The Anarchists Have a Great Day

  • Posted on: 16 May 2012
  • By: worker

They must have been in it for the sheer thrill. Dressing up in black costumes and breaking expensive windows with sticks must be a rush. Nothing announces your hatred of capitalism so clearly as the sound of breaking glass. Nothing shows off your revolutionary chic better than a bandana, a black hood and a raised fist with a closet rod from Lowe's. There's nothing better than putting a hole in a Seattle bank on television and having the cops show up late to pepper-spray the camera crew. The joys of organized anarchy go all over YouTube.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, struggling with the difficult Seattle law enforcement ethic of being tolerant and intolerant simultaneously, did not call it a riot. He called it "The First Amendment uses of 5-foot long, 3-inch-wide sticks" which naturally "is outweighed today by our desire to protect public safety and confiscate weapons."

The difference between free speech and smashing things with clubs notwithstanding, I assume this well-orchestrated and planned spontaneous outbreak of violence had some political purpose. Alas, the teenage ninja window smashers made no statement that I heard. They expressed no ideology, made no demands, issued no manifesto. They just dressed in matching black outfits, jumped out of the protest march like flash mob vandals, and started the downtown break fest. It wasn't like parts of Europe, France in particular, where rock-throwing mobs are a tradition and setting overturned Renaults afire a form of political art. Those people make sure everyone knows what they are about. The ninja smashers weren't communicating through the usual news outlets. There are websites with rambling, expletive-strewn statements condemning the corporate criminals and bemoaning the fact that some people have money and some don't, but I can't hang there for long. Maybe all the cool connected people just know. The rest of us -- hey, we're part of the 99 percent, too -- are left to wonder.

News accounts are quick to point out that the vast majority of the people at the Seattle May Day protests were nice and peaceful and that Seattle police reacted with all the necessary firmness you would expect of experienced professionals. I can accept that. The whole thing started as an Occupy/immigrant rights march, and large parts of Washington's electorate might be sympathetic with their message. Assume the silent ninja smashers' politics are an offshoot. Their targets suggest they were attacking the bastions of the corporate oppressor class through the windows of a downtown shoe store and banks. Niketown lost its window, I assume because it sells the products of a company that employs Third World peasants to make expensive athletic shoes. A Wells Fargo window, smashed, presumably because its parent corporate folks loan capital to capitalists. Starbucks was hit, for its coffee-related crimes, the federal courthouse, Nordstrom corporate HQ, clothing stores, etc.

The point is obviously not to elicit sympathy or persuade the general public to share their political views. Smashing downtown does not appeal to many. More likely the anarchists are playing to their political base. You get better Web posts that way. Of course, with their tactic they ensure they will remain a fringe group, less than 1 percent of the 99. Most of us aren't likely to start shouting the F-word at our bank. We might find it difficult to hate corporations that make a profits, since most of us work for them and are happy they make profits, because we know what happens to us when they don't. And if the egalitarian society means we have to dress up and smash things, count me out. Stupid destruction is so uninviting.

Tracy Warner's column appears Thursdays and Fridays. He can be reached at or 665-1163.


capitalist propaganda pre NATO.

nothing special to see here.

Seriously, how boring and trite. Going to have to come up with something better than this to dissuade all those inspired by Seattle.

"The point is obviously not to elicit sympathy or persuade the general public to share their political views. Smashing downtown does not appeal to many. More likely the anarchists are playing to their political base."

Yes! The journalist wins what's behind door number three...

holy crap. they finally got it right.

the black bloc truly isn't opaque enuff if journalists understand it this well. quick -- to the coffee shop!! we must ponder a new formulae of attack and be seen to ponder.

So only teenagers smash windows. What do the adults get to do?

What's smart destruction then?

Now, if only Nazis had used the same logic in regards to concentration camps. "If they close the camps then we'll lose our jobs. We like having jobs, so we need our superiors to keep bringing us train loads of humans to kill."

they did.

"This would have been so much better if it had happened in France. Suddenly it would all make sense."

"well-orchestrated and planned spontaneous outbreak" that is almost as contradictory as "organized anarchy"

all that's gonna happen is that it's gonna be hard to get to the tragedy show on saturday. chill out, tracy warner.

i'll be there. i heard piggies with guns shoot to kill all those in black that aren't wearing suits in an area marked by red stain of comrades blood. maybe we should pack heat as well?

Tracey, I often disagree with you, but only found one sentence in this column that I oppose, that being:
"The difference between free speech and smashing things with clubs notwithstanding, I assume this well-orchestrated and planned spontaneous outbreak of violence had some political purpose."
I don't believe this group had even one iota of political purpose or intent. Thankfully, you went on to make that point quite clear, and I thank you very much for a very intuitive and well thought out and written article. As suggested by Mr. Arballo, these little punks need to be singled out and treated like the criminals they are. They are looking for attention, and I'm all in favor of giving them just what they are asking for and more. It saddens me to realize that the antics of a few ". . . . . . . " (expletives deleted) completely destroyed the meaning of the message the more legitimate marchers may have been trying to convey. Because of these hoodlums, the people of Seattle and the entire state on the whole will only remember the lawlessness of the masked renegades when recalling the events of the day. Also Marie Mason has shitty tattoos

IGTT 0/10

Don't talk shit on Marie Mason, dick.

i'll try

i'll give em an 8. pretty believable until the tattoo remark.

Until the tattoo remark the comment was direct copypasta from the comment section where this article first appeared.

Murray Rothbard, The Mystery of Banking

Yes Rothbard is a wank, but if you can't master these concepts then I can't help you.

This analysis by Tracy Warner is well-reasoned. It is, in fact, all about ‘reasoned behaviour’. It is like so many other reasoned analyses. Warner complains about American anarchists not publicizing a reasoned message like [some of] their European counterparts.

But ‘reason’ is the problem with modern society, so no wonder these sort of analyses are ‘out to lunch’, and this UNDERSTANDING has not eluded Europeans over the centuries; e.g;

‘La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’ – Lafontaine, ‘Fables’

“Reason” is the cause of our falsification of the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The “apparent” world is the only one: the “true” world is merely added by a lie. –Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Heav’n from all creatures hides the book of Fate, All but the page prescribed, their present state; ... “In pride, in reas’ning pride, our error lies.” — Alexander Pope, … Essay on Man

‘Reason’ is not all that it’s cracked up to be, and each of the above philosophers raise points why not.

1. “The reasoning of the most powerful is always the best.” e.g. the colonizers of the world reason that “we colonizers are constructing a wonderful new world in North America”. the indigenous peoples of the world reason that “the colonizers are destroying a wonderful established world on Turtle Island.”

Reasoning is commonly based on ‘cause-and-effect’ as in causing something good to happen like constructing a new city or demolishing resistance to colonization.

Corporate developers love to cite their reasons why such construction is a good thing [while downplaying the real reason; i.e. 'profit-taking']. What their reasoning doesn’t address is that ‘creation’ has a shadow called ‘destruction’. ‘Creation’ cannot happen without simultaneous destruction because there is always something ‘in place’ that has to ‘give way’ to the new creation. Reason of the common ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ variety doesn’t take this into account because it assumes that space is a fixed, empty and infinite [Euclidian] operating theatre. Reason is commonly dependent on abstract conventions such as ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ so that it works with ‘historical cause-effect perspectives’ which are ‘Fiktions’. The colonizer’s pride in the new world they were constructing is a case in point. Who amongst the colonizers, so proud of their ‘reas’ning’, bothered to voluntarily/spontaneously take into account in their development plans, what they were destroying?

Reasoning is commonly in terms of the dynamics of notionally independent ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what such things do’. Colonizing man takes pride in his reason-driven causal achievements without ever thinking about how all things are related. Colonizing man’s belief in his own ‘reason’ astounded aboriginals;

“Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival. ... This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”

Today’s ‘reasoning’ is that ‘development is good’. Development puts everybody to work, gives them a job, which pays good money which allows them to feed and clothe themselves. The ‘reasoning’ further continues that the ‘reason’ for ‘development’ is to ‘make a profit’ and the drive to make a profit sets up a whole continuum of ‘work-in-progress’ called ‘the free market economy’. This is the ‘reasoning’ of economists, and it is the reasoning of sovereigntist states [centrally controlled spaces] that give those residing in their controlled spaces a choice of political parties as candidates for incumbency in the centre of supreme power, political parties that reason that the free market economy is a good thing, and that we must continue to protect property ownership even as the distribution of ownership shifts towards the ‘most productive causal agencies’ and thus endows those making the biggest profits with the greatest growth in property ownership and thus with the greatest control over resources and other means of production, a continuing 'spiral' towards minority ownership of the globe.

The powerful creative capacity of the free market economy has been just as powerful a destroyer of the environment and this continues, largely unabated, because, as the aboriginals noted, the traditional ‘reason’ of the colonizer culture does not take into account the fact that space is relational but instead assumes that space is ‘an absolute fixed empty and infinite operating theatre'; i.e. colonizer reason fails to acknowledge that “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.” (Mach’s principle).

‘Freedom of speech’ is reasoned to be an important freedom, but the things that really count in life are ‘beyond words’. Non-discursive gestures can convey far more than ‘reasoned discourse’. Going naked or baring breasts,like breaking bank windows, are gestures that signal that reason has been leading us down the garden path. Goedel’s theorem says that all finite systems of mathematics are incomplete and exposed to inconsistencies; “The judge who judges the consistency of reasoning of all those who cannot judge the consistency of their own reasoning cannot judge the consistency of his reasoning, ... this side of an infinite hierarchy of more authoritative judge overseeing less authoritative judge.”

Experts are top-of-the-authoritative hierarchy reasoners which means that they keep current, within their speciality, of the many ways to screw up. Alan Greenspan was the world’s expert on the free market economy, recently discovered another flaw in reasoning. The free market economy is not always self-correcting. If you get a lot of people ‘shorting it’, reasoning that they can make a profit by betting on the collapse of the market, this can disable the purported self-correcting quality of the free market economy.

Emerson, in ‘The Method of Nature’ claims that ‘the tool of reason has run away with the workman’.

The reason that rises like cream to the top and persists as ‘the best’ does so because it is the reasoning of ‘the most powerful’. The most powerful are those who have the money-backing to take control of the central seat of supreme power vested in the sovereign state, and whoever that is, is by definition and design, capable of the best reasoning, otherwise why would we have a system in which the reasoning of those ‘at the top’ in the central seat of absolute power, trumps the reasoning of the man in the street? The sovereign state is a model of God, as law historians have noted. The reasoning of God is unquestionably ‘the best’ since God is ‘the most powerful’.

So, what transcends ‘reason’ as a basis for organizing our social dynamic?

Well, we have the opportunity to bring 'space' back in from the cold [logic excludes any participation of space]. we have ‘balance’ and we have ‘harmony’ in a spatial-relational sense, so the cultivation and sustaining of balance and harmony in our relations with one another and the land, is an organizing influence we can use.

E.g. the wildgeese do not use ‘reason’ to organize in their ‘V’ flying formation which allows them to fly farther, faster with less expenditure of energy than could ever be achieved in solo mode. The wildgeese let natural ‘relational resonances’ [sustained harmony] organize their individual and collective behaviour.

Awareness of spatial-relational resonances that can organize our individual and collective behaviour comes by way of our sensory experience of inclusion in a relational dynamic. The biker travelling in a group of bikers has an invisible ‘V’ envelope of air turbulence around him, buffeting him and resisting to accommodate his intrusion into the airflow. As the bikers shift around, varying their spatial relations, they FEEL quieting and exciting of the turbulence associated with relative spatial positioning as their respective ‘envelopes of turbulence’ interfere with one another. The interference can be either constructive or destructive but when it is destructive [mutually cancelling], the turbulence subsides [the flow becomes more receptively accommodating to their joint intrusion, and they go farther, faster, for less expenditure of energy than they could ever go in solo mode. Similarly, the manner in which water accommodates the intrusion of a boat, back-reflects to organize the optimum hull shape and cruising speed [or fish-school dynamic].

In general, nature’s primary organizing source is ‘spatial-situation-animated organization’, which is when outside-inward orchestrating influence and inside-outward asserting influence are in resonant, conjugate relation.

Reason [the common popular variety] as a source of organization is ‘subject-animated organization’ which is purely one-sided and forced and inside-outward asserting. If you constructed mechanical wildgeese, considered their dynamics as being ‘solely their dynamics’ [as in the reasoning of the ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do' model], you would optimize their performance as individual units.
Meanwhile, the joint action of multiple wildgeese incorporates Mach’s principle wherein their actions condition the dynamics of the flow they share inclusion in, in such a manner that it can become more receptively accommodating of their joint assertive intrusion. Therefore, the first wildgoose to reach the rich foraging ground will be the first because of the efforts of his group, and not because of his individual capabilities. The solo-flying wildgoose will be far behind and relatively more exhausted.

That being said, 'reason' nevertheless tends to credit the performance of the individual to the individual, because we ignore the fact that the dynamics of multiple inhabitants can condition the dynamics of the habitat they are included in to make it more or less accommodating to their asserting actions. In other words, in standard ‘reasoning’, space is NOT relational but is assumed to be a non-participating emptiness.
But we know that in real life, for example, three males may court a female and condition her behaviour with the result that she ends up ‘accommodating’ a fourth male.

Reason commonly interprets the 'success' of the male who 'succeeds' in ‘winning’ conjugal relation with the female to be due to the superior qualities of the winning male. This kind of common reasoning ignores the reality that the individual that ‘succeeds’, succeeds thanks to others that have conditioned the common space they are included in, to make it more accommodating/receptive to what may be his lesser proficiencies. By the same token, when a jar that is difficult to open is passed around to several people to try to open it, it may be their conditioning of the lid’s relation with the jar that makes it more accommodating/receptive to the turning attempts of a late-coming 'competitor' who succeeds NOT because of his own skills and effort, but because the actions of those prior have conditioned the outside-inward accommodating [receptive/resistive] aspect that is in conjugate relation with the inside-outside asserting application of torque. in biology;

“the majority of sperm die before reaching the egg, but several hundred sperm typically reach the egg near the end of the oviduct. The sperm encircle the corona radiata, and each one releases enzymes from its acrosome. These enzymes weaken the corona radiata, allowing the sperm to wriggle closer to the egg. When the first sperm contacts the zona pellucida it triggers the acrosome reaction, in which the contents of the acrosome are released. Proteases from the acrosome digest the zona pellucida enabling the sperm to reach the plasma membrane of the egg.”

‘Reason’, western style logic style, borrows from our own ego and likes to think in terms of ‘competition’ which pits ‘individual against individual’ and which ignores the participation of the outside-inward accommodating [resistive/receptive] aspect that is conjugate to the inside-outward asserting influence. The cool guy or cool sperm who comes in late after everyone else has prepared the ground is seen as ‘the winner of the competition’, a view that ignores the outside-inward accommodating that is in conjugate relation to inside-outward asserting action and that is conditioned by the dynamics of the inhabitant collective.

The CEO is like the cool sperm that shows up at harvest time and ‘reason’ credits him as being responsible for the bountiful harvest. All around him are exhausted workers without whom this situation where he lays claim to the harvest would not have been possible. The ‘reason’ built into the laws of the sovereign state are behind this way of understanding and they will protect his claim that he is the one that is primarily responsible for the result. Like the sperm that fertilizes the ovum, he can claim that the result is stamped with his DNA just as earlier production from the plantation was stamped with his father's DNA.

But that is just a logically reasoned view of the process that fails to capture its real complexity and as we know, logical hypotheses can be proved without any requirement that the formulating of such hypotheses, which are our own formulations, are complete with respect to actual physical reality [we can validate a reasoned hypothesis without the hypothesis having diddly squat to do with complex physical reality].

‘Competition’ is a hypothesis in point. Did the person who succeeded in opening the jar, succeeded in entering into a conjugal relation with the girl, succeeded in producing a profitable harvest, ... achieve this result on the basis of his own individual capacities? Or should we acknowledge the role of many others that expended energy, conditioning the dynamics of habitat so as to ‘open the door’ to his ‘apparent’ assertive achievement?

Our ‘reason’ would have it that the ‘assertive achievement’ of an individual is fully and solely 'of his making' while our intuition would turn ‘reason on its head’ and insist, as Nietzsche did, that the outside-inward organizing influence [endosmosis] predominates over its conjugate partner, inside-outward asserting influence [exosmosis]. In other words, real-life situations are ‘spatial-relational’ and there is, at the same time, an outside-inward accommodating [receptive/resistive, parrying] and inside-outward asserting [strong/weak thrusting] aspect to all real physical dynamics.

The bottom line is that our ‘reasoned’ view of ‘organization’ is ‘out to lunch’ by being seen in the one-sided terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’. Sure, this reasoning will work to 'get things done' but it fails to take into account the conditioning of the habitat dynamic that is always conjugate to the assertive dynamics of the inhabitants. This shows up as 'externalities' [Stiglitz] that go unaccounted for in capitalist economics. E.g. damage to the environment, increased starvation due to increasing use of foodcrops for biofuels etc.

The productive performance of mafioso looks very good, and where this is not the case, the people the mafia are dealing with may be given a ‘tune-up’ to render them ‘more accommodating’ in their dealings, in which case the resulting mafia productive performance increase is not due to improvements in the productive capacities of the mafia, but is instead due to the more receptive, less resistive accommodating of their ‘business partners’. Corporate entities and the colonizing states operate in this same fashion, but our common ‘reason’ only allows credit going to the assertive agent for causal results since common reason conceives of ‘dynamics’ and ‘organization’ in the constrained, one-sided doer-deed terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’.

What is clear is that ‘reason’ as it is commonly practiced in our capitalist-sovereigntist society, is not an avenue for correcting the social dysfunction, since reason is both the cause and the protector of the dysfunction.

“In pride, in reas’ning pride, our error lies.”

‘Freedom of speech’ is the portal to ‘reasoned discussion’ so what good is that? That is nothing other than our ‘catch 22’. Yet Tracy clearly gives more RESPECT to protest that is ‘well-reasoned’;

“It wasn't like parts of Europe, France in particular, where rock-throwing mobs are a tradition and setting overturned Renaults afire a form of political art. Those people make sure everyone knows what they are about.”

Tracy is missing a key point that applies to reason-based organization;

La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure.

TLDR you're a wingnut

dont you fucking talk about our emile like that

Yes! Be like those French banlieu rioters who knew to have a press conference and explain to the general public why they chose to begin burning 10,000 French cars...

yeah that made me lol. "Those people make sure everyone knows what they are about." hilarious when people who are paid for having opinions blatantly have no fucking idea what they are talking about. or when they premise totally anti-political explosions of rage as being more political than a bunch of clandestinely-organized window smashings by cadre activists. wait, now that i write that i'm starting to think he had a point there, even if he didn't intend it...

"Maybe all the cool connected people just know. The rest of us -- hey, we're part of the 99 percent, too -- are left to wonder."

Cool Connected Commune for 2013, with little buttons saying "just know, Tracy"

"They must have been in it for the sheer thrill."

Is it any wonder that my brains automatically read this in an X-Games announcer's voice?

Sac Longchamp has become the most sought-after designer handbags. Here is the source for the most stylish 2012 celebrity fashion, just come with me to have a look at this picture of Longchamp.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.