک آنارشیستهای همراه بلوچستان
۱۱ – فیسبوک هنرمندان آنارشیست
۱۲ – فیسبوک دانشجویا ن آنارشیست
۱۳ – فیسبوک شاهین شهر پلیتیک
۱۴ – فیسبوک آنتی فاشیست
۱۵ – آدرس آنارشیستهای مریوان در کانال تلگرام
۱۷ – سایت عصر آنارشیسم
۱۸ – آدرس کانال آنارشیستهای کردستان در تلگرام
۱۹- فیسبوک میتینگ دهه هفتاد و هشتادی ها
۲۲- آدرس ” دختران آنارشیست افغانستان ” در اینستاگرام
۲۳- آدرس “دختران آنارشیست افغان ” در فیسبوک
۲۴- آدرس آنارشیستهای رشت در اینستاگرام
۲۵ – آدرس پیج آنارشیستهای شهر بوکان ( ئانارکیسته کانی بوکان ) در اینستاگرام
۲۶- آدرس آنارشیستهای اصفهان و شاهین شهر در تلگرام
۲۷ – آدرس آنارشیستهای اصفهان و شاهین شهر در اینستاگرام
۲۸- آدرس آنارشیستهای شیراز در تلگرام
۲۹ – آدرس آنارشیستهای شیراز در اینستاگرام
۳۰ – آدرس آنارشیستهای گیلان در اینستاگرام
۳۱ – کانال عصیانگر در تلگرام
۳۲ – آدرس کانال ” جوانان آنارشیست ” در تلگرام
۳۳- آدرس آنارشیستهای مشهد در کانال تلگرام
۳۴ -آدرس کانال آنارشیستهای تهران در تلگرام
In the night of Monday 16th April, 3 estate agencies, an Apple store and the offices of a construction and public works firm were vandalized in the centre of the city of Grenoble.
For rebel individuals destruction and devastation have always represented both the goal and the means to live their own negation of the world. From small acts to big attacks, widespread gestures, fascinating or miserable, make conflictuality against all forms of power real.
In recent days several sites of social housing bodies were trashed in this city. Inevitably the rulers of these institutions and the city moaned and preached about their social function in favour of the poor. The local scribblers, virtual and paper, obviously transmitted this shameless hypocrisy. Annoyed by their insolence, tonight we are taking our hammers and going out to devastate some offices, as an echo to the attacks on the social housing bodies.
Let’s start by saying that the distinction between public and private is an artifice of social domination. The leftists fell into the trap, the anarchists didn’t. Everything is private! Our public is no less than the private that belongs to the State. Any landlord, elected or not, will always be our enemy. Private implies privation, of a roof in this case. We are left with nothing but the streets, fields, occupied places or the forced acceptance of the racket set up by the landlords’ order.
The generalized dispossession of the possibility to build and live each at their own leisure guarantees power and profit for a gang of extremely organized parasites: building companies bosses, engineers, law officers, notaries, bankers, insurers, estates agents, public officers, owners… not to mention their mercenaries, vigilantes, cops, screws and when needs be, the military.
Considering that the bourgeois classes skilfully find a common cause in the constant theft of houses and that the law and money take the possibility of living free away from us.
Why should we protest against the incompetence of the institutions, the avidity of an owner or the amount of a notary’s fees? Why overload ourselves with details when we totally refuse the social repressive organization of our individualities? As the just expression of a fantastic thief goes: ‘I ask nothing of those whom I hate and scorn’. Why, then, claim, negotiate, dialogue with a fundamentally authoritarian bureaucracy when we only dream of its ruin?
Assiduously resistant against a world that isn’t ours, we thought it possible to desert it in order to create new ones. In voids, interstices, abandoned places, on the margins, we dived into the hope of going far away. Alas, any attempt at escaping beyond what is, always ended up with yet another detention in the jails of the old world. As we could no longer escape and didn’t want to, we stopped turning our back on the enemy so as to face it, strong in our boldness. As there’s no elsewhere, any outside the exorbitant control of our lives, we have no choice than to arm our anger and joy, and let our beings revolt, resist.
We are taking the occasion of this text to contribute to bringing an ugly episode of repression out of the shadows. Several individuals labelled ‘associations of malefactors’ were searched, almost simultaneously in Limoges, Toulouse, Ambert and Amiens. Accused of having set fire to some gendarmerie’s vehicles (Limoges) or of having caused devastation in a group (Clermont), three people were remanded in custody ranging from 4 months to 4 years , whereas others went on the run. The media were clearly ordered to keep their mouths shut, so we intend to open ours.
To those searched, arrested and wanted we send our full solidarity.
P.S. Why an Apple store? No links with housing, but if we had to find reasons for destroying the windows of this company, ink would flow for too a long time. Beyond the strategic reasons for making it a target, we have first and foremost sensitive experiences.
Muscles and nerves
sublimate our anger
let’s strike the glass
destruction frees us
 Two comrades were released in April under judicial surveillance. The person arrested in Limoges on 27th March is still being held in pre-trial detention.
Translated from Italian by act for freedom now!
During the night from 16.05 to 17.05.2018 we painted the facade of the French Consulate in Munich with red laquer.
A few weeks ago, the French government launched the eviction of the ZAD (zone to defend) at Notre-Dames-des-Landes in Brittany. The ZAD was occupied a few years ago by hundreds of activists to prevent the construction of a major airport. Squatters moved into houses that had previously been cleared by the police, they built tree houses and new buildings. Over the years, the ZAD has become an experiment of a new society and a life beyond egotism, precarity and exploitation by the capitalist system.
After cancelling the airport project last year, the French government now wants to end the ZAD experiment with all its might: 2,500 cops began to clear the premises in the Spring of 2018 with truncheons, tear gas, bulldozers and tanks. They have only partially succeeded so far. Parts of the site are still occupied.
We are in solidarity with the opposition of the ZAD against the eviction and also with the strikes and resistance in schools, factories and on the street against Macron’s neo-liberal policy of dismantling social rights and tightening state control. We also greet all immigrants who are fighting for a life of dignity and self-determination and the right to freedom of movement.
50 years after the ‘historic’ Paris May, it’s time for new beginning of the uprising.
They commemorate – we fight together!!!
Freedom for all G20 prisoners!!!
From Support Eric King
June 28, 2018 is the second annual International Day of Solidarity with Eric King. June 28th, 2016 was the day that he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Now, two years later, he is able to share his story about the action that got him there.
We hope that you will join us in celebrating and showing solidarity for our friend by writing him, sending him books, spreading the word through banner drops or leafleting, or organizing a fundraiser or celebratory event.
Kansas City is such a beautiful place in the summer. So hot that you can feel your lungs melting with every breath, but dim enough where the stars still shine through the city lights. Walking to Congressman Cleaver’s office, that is what caught my attention: the stars, a full 12 of them, were keeping me company on my journey.
I must not have looked suspicious at all, walking down the street in a sweater, jeans, and a loaded backpack. Nothing see here! Just another fellow having a late night jaunt through the city. I miss that backpack more than anything, it was a real loyal companion. As any street/traveling kid already knows, you never leave home without your backpack. Mine had my essentials in it: extra socks, two loaded bottles, assorted weapons, tooth paste, and one can of black beans. Only a fool leaves home without a can of black beans. This backpack had been my companion for over a decade, it was as important as anything I owned. It was also used as evidence against me in this and many-a-crime. Why could I never take you off backpack!
The Kansas City midtown area is a bit run down and beautiful. Murals and taggings on every building, some political, some gang affiliated, some just fish swimming out of rabbit brains… something for all taste. There are some lovely gardens, discarded homes, occasional busses missing wheels. I walked these streets every day and night, slept on them occasionally, sprinted down them from time to time. They offered me shelter and escape, comfort and solace… concrete as an accomplice.
There were no nerves headed to the office, not because of any bravery or extensive convictions, but because my dumb body just doesn’t produce adrenaline at the right moments. My shoes were tied tight because I knew there may be some running involved, and you never want to lose a shoe while being chased, or at any other time. It took me 24 minutes to get where I needed to be, a familiar walk that I had made daily in preparation. This was an area completely engulfed in predatory capitalism. Pay Day loans, check cashing, liquor stores, banks, every one of them deserved a bit of violence headed their way, and some actually got it. =) A whole street full of bullseyes.
The congressman’s office was decided on two weeks prior. A lawmaker sitting comfortably in my city while an uprising happens just hours away, no no no. There are many options when deciding in which way you want to fuck up a building. Some are very basic, like a brick, but I didn’t think that said enough. Spray painting was too simple and wouldn’t get the full message across in my mind. A Molotov was the choice because it painted the right picture, and because really who can afford to make pipe bombs. The thought of the National Guard in Ferguson, an occupied city, the smell of a city on fire, the fear of having armed soldiers ready to pop…I felt like our police-supporting law makers deserved to feel that as well.
Sitting across the street I waited patiently, listening to the sounds of the city. My eyes kept darting around, looking for any signs of life in the office or headed my way on the streets. After 30 odd minutes it was go time. I walked to the back of the office, unloaded my bottles, and made sure my face was properly covered. There were two options to aim for: a big ass front window where all the staff worked, or a little window on the side of the building, which seemed to be (and was) the congressman’s window. I chose the tiny window. A hammer was used to bust out the window. The biggest surprise of all of this was that I actually got that hammer through the window. No one has ever in my life accused me of being a good throw. My hand eye coordination is comparable to a drowning mole rat. When the window was busted the clock started, yet in my mind time kind of froze. My hand lifted the first bottle, the wind wanted in on the action and kept blowing out the lighter, the wind is always trying to get involved. Bottle one goes in the air annnndddd…smashes against the side of the window frame…fuck. Bottle two gets lit, gets thrown and…hits the underside of the window…the office isn’t up in flames. Of all things it was disappointing that the sun would rise on an intact building.
After the second bottle hit it was time to move. Everything became incredibly loud, my breathing, the sound of my feet scuttling down the hill and into the sub-street before making my final exit and vanishing into the night (headed back home).
In hindsight I made a serious handful of mistakes. I should have never used the hammer to break the window. I should have deleted my facebook or at least shut it down. There were successes as well, though. I was able to maintain my values which include not cooperating with the state even though it meant that my sentence was more severe, that’s a win. I was able to express my feelings and wage my own revolutionary battle, and that’s all that we can ever do. I took on a symbol of authority in complete solidarity with the people in Ferguson. Nothing changed after this, and nothing was expected to.
When I arrived in prison I had no support system. There was no money waiting for me, there weren’t people spreading word to help me or get information out. No one let the community knew this was a Ferguson solidarity act. My complete narrative in that first month or so was dictated by the media, and I was painted as a mentally ill jackass, this wasn’t ok to me. I spent two years per-trial unable to give words or explanation. So this is my story, my narrative of the events that happened and why they happened, and what has happened since.
In closing, the building failed to ignite… not the Molotov cocktail 😉
They are still fighting in the streets, so we are still fighting in here.
Test drive a FREE 7 day trial, of one of the available monthly revolutionary subscriptions.
About Author Aaron J. Berg
Aaron J. Berg is the creator of Reality UnKnown, host of the Reality UnKnown podcast, and blogger at RealityUnKnown.com. He started blogging and speaking against the system back in 2009. Now he blogs, podcasts, and produces video content for your benefit.