Black FLOP

- black has no production program, society is production and destruction, you only destroy

- your punkoid way of attacking corporations is ridicolous, every car or bank burnt for its own sake changes nothing

- black didn't move toward red zone but just bring panic through GSF thematic squares

- black block doesen't produce any sense, nihilism is dead from the beginning

- it's highly infiltrated by hooligans and cops, i met them. they burned gsf medics car and broke head of a COBAS comrade.

- if bb exists as a group: please get organized, communicate with other part of the movement,

make us know what you want and what you dislike. USE WORDS!! If you only dislike you're dead.

Differentiate yourself from hooligans, naziskins and psychos.

- in case your will is different from ours do your demos by yourself like in Prague

- I met some black b. completely drunk, IDIOTS !

- using too much violence when in minority leads movements to suicide

Articles from italy.indymedia:

"The BB-people who "target" property makes it easy for those who just want to destroy

in general. The destroy/beat-the-police-fraction of BB makes it easy for the police to attack all protestors and get away with it. "



- "POLICE MENDED SMASHERS

by M.P 7:52pm Sun Jul 22 '01 (Modified on 11:53pm Tue Jul 24 '01)



Since I am in genoa and thus a witness to most of these events and since i know anarchists-

friends of mine- which participated with the black Block demonstration i am able to confirm that

division between some of the Black Blocks who were there in the objective to engage into

targetted destruction and others who were probably ( unfortunatly ) there to break everything

and create a climate of harsh violence. The later group seem to be in connection with the police

because as they burnt cars and smashed the windows of small shops ( owned by genovese )

the police made no attempt to stop them . On the other hand , they charged peaceful protesters

and beat them heartily.

I believe those are comments, not news. But since you really are just shit-stirring for its own sake I might offer a brief reply. I don't believe you really know many anarchists. You don't have very many harsh words for the cabirieri nor the G-8 who created the conditions which instigated the violence. Probably you resent the "black bloc" for not conforming to your utopian vision of some immense march with everyone holding hands. By you own admission the worst of the vandalism was committed by masked cops which also led the raid on the IMC and GSF. Revolutions come in different forms, according to the urgency of the oppressed. The American Revolution was violent. Our masks are no different than the Indian disguises worn during the Boston Tea Party, perhaps the most famous act of corporate vandalism. Focus on your own contribution to the movement; you can't change everyone whose methods you don't approve of. No activists' efforts should be any less valid than anothers'. The same guns are pointed at all of us.

First of all I'm violent and antiliberal.

Second I'm not speaking about police violence because it's their job and I hope blaming it is implicit among us.

The problem I'm talking is about tactics to be used by this global movement.

Assumed that every intelligent person knows violence is everywhere the political problem is different.

Using black bloc tactics in Genova without informing GSF and other protesters about it has been tragically wrong.

BB should have made clear statements about what he was going to do, and why. On the contary they didn't communicate with anyone and bring mess in other demonstations. As you ask pacifist not to impose their view to BB why shouldn't pacifist ask BB not to impose BB their direct action in their demos ? BB could have made whatever they want without bringing mess in other groups demos which were unready to cope with that kind of police repression.

This is the only working pragmatic approach to the relationships between BB and the rest of the movement.

For what concerns political thought of BB I repeat that you have no positive ideas about a different model of society so you're going to loose. Technology is there and the only possible conflict is around how and who is using it. But that's only my personal opinion based on some thousands of years of human history.

I'd like to translate you some appreciations to BB actions by italians nazifascist group.....ask me if you want them.

I agree with the person directly above me. If you so called "pacifists" would like to

sit and hold signs and get beat by cops, then thats your thing. Personally I think the

tactic is a little out dated, (everyone already knows the cops are jerks!). But of course

both tactics are needed. The problem is that you are making an absolute blanket

statement when you obviously have no idea what the BB or anarchism are about. We

are on the same team remember?!? Please go study up a little bit. Meet some anarchist

peaople and discuss. Its been my experience that most so called "peacful protesters" are

mainly white middle class males who have the financial backing to post bail or crash

on there mom and dad for a while. This makes it really easy to commit yourself to civil

disobedience. Please stop talking shit about one another O.K? the corporate controlled

media already does enough of that for us. The system are the bad guys, not the BB!

Nonviolent protest functions within a violent context. It's the alternative to continued violence. It fails as a tactic at most demonstrations, because there's no threat of violence.

Passive resistance works because of the media. Viewers need to see the police beating the people, or they will not sympathize.

Less passive resistance, like putting yourself between a cop and the beat-ee, is considered more antagonistic, but creates support.

Direct action gets the goods. It works to get media attention. Also, being beat for minor infractions will get the support of most liberals.

Attacking the cops doesn't get much support, except from the most radical people, and precious few of them. On the other hand, without some violence, the context would never be created for nonviolence.

It's something of a paradox.

"Anarchist" vandalism is not attributable to a group, but to a widespread idea that it will be effective; so it'll be hard to stop. That also means, at some level, this is popular rioting, expressing the will of the people (some people). By some definition, at least, it's vandalism to address legitimate grievances.