United Discontent

Solidarity Is Enough, If Both Do Their Part

It’s not enough to be there, in terms of emotional sympathies, for a cause if it does not help to inspire real change.

For instance, in the case of Antonio Buehler and his fight against APD. THere is an Occupy Event on the 19th that will meet and protest outside of the building, but then there is also Oathkeepers on his otherside working on providing him a legal team and cheaper legal advice. (he’s facing a third degree felony) What would he rather have? sympathies or finances? the occupy spectacle is nice if it affords OATHKEEPERS more resources, but chances are occupy will exhaust its own resources, asking more from its own under-funded people, while oathkeepers will ALSO take a hit. Instead of using occupy and oathkeepers together to perform the same task, we put them at odds. Solidarity should be a mutual commitment to fighting a common enenmy inspite of your obvious differences

“International solidarity is “not an act of charity but an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives.” – Samora Machel”

Solidarity is enough to conquer the power elite, its not enough to sit around and feel for someone else. good intentions thoughts emotions and prayers are the key to carving out a positive mark on the world, but at the same time if these good intentions and thoughts convinvce us that we are doing some real good in the world by them ALONE then we are missing the point.

Solidarity can be enough if we work together, we need more to fight police, the armed guards, and those who continue to defend the power elites goals. but to do this we need to network occupy, oathkeepers, alex jones, ron paul, and all others who are fighting power elite (who might disagree on governing principles)


Kierkegaard on the Present Age

“A Revolutionary Age is an age of action; the present age is an age of advertisement, or an age of publicity: nothing happens, but there is instant publicity about it. A revolt in the present age is the most unthinkable act of all; such a display of strength would confuse the calculating cleverness of the times. Nevertheless, some political virtuoso might achieve something nearly as great. He would write some manifesto or other which calls for a General Assembly in order to decide on a revolution, and he would write it so carefully that even the Censor himself would pass on it; and at the General Assembly he would manage to bring it about that the audience believed that it had actually rebelled, and then everyone would placidly go home–after they had spent a very nice evening out.”

its funny, this is exactly what occupy does.  has a general assembly, declares a revolution, then goes home happy to bed or drunk and homeless on the street.

what we need is direct action like david graeber- an anthropologist and anarchist talks about.  Here is how he defines it

“direct action” becomes any form of political resistance that is overt, militant, and confrontrational, but that falls short of outright military insurrection.  In this seense, if one is doing more than marching around with signs, but not yet ready to take to the hills with Ak-47s, then one is a direct actionist.  The boston tea party (power elite using direction action), is often invoked a classic example of direct action of this sort.  Such actions tend to be militant and symbolic at the same time.

used in this way direct action can cover an encourmous range: it can mean anything from insisting on one’s right to sit at a segrated lunch counter to setting fire to one, from placing oneself in the way of bulldozers in an old-growth forest to spiking trees so that loggers who disregard warnings not to cut in certain areas risk killing themselves”

it is in this sense that direct action is very different from occupy protest.  occupy protest is about spraeding information, making a greater presence to “the movement” to encourage “worldwide solidarity” for the 99 percent.  but the actions themselves, do nothing to disrupt the actions of those they oppose.

they are upset that we cannot protest at city hall and the capital, not because the capital is a place to intervene evil actions, because the capital and city hall are supposedly symbolically “public forms” and in restricting the land useage of these places they are “violating rights” rather than, in the instance of the man fighting the loggers, doing an action that endangers or prevents the action you want from happening.

london riot citizens