Toronto Media Co-op

Local Independent News

More independent news:
Do you want free independent news delivered weekly? sign up now
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!

Challenging Murray Dobbin's Threat to Radical Movements

Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.

  On June 29, as hundreds of people languished in cages in a converted film studio in Toronto, Murray Dobbin was sitting in front of his computer, writing a blog entry about his interpretation of the events of the previous weekend.

And while there's no doubt that Dobbin's a smart cookie who has done some great research in the past, he's done worse than just buy into the conspiracy theory about the cops letting Toronto burn. Bear with me, cause it's not pretty.

"The black clad activists have a lot to answer for – they provide the cover for the provocateurs and they are totally responsible for the media frenzy about the damage to a few shops," he wrote. "Perhaps next time the real social activists should swarm these people and stop them if the police refuse. They are the enemies of social change – we should treat all of them as agents provocateurs and plan to deal with them accordingly."

Dobbin's comments indicate a profound misunderstanding of the mainstream media, the concept of direct action, and specifically of the black bloc tactic. Worse, while hundred of people rotted in pig cages, Dobbin encouraged their criminalization. He sounds like a self anointed activist, right up there with Christie Blatchford, Canada's premiere self anointed journalist.

That aside, let's explore his most recent dribble a little more: Dobbin laments the state of the labour movement, decrying it's "self-imposed slumber" and demanding union activists "take a real stand." In his previous writing, Dobbin has repeated this tired call for organized labour to stand up and fight over and over again. I wonder if he noticed his misguided statements on the black bloc sounded more like the comments of elite labour leader Ken Georgetti than anyone else.

Do you think Dobbin would call for police to be brought in to break a strike? Hell no. Did he call for the cops to arrest Judy Rebick when she did a sit in at the Israeli consulate? Hmmm, nope. But what did Dobbin say when the youth, the under employed generation, the supernumeraries of advanced capitalism, took to the heart of Toronto's financial district to smash the banks and symbols of capitalism that are killing the planet? Arrest them all! 

Ironic, isn't it? Dobbin's criticizes today's corporate labour organizations for their lack of oomph, and in the same breath, he encourages them to continue with defeatist, statist actions like sending out hundreds of marshals to do the work of the police. Last time I checked, that didn't count as "taking a stand."

Perhaps before going at the throat of the black bloc (and by extension, other vibrant organizations like No One Is Illegal and the Tororonto Community Mobilization Network that did "take a stand" and refuse to condemn the property destruction), Dobbin should sit and think for a moment about what he's asking for.

In a heartfelt column titled "Left Needs Soul Searching" last year, Dobbin lamented the state of the left, writing "You need not search much further than the typical political meeting -- overly earnest, boring, economistic, gloom and doom and, except on rare occasions, distinctly unwelcoming to the newcomers who have braved their first tentative outing. And after the meeting? Nothing. No nurturing. No ongoing connection. No community."

Anarchist organizing, and the work of groups like NOII and the TCMN has proven to be anything but what Dobbin describes above. These organizations, and other anarchist spaces, are building community and resisting state and corporate control. Film nights, food not bombs, free schools, media projects, communal housing, are part of our resistance, as are protests, direct actions and demonstrations. These groups didn't smash windows on Saturday, but they had enough of an analysis not to condemn and criminalize the folks that did.

It's called solidarity. Here's a taste, from a NOII statement put out earlier this week: "We further reject all differentiation between so-called ‘peaceful’ and ‘violent’ protesters, while the violence that compels us to resist, assert our dignity and struggle for justice – enabled by policies and deals such as those brokered by the G8 and G20 – is callously ignored. "

Maybe Murray Dobbin should take a break from writing this summer, and think seriously about the role he's playing. Judging by his latest, he's doing the radical movements he pretends to admire, at least nostalgically, more harm then good. If Dobbin doesn't stop and reflect on this, radicals will have to watch their backs, and he'll have to suffice with armchair punditry in the liberal reformist echo chamber, while people on the street fight back against the state, the corporations, and their pig police in ways he could only dream of.

Want more grassroots coverage?
Join the Media Co-op today.

About the poster

Trusted by 0 other users.
Has posted 2 times.
View caribou jamelia's profile »

Recent Posts:

caribou jamelia (jamelia caribou)

Member since July 2010


766 words


excellent response

Thank you for this insightful response.

"You need not search much further than the typical political meeting -- overly earnest, boring, economistic, gloom and doom and, except on rare occasions, distinctly unwelcoming to the newcomers who have braved their first tentative outing. And after the meeting? Nothing. No nurturing. No ongoing connection. No community."

Murray`s comments explain why I have recently given up on pacifist movements and social democrats like the NDP. The anarchist movement is the only one that continues to nurture and provide ongoing connection through book fairs, etc. Murray is on target when he identifies what the left desperately needs. However, TCMN and NOII are the groups that provide the answers, something he is unable to recognize and acknowledge. Whether it is ageism or privilege or whatever I will not speculate, but his blindness saddens me.

very nice

good article! reading murray's piece i too was struck by his criticism of the passivity of labor-style protest but his total (and rather frightening) twist to actual call for the arrest of those who participated in the black-bloc action: people must think that all they do is break windows and are painfully unaware as to how detrimental to the movement it would be if black bloc folk were in jail for they are a backbone to to a hell of a lot of organizing that goes on around turtle island.

if you are not with us then you are against us

I find the tone of this article and most of them on the site as follows:


If you are not with us then you are against us and instead of arguing our ideas we will rely on personal attacks, rhetoric and moralism to make our point. 




I find the tone of "most of

I find the tone of "most of these articles" to be, yes, a little frantic - but i attribute that to an unfortunate reaction to the absolute craziness of the "us against them rhetoric" in the attacks against the bloc, calls for their arrest, and moral and strategic posturing from folk who, frankly, should know better.

 people seem to think that the goal of politics is to get a message across rather than social change.

 of course it is obvious that social change needs the 'hearts and minds of the people'; but it needs those hearts and minds allied with a viable strategy for revolution.

 that means educating people, not catering to them.

and there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. (unless, of course, you use the word "revolution" in a way different from its actual meaning).

to say that there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution is not to make an arguemnt for a black-bloc tactic: it is to state a fact about the process of overturning our current power structures.

 if the current left knew more of its own internal history, and the failures of that history, we may realize how getting squeamish over the G20 "riot" is a joke - a sad joke, for in a way it demonstrates how deep of a hole we are existing in.

 why are people complaining about "our message" getting lost in the media because of the "violence" on an independent media web-stie? i mean, doesn't being here in a sense indicate that you realize the mass media is a part of the problem - not like an obsticle to the problem, but a part of the problem itself: so why would you ever expect to get "our mesage" clearly, effectively, honestly and widely distributed through that medium? lunacy....

 in the interest of learning, an interview with David Gilbert PP/POW:

I think you may be referring

I think you may be referring to one or more of my posts about the relevance of Marshal McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message". If you are, you apparently misunderstood it. Individuals, groups, media, institutions, etc., are, each, examples of "The Medium" and they transmit "Messages" by various means, intentional and unintentional. My application of "The Medium is the Message" to the Black-Bloc, and others like them, is that, as a Medium, the message being received by most of the population is that they are a form of terrorist organization to be feared because of their disguises, violence, and destruction (i.e. body language) which obscures and even negates the true message they want received and be supported for. Getting their supposed true message received has nothing to do with the press type of media, if they were not disguised, not violent, and not destructive, and, instead, they're supposed true message would, depending on what and how they transmit their "message', be received.

I have to disagree

In reference to your comment "the message being received by most of the population is that they are a form of terrorist organization to be feared because of their disguises, violence, and destruction..."
I would suggest that people will not be cowering in their homes afraid that the black bloc might attend the next protest, but they are likely to be afraid of the police. Further, I'm not sure that you should assume that the Black Bloc message has not been heard and supported. Could it be that the black bloc message is that everyday people do not have to accept signs, banners and chants as the only form of protest regardless of the issue you are protesting? Could the message also be that violence by corporate elites and governments against everyday people can also be met with violence? I'm kind of thinking the message has been heard loud and clear....some just aren't so comfortable with it yet.
But wait, as things get more uncomfortable for more of us, and they will if Harper meets his deficit targets pronounced at the G20, I'm thinking that more and more folks will be looking for alternative mediums for their message.
I know, I know, it sounds like anarchy!

no, no im not. thanks for

no, no im not. thanks for keeping me updated on your recent posting though! swell...

on thing though, people aren't really mediums (well, you could call them a medium, but that would be to reduce all of reality to a self-referencing symbolic order, which may sound all fun and postmodern, but it means you'll never leave your computer or know love). McLuhan was referring to various communications technologies and how these technologies not only spread information but how the medium though which these message were spread not only influenced the message, but also who the mediums themselves affected social reality. books are a medium, and how this medium affected consciousness in europe with the spread of printing press technologies is one of his main examples, along with television, but also news print, comics, movies, etc.

but let me qualify this. for mcluhan did understand "medium" in a broad sense. as an anology to explain the phrase 'the medium is the message" he offered the example of a light bulb as a medium. it was supposidly a good analogue for the medium because it isolated what was a medium (for a light bulb had no content, he said): some technology that has an effect on social reality, the ligh bulb allowing people to create spaces in places otherwise enveloped in darkness.

the bloc is not a medium trying to convey a message. the bloc is a message. that message is delivered directly to material reality, it is unmediated. of course people will try to "explain" the message later, others will even take credit, or 'defend' it, others will demonize and rail against it, but we must realize that these are the mediated messages for the bloc.

The Black-Bloc are mediated,

The Black-Bloc are mediated, they intentionally dress in a particular way, black with masks, and act in a particular way, attacking symbols of capitalism, etc., which transmits the message. Therefore, no explanation of the meaning of the message is necessary, it is inherent.

I think many of the pieces on

I think many of the pieces on this site are well researched and well constructed. Can't say the same about the comments, but hey... 


There aren't enough antivandalism activists who still show up at these things to discretely isolate the groups. I've been at other marches and rallies where I really didn't like what someone was doing in a black bloc (e.g. kids who didn't get it, knocking over trash cans in an ethnic neighborhood, harming independent stores), but all I could do was yell at them.


I think the best campaign that guy could do is point out the vast legal costs and sap of energy that results from people with court cases, and they should advertise the idea that above some line, the 'progressives' aren't going to donate to such a fund. Indeed, even if some act of civil disobedience or vandalism were ethical (say, against a military corporation), it bugs me when reckless people get caught, and then their fundraising goes on for months afterwards... when they didn't consult with the community about targets or risk level

Great piece!

The Dominion and its affiliates are carving out a well-earned reputation for their clear-headed and sober analysis of our current state of affairs.  The level of victimized complacency among moderate circles is very suffocating - a mirror image of the corporatized Greenpeace-style activism that has so successfully co-opted and neutered a majority of the anti-globalization crowd.  The articles and blogs in the TMC have been a well-needed breath of fresh air.



Yes, excellent piece. It's too bad so much effort has to go into these defenses while people are still in jail. I never expected to find Dobbin jump on the Judy Rebick-Alex Jones bandwagon and it's a shame.

Hmm, we need to talk :P

These are not simple questions with simple answers, we need to discuss this within our social movements with a good dose of respect. Of course, the notion that protesters should physically stop the black block is horrendous: it would lead to conflict amongst social movements who are all fighting for justice and change (I'm including every progressive and/or radical movement).

We should discuss this as questions of strategy and respect for each other.

Just some reflections ...

It is possible that direct action within a crowd of non-direct action —people of all sorts who have chosen, for various reasons, to avoid tear gas and police brutality— causes all-around repression against everyone. On the other hand, it would be foolish to blame the black block for the "outstanding" repression and human rights violations committed by the police all week, long before and long after the black block disbanded Saturday. Please note that, in the various testimonies on the web, folks are not blaming the black block for what the police did to them, so things are not so bad.

We need sincere and profound respect for all these movements and I would also like to see less judgment against non violent actions. Anarchy is fundamentally non violent.  Anarchism hopes for a true democracy where the people would actually have power over the decisions that concern them directly. Anarchists, hence, are often community organizers, popular educators, and promote empowerment approaches. The basic principle is an outright refusal of all forms of domination.

Revolution means a change of system

The youth, that I think were around the black block movement, know well that breaking a window does not change the system as such, in the sense that it is not the application of an alternative mode of functioning. They just see that social movements look passive towards capitalism as such and, at the moment, are losing ground, while the right is becoming more and more extreme and aggressive.

If you think revolution is always violent, you really don't understand what is a revolution. There have been profound changes, revolutions, in the way of thinking and doing things without a direct violent confrontation with the official powers. But, yes, it implies some form or another of confrontation of the current mindset and holding ones ground when the current system of thought lashes out against you.

So anyhow, we all know that breaking a window does not create an alternative economy to capitalism (an undemocratic system where he who owns has all the power). Breaking a window does not make you more of an anarchist than another. An activist, in a social movement you dislike or even a political party, may share the same values, hopes, and be radical also.


clarification on "revolution"

i really appreciate the tone of this post, and its subtle understanding (which in this case is actually just common sense, but so many seem to lack that right now) in regard to infiltration and expectations of the black bloc.

that said, i do not agree with what is said about revolution (or anarchism being "fundamentally" nonviolent: historically and evidently this is just false). but instead of trying to make a "point" i'll just offer some historical discussion on the matter. thinking about this in relation to our own time may help iluminate where we stand and where we have come from, so where we must go.

the following is from a speech entitle "Message to the Grassroots" delivered to the Detroit Council for Human Rights in late 1963 by Malcom X:

"I would like to make a few comments concerning the difference between the black revolution and the Negro revolution. Are they both the same? And if they're not, what is the difference? What is the difference between a black revolution and a Negro revolution? First, what is a revolution? Sometimes I'm inclined to believe that many of our people are using that word "revolution" loosely, without taking careful consiferation of what this word actually means, and what its historica characteristics are. When you study the historic nature of revolutions, the motive of revolution, and the moethods used in revolution, you may change your words. You may devise another program, you may change your goal and you may change your mind.

"Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis for independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French revolution - what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you - you don't know what a revolution is. Because when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way.

"As long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germnay, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people, but when it comes to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls murdered, you haven't got any blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the man says white; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it's true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you are going to get violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else you don't even know?

"If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country...

"...So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you that you don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. The only kind of revolution that is nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theatre, a desegregated park, and a desegregated public toilet; you can sit down next to white folks - on the toilet. That's no revolution. Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality.

"The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is world-wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, is sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution - that's a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia, revolution is in Africa, and the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he'll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is? You don't know what a revolution is. If you did, you wouldn't use that word.

"Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, "I'm going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me." No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, as Rev. Cleage was pointing out beautifully, singing "We Shall Overcome"? You don't do that in a revolution. You don't do any singing, you're too busy swinging. It's based on land..."

Anarchism aspires to something fundamentally non violent

I'm expecting people to be intelligent enough to understand what I meant.

Anarchists, throughout history, have fought back against various violent forces, but the goal is fundamentally non violent. You can disbelieve it, but I am profoundly convinced it is a truth. Opposing all forms of domination and segregation implies you refuse to use violence unto others.

Of course, don't expect me to cry for a broken window... your boss will replace it quickly and you'll be back at work fast enough.

EDIT: I just read that small stores were caught in the crossfire. That is, though, regrettable. I wish the crowd, both unions and the black block, had focused on the fence: a very symbolic structure that will be taken down anyhow a few days later.

stores caught in crossfire

a strip club, a jewlery store, and a leather shop while being independently owned are part of the systemic violence of the everyday and were no doubt targeted for their role in patriarchy, ecocide, and dominance.


i did hear that the flames for a pig-mobile melted a bit of the sign for a indy music shop, and that is regrettable... but hey, when the cities burn down, we wont be cold...

at first...

at first...

I'd just like to point out

I'd just like to point out that there are inherent flaws in Malcolm X's argument here.  Let's take the statement: "If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country..."  This statement carries within it its own contradiction, since its terms are commutative.  Logically, if violence is wrong abroad (as we believe it is), if the draft is wrong (as we believe it is), then violence is also wrong in America.  Conversely if violent defense of the people is justified in America, then the draft, imperialism and using oppressed people as cannon fodder is justified abroad.  These absurdities clearly spring from this passage.

Malcolm X also makes reference to both the American and French revolutions, defining them as revolutionary because they were violent.  However, most progressive analysts comment that at least the American revolution was primarily driven by the interests of a rising wealthy elite; so is MX accepting this sort of "revolution" as legitimate?  And would he agree that the outcomes of both the French and American revolutions were ultimately positive for ordinary people, given that in both cases they entrenched capitalist elites?

Overall I find his larger argument unconvincing, in any case.  The actions of MLK and the hundreds of thousands of disciplined non-violent fighters for civil rights were the actions which prevailed in achieving the vote for people of colour in the US.  This was admittedly not a revolution (in that it didn't lead to an overturning of the social order), but it was a movement which achieved the goals it set for itself.  By enduring the backlash of the state nonviolently the civil rights movement actively created the conditions for a change of attitude on the part of the majority of Americans, which led to Lyndon Johnson's famous quotation of MLK in the American congress, signalling the normalization of civil rights goals.

Likewise in different changes of regime in Eastern Europe in the 80's and 90's, some were violent and some were not.  Whatever we have to say about the regimes which resulted, it's hard to argue that most of these changes were not legitimate revolutions, which is to say that they overturned the existing social order.  Their revolutionary character (this is my opinion) was not connected to whether or not there was violence involved.  Clearly revolution doesn't always improve matters, either; some resulting regimes were as bad or worse than what was there before, and some were better.

So violence is not inherent to revolution, in my opinion.  Revolution is achievable without it.  The next question is: in the current context, is revolution achievable with it?

We need to consider what we want success to look like.  Do we imagine that at some point most Canadians, most people of the world, will believe that the police state must go, that capitalism is an abysmal failure, and above all that their own safety and security and that of their children is best represented by the movements of which we are a part?  In other words, a real overturning of the existing social order?  This desire (legitimate, I believe) lies at the base of our critique of the G20, and the other institutions of world suicide.  The question is, how do we get from here to there?  I think the following conditions have to be met:

a) the great majority of ordinary, non-political people have to be convinced that they are threatened more by the state/corporation complex than they are by its alternatives; the corollary is that they must identify personally with people who represent those alternatives, and not with their attackers.

b) those (ordinary) people have to feel that there are actions they can take which will bring the wheels of that machine to a halt, either without endangering them personally, or as a last resort in the case of an immediate threat to life and limb.

in the case of a), the most effective way of causing the majority of people to identify with you is to look and act like them.  Whereas most non-political observers support the actions of the police against people who don't look or act as they would under the same circumstances, they feel outrage and fear when they see people who resemble them being attacked.  This applies to communities of any racial, ethnic, age, orientation background, and is a perfectly normal human reaction.  It was this fact which was so successfully exploited by the civil rights movement: the movement understood that not only was it important for members of the black community to dress well, speak politely but with determination, and be scrupulously non-violent; but also it was essential for white people to be in the marches, in the signup drives, and beneath the batons of racist police.  The murders of white activists were an important catalyst in bringing around the rest of the country, specifically because white audiences (the majority) saw people like themselves under attack.  One implication of this fact is that what you look like, how you act, makes a difference, not just in terms of coverage but in real terms of your being able to accomplish your goal.  It would be more effective politically to somehow arrange for a group of squeaky clean, conservative-looking middle class people being mercilessly beaten while remaining passive (even polite!), than to offer an image of black-clad, masked and defiant strangers.  Assuredly this is a principle the police and false media themselves know well; if no such individuals exist, they must create them, and in so doing they are actively playing their strongest card against revolution.

In the case of b), this is where we see the real value of the $billion+ spent on security at the G20.  Obviously this was not necessary for security, but very few have asked the question as to why exactly SO much money was spent on this absurd show.  To me the answer is clear:  the threatened state puts up a fierce front to demonstrate that it has dominant force, and to convince all observers that it has force majeure, that they cannot vanquish it physically.  Interestingly this show contains its own weakness, since a) it alienates the populace who discover that they are targeted; and b) in its very excess it hints at the institutions' actual fear that they can be brought down as people see them for what they are.  In either case it is clear that force cannot prevail against this monolith, but that force is not what's called for...indeed, force is the only response which can in any way justify the excess (as has been done ad nauseum in the false media).  So, to go back to my basic point, force is not an action which ordinary people feel they can presently take to bring the wheels of the system to a halt.  Rather, we need to seek out and focus on actions which people can see themselves undertaking...granted, those actions will change dynamically as the situation shifts.  There may be a time for violence, or not; but my feeling is that this is not that time.

It's pointless to complain that all these actions are symbolic; setting fire to a police car or breaking a bank window is also strictly symbolic.  The problem is that the people undertaking these actions are aiming their symbols backwards, as somehow speaking out for or acting on behalf of the people who have suffered under these institutions.  I applaud this as a noble sentiment, actually!  But as a means of bringing a revolution about, actions like this are ineffective.  The single caveat, which I'm sure many have considered, is that the reaction to such actions on the part of the state and police is invariably so immoderate that you could argue that the original action was in the end effective.  I concede that this is so; but I believe that with careful analysis and action we could engender a response just as immoderate without the drawback of alienating the populace by unskillful self-representations.


Challenging Caribou's Threat to Free Thought in our Cause

Wow, Caribou, this article is so creepy. You haven't actually responded to this man's opinions and arguments with a logical and structured response that invalidates what he is saying  but rather with an onslaught where you are attacking his character, defaming him and demonizing him (these are  tactics you'd expect from a right wing newspaper and not from a mediacoop blog).

I'm all for diversity of tactics and I don't want to demonize the BB but is anarchism not about consultative and consentual democracy. Is it not against the principles of anarchism that a small group of people (say 1% of a protest) should make a decision on their own which will have drastic consequences on the other 99% without consulting the group.

99% of the people were there to marsh peacefully. There wer famillies with their kids, there were old people. There were alot of pacifists prepared to suffer what horrors the state had planned out for those who wish to dissent, take beatings and be arrested to expose the brutality of the state. Had there not been vadalism, had the BB not bit on the bait the cops left for them (ie. the cars that just happened to be left in the middle of the street), had we worked together to stop provacteurs, the media would not have any footage of anything but a peacefull protest and the brutality of the state would have been exposed. Instead, these few action carried out by the BB, gave the media the ammo they needed to demonize our movement and condition the population to think that the protesters were getting what they deserved. The people who were ready to face this opression and endure it to expose the brutality of the state had their political agency taken away from them by a small minority.

I understand that the brutality would have come one way or another. I understand that this was planned for months. Being brutalized and exposing your brutaliser as what he is one thing BUT being brutalized and giving your brutalizer the cover behind which he can carry out his violence with a lot less exposure to it so that he can just do this to you again and again and again is something competly different.

cops didn't leave bait cars -

cops didn't leave bait cars - see the video on oshipyea's post re: rebick, the cops had to abandon one car; the other wasn't destroyed by bloc folk.

i thought all this talk about DoT was in part a recognition that the movement is a, to quote a phrase, a movement of movements, not a monolith: so a 1% group acting on its own is not counter to the principles: demanding 100% unanimity when various groups don't even share the same goals of social change is against the priciples.

however, i personally just don't think that the actions on sat. "justified" the later repression: perhaps that is the story that was spun, but it's just that, a spun story: what i mean is, it is likely that the "public" will point to saturday's action and say, "look, sunday was justified," but honestly, i think that those who say that must be very politically out of touch, have short memories, and would be totally absent from conversation if there had not been broken windows (and even if there had been police repression).

frankly, i think there is way too much optimism on the left: things are really fucked and were off worse that we were forty years ago.

Thanks for your comments, you

Thanks for your comments, you understand Anarchism which the self-proclaimed G20 Anarchists, SOAR, etc., don't. By their behaviour, actions and expressed beliefs, acting as a form of self-appointed revolutionary government by making independent decisions for 99% of the people about what should occur, perpetrating and revelling in violence and destruction, hiding among the people they didn't consult and get support and permission from, and causing the victimization of peaceful innocent protestors, observors and passersby, they are Nihilists.

well its about time this

well its about time this continent had some nihilists - were a few centuries behind in that department! we've had too much cloudy hope, too much WASP-y faith in our own techniques, our so-called freedom and choice.

nihilism, yes, is dangerous, but only if it is false. there is a nihilism that grows from clairty in regard to evil. that is, saying "fuck it" can be the most rational conclusion from an honest assessment of affairs.

if you're going to harp on nihilism, please outline the points of hope, without flinching, while keeping in mind those dying while you try to justify your comfortable "struggle".

grim reaper is an idiot. 

grim reaper is an idiot.  where'd you get that 99 per cent 'statistic' from?  Your ass?

Regarding "grim reaper is an

Regarding "grim reaper is an idiot. Sat, 07/10/2010 - 18:53 — Toronto Anonymous
grim reaper is an idiot. where'd you get that 99 per cent 'statistic' from? Your ass?"

My "ass" where I got the "'statistic'" from:
"Fri, 07/09/2010 - 11:42 — Toronto Anonymous
Challenging Caribou's Threat to Free reply above,
Is it not against the principles of anarchism that a small group of people (say 1% of a protest) should make a decision on their own which will have drastic consequences on the other 99% without consulting the group." and "99% of the people were there to marsh peacefully."
Address your criticism of that "'statistic'" to my ass.

Much as I dislike Grim's posts, 99% is a reasonable assessment

The black block was about, according to many observers, 75 to 100.

The crowd was estimated to be more or less 10,000.

So, yes, about 1% (less actually since not all black block actually broke stuff) was used as a pretext for the withdrawal of civil liberties allowing the harassment of any citizens who looked like activists, all week long, before and after the vandalism, including Sunday. Activism of course is not illegal, nor are radical political ideas, though visibly many police officers wish they were illegal.

From the Anarchist

From the Anarchist Library:
Nihilism, Anarchy, and the 21st century
Author: Aragorn!

Sadly the divide & Conquer game seems to going on here

 except we caught a poster of the original story also being the same respondent quoting comments like " Excellent post etc " so beware of wasting to much precious energy here ...


The site for the Toronto local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.