I'm not a pacifist, but I don't think the wording of that leaflet is going to convince anyone; it almost seems designed to offend and insult rather than persuade. Why produce such a leaflet? Seems like someone let their anger at being policed by pacifists over-ride their intelligence when designing it... still I suppose it will spark a few conversations, and that's a good thing at least.

This sounds like it was written by a Blac Bloc holding his own cock in his hand (see text of flyer)

Black Bloc wax on about "diversity of tactics"...why don't they fuck off and find a diversity of locale.

They can never find a constitency for their dead end tactics, the nonviolence of Occupy (like it or not) has attracted a constitence
....like the SWP/TROTS Black Bloc are convinced we are all in desperate need of their rrrrrrrrrrrrevolutionary leadership..."no show without Punch"........so what they can't control, they will destroy trying to conscript us all into a street battle we're not dressed for and don't agree (it is a tired old Maoist tactic of the '60's ..."nothing radicalises like pigs in the park", in truth nothing demoralises like black bloc inciting kids and then abandoning them to the courts and the prisons........provding the image (and that's all the look and the vandalim is...image) the state need to market the tightening of the police state.....

So Black Bloc you weren't needed in Oakland, you were worse than useless in Oakland....and the Occupy movement doesn't need you...the state of course needs you to crush this new wave of dissent

Two things spring instantly to mind. Firstly, Echoing George Bush when he admonished those who failed to support his use of violence against Iraq saying "you're either with us or against us" is an unfortunate way to pitch your argument.!

More distressing for this ageing anarchist is how anarchos are so prone to lapsing into dogma when dealing with the violence/non-violence debate. Whatever your views on the matter, to suggest that a small group of elitist pacifists are preventing the mass of demonstrators from engaging in violent resistence is patently ridiculous to anyone other than the terminally dogmatic. if this is the case those who feel this way could call their own militant protests whereby they and those who share their position can engage in robust confrontation with the forces of the state, whilst those who disdain this approach could then refrain form obstructing them by simply staying away . This is sometimes attempted but tends to fail dismally (as was the case even at the peak of militant protest, in 1969 with the Chicago 'days of rage' ). Instead contemporary 'black bloc' enthusiasts in the UK and US routinely join larger protests using them as a cover for their own activities, which i am NOT condemning but a bit of honesty would help and more importantly, realism. To take a recent example, there were a few hundred on the black bloc demo during the TUC march earlier in the year and many tens of thousands on the main march, with a couple of thousand on the UK uncut NVDA action. Of the few hundred of the black bloc i would estimate a few dozen actively engaged in actions against property- again i have no problem with this but claims such as the one above that there is a mass of angry protestors being held back by a few hippies are plainly daft with regard to the US and UK. In reality there are generally a few dozen people up for a bit of a push and shove with the cops, and a couple of smahed windows and they would not have - COULD not have - taken to the streets without a mass of other protestors as a cover.

Again, There is a disturbingly elitist /vanguard-ist and dogmatic approach to this issue exemplified in anarchist rants such as this. If people are serious about creating real change they have to engage with the mass of the people and like it or not the vast majority of people and protestors are very rarely into violent confrontations. If you wish them to be convinced otherwise then engaging with them intelligently might work better than righteous posturing. However perhaps you might be better off exploring whether this has any prospect of success as a tactic against the State.One thing that is never examined in these rants is the idea of how far violent confrontation should go, Clearly the forces of the State are better equipped and generally more ruthless than the average protestor. They are always more than happy to advance the level of violence, remember the Genoa savagery followed the Prague success for the (misnamed) 'anti-glabalisation' movement, if batons and pepper spray, dogs and horses aren't working they'll use teargas, baton rounds etc. do we then use petrol bombs? if we burn bank workers alive, as in greece, do we call them 'collateral damage' and carry on? And how far are we willing to go in this because one thing is absolutely certain the state will never shrink from upping the ante. these issues are crucial if you are serious about this form of protest and wont be resolved or advanced in any way by silly rants like the one above.

On the strength of that shit, I'm against you

"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield themselves up when taken little by little."

Plutarch, Bíoi Parálleloi. (A.D 96.)



What has been done so far...has not needed the use of or threatened use of violence.

Violence is what you do when you have lost and cannot accept your defeat.

We are peaceful, not pacifists.

We beleive in violence of the mind, violence of thought, violence in thinking and violence to be used against the Globalists in ideological form. But we do not beleive in the use of physical violence.

That kind of violence is desperate, stupid, foolish, manic, short-tempered and doomed.

I think the leaflet advances one point well: pacifists do what you want but stop obstructing others actions. If you obstruct another activist from doing an action, whether it be smashing a window or handing out a flyer, you should be treated as nothing more than a police officer. It is correct and proper for those obstructing other activists to be dealt with physically.

It also amazes me that while pacifists are given the leeway to call violent activists all matter of things 'as bad as the people you are fighting' is an example, thus comparing someone that smashes a window to a mass murdering corporation, any suggestion that pacifism is itself immoral and disgusting is found as unacceptable. Pacifism is not saving your child from murder because to do so involves killing the murderer, pacifism is allowing the rapist to rape his victim if the rapist cannot be stopped by peaceful means and pacifism is allowing a comrade to be attacked and not using force to defend her. Pacifism is horrible and in no way shape or form admirable.

Anyway, of course, if you are a true pacifist when a militant activist smashes your face in because you are standing in her way and preventing her actions you will take the violence on the chin and wont go crying to the cops for them to use violence by proxy for you against your assailant :)