disturb the pillars of capitalism

Crying about capitalism == the new crying about ex-girlfriends?

i'd be interested in how the class composition of anti-capitalist movements have flucutated since the 1960s. also, comparisons of england and other european countries

my interest is in matts point about "are people of this type" overly stereotyped as non-proletarian. i am interested in the social make up of this

And spraypainting privately-owned cars accomplishes what again...?

The problem is that I don't think this actually happens.

Spraypainting privately-owned cars accomplishes nothing other than to send a basic "hey rich people, your property isn't sacred or safe" message.

Julio is right - I'm not agreeing with it, I'm saying that's the theory behind this kind of direct action. IMO I don't think it works.

I agree that they're ALSO bored college students who want to smash stuff.

Short of customers? No indeed, but as someone posted upthread McDs hasn't been doing too well lately.

I am not sure the decline of McDonalds is in the slightest bit related to anti-capitalist activity. If anything, its more to do with the rise in number of more varied (and often healthier) competitors.

Yes, but how does that affect the WTO or Starbucks, Inc.? Again, it seems to point far more to the concept that they aren't fighting anything at all--they're just bored college students who had nothing better to do that day than ruin everyone else's life (including far more restrained, sensible protestors)

bnw, I think several political threads prior on our very own ILX will show you the dire voting percentage of the youth of today.

Tom, I'm arguing that they don't actually believe any of this and in about 5 years' time the majority of them will be public accountants. At least, that's what my experience with football hooliganism protestors has been.

From my experience this is not true at all. However, from my experience it is also true that the majority of socialists I know are highly argumentative people who will continue to pick holes in every doctrine, making it quite likely they will swing the other way in future. (See also every reactionary columnist who claims ex-membership of the Communist party).

The protestors on the streets of Seattle, London, Geneva and Montreal must have played some part in bringing these issues into focus. They must have played some part in the downturn in McDonalds profits – and although most people here don’t seem to care too strongly about this, I think it’s no small feat to back an arguably insidious global brand into a corner. And this has possibly been partly achieved by getting people who would never dream of taking to the streets to think twice about where they eat and what products they buy. Why have people begun to think twice about these things? Naturally, it’s because they don’t like what they hear.

Though the method may lack subtlety, even humility, when you are taking on global media monopolies and big business backed governments, the means of communication has to be a basic one – effectively, you could argue that they are starting a fire. I think when it comes down to it, I would rather there are people prepared to risk arrest taking to the streets in order to expose the agenda, than the occasional highly politicised article appearing in the Socialist Worker. Without the headlines garnered by the protestors, I wonder how different sales figures on books such as Klein's No Logo would be.

I’m sure I don’t identify with plenty of the people out there kicking in shop fronts and luzzing bricks through windows but for every moron out there for kicks, I’m sure there is a more dedicated and considerate protestor who feels a little more like I do about these things.

THIS is why I fucking hate hippie ass protestor bullshit. They're not accomplishing anything but looking like morons when it is not at all difficult to work things from the inside...how do they think the capitalists won to begin with? Never mind it's kind of saying too much.

I am thinking of quotes from P.C.U. right now and this thread is silly to me.

I still want to know what they think of the labor conditions in many of these countries.

I don't agree with smasing up windows but the protests should continue.

As I understand, they had this delusion they could actually have some ability to disrupt the wto mini-summit and directed their tactics in that direction. When that didn't pan out because of the (predictable) police response, some ppl. took it out on other targets instead.

The protest organizers had lists of "targets" for actions (which could and usually does just mean protests outside) and McD and The Gap weren't on them -- Bechtel and Raytheon and etc. were.

http://www.metacritic.com/media/movies/titles/legallyblonde/picture.jpg

Since the Quebec City summit, police tactics at smaller G8/WTO-oriented protests here seem increasingly calculated to provoke exactly this type of reaction: they appear on the scene in full riot gear formation as known event-organizers are being spirited away in plain sight by undercover and/or uniformed officers. Within minutes a window is bound to be smashed, giving them pretext to arrest as many people as possible for unlawful assembly or participating in a riot (yesterday's tv news estimate was "over 100"). They know it plays as sheer hooliganism on the news, that they'll have the streets cleared before the noon rush, and that the mass-arrest figures will scare off a good many participants the following day.

(proof the ninjas aren't just richkid poseurs: this all began around 6 am!! ie. hours before the bells chimed for elevensies)

(ok so that's just proof the ninjas weren't me + s1utsky)

And it may be true that most of the 16 year old window-smashers/lock-blockers/car-destroyers are excited only by the violence, and will grow up to be thoroughly complacent former vandals. But a lot aren't like that, and grow to be adults whose lives are spent performing serious, selfless, and effective acts. I know many like that.

Not if the police do their job and throw you in jail for property destruction and endangering others; small point yes.

This is why on the Buy Nothing day thread I said I'd like to see this energy and indignation directed towards management, rather than the service-sector drones who already have to deal with all sorts of BS.

Indeed. In fact, many of them parlay their notoriety into, like, say, law professorships or something like that. For some folks, it's been a good investment, I'd say.

If they were UMC snots to begin with, that is.

Why is a window bound to get smashed? Are you going to say the cops smash windows with regularity?

I'm not a big Chomsky fan, but politics =/ pop music.

(not me!)

[pop music = politics though and love is like a bottle of gin but etc.]

(yr. shadowboxing ams -- my points were all w/r/t this idea that anarchists are unschooled windowsmashing hooligans when in fact many, and partic. the montreal ones are so factually-schooled they can put you to sleep.)

I think it was all the Csosgosz (sp?) folks who gave anarchism its dirty name.

William Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on Modern Morals and Happiness
P. J. Proudhon, What Is Property?

Which stands for what's going on everywhere. I think ILX is underestimating the level of frustration the brick-throwing types feel.

They're (mostly) young, angry, and feeling helpless in the face of the capitalist juggernaut.

What are they going to do - write their Congressman/MP? Vote? Stage a peaceful protest and still get beaten by the police/arrested (sans beating)/made irrelevant by placement (the Augusta National protests for a non-economic version)? Find a corporate donor (HA) to fund an anti-capitalist TV commercial that's just going to get denied airtime anyway?

Ghettoizing protestors as a bunch of posh-dirty-hippy-hooligans who are doing nothing contributive for humanity might be easy, but it seems more like a convenient way to dodge the issues being raised by anti-capitalist/anti-globalist groups.

Yes, so are many people but you dont' see the majority of us--including the other protestors at this event--smashing up shit like rabid monkeys.

I'm sorry, but there's really no excuse for violent behavior. You could take that same argument you just made, replace a few words, and be defending people who set fire to abortion clinics.

Arson != breaking windows. If the people in question were setting blocks of downtown Montreal on fire (or the yahoos who torched a ski lodge in Colorado a year back), then that would be an issue.

Add in that the pro-life movement has popular acceptance, broad governmental support (including the people actually running this fine, fine nation) and no similar juggernaut opposing them, I don't find the two analgous.

"Crying about capitalism == the new crying about ex-girlfriends?"

Various dismissals of these people as "football hooligans" and so on.

Opposing it is one thing - I don't consider it 'good behavior' either - but most of what I see in this thread on the anti-violence side amounts to dismissal of beliefs and people rather than actions.

After seeing the Quebec City protest up close, I'm glad I wasn't at the one in Montreal. For one thing, I much prefer shopping and sitting around eating and drinking with friends to getting tear-gassed. Getting tear-gassed was no fun at all. And if that makes me reactionary and bourgeois, OK. If I have to get tear-gassed at your revolution, I'd rather have a latte, thanks.

Not that there aren't things worth getting tear-gassed for, or times to man the barricades, but my observation in Quebec City was that the Black Bloc kids were mostly looking for kicks and they did tend to detract from the more interesting conversations going on among the majority of protestors. (I'm sure if there are any Black Bloc types on here, they'll jump in and vigorously disagree and bury me in syndicalist/situationist theory, but all the theory in the world can't hide the fact that it's fun to dress up like ninjas and smash things.)

I think the globalization protests overall have been effective in raising mainstream awareness of some aspects of economic globalization. I'm glad they've taken place. But this idea that a protest isn't a protest until some shop windows get broken is obnoxious. Corporate franchise owners and employees -- the ones who have to sweep up all that broken glass -- hardly deserve the aggravation. Yeah yeah, they're working for the man, whatever. The guy who sweeps up the glass at Starbucks has more in common with the Indonesian kid working at a sneaker factory than he does with the corporate board of directors. If you want to be class conscious, then be class conscious, for crying out loud. The most effective social protest movements of the 20th century, the ones led by Ghandi and King, were about civil disobedience and nonviolence, and that's why they worked. If MLK had been surrounded by guys dressed like the kid in the picture smashing white store-owners' windows, it would have been a bad thing.

But nonviolent civil disobedience isn't as much fun as ninja vandalism.

There is a difference between giving this sort of behavior (petulant, childish) the respect it deserves and having an issue with the beliefs of the actual protest, or making fun of the beliefs of the protest. The examples you cite are ALL specifically asking why the behavior is considered an even remotely acceptable way to deal with anything.

Write to the lead singer of Echo and the Bunnymen!

They're demeaning the people in order to attack the actions. "Oh, they're breaking windows. Stupid posh hippies!"

This manages to criticize the action without dealing with why it occurred. That why is the important thing. If you figure out why people break windows, then you can give them/help them find an alternative. For most of this thread, the 'why' has been relegated solely to a spoiled-brat-hooligan stereotype.

Which is what I was attacking in the first place.

Being frustrated and angry doesn't make the action any more acceptable, but it does explain why it happened to start with.

Sorry, milo, but as you said yourself: what percentage turned violent? A very small one. Everyone else found perfectly reasonable ways to express frustration, anger, and dissent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to then make the logical jump to the concept that there might be people who join a cause--any cause, this one just happens to be the one on the news right now--simply because they're bored and into starting trouble.

I'm sorry for the people who were there to make a point. I have no interest in the people who were there to raise a ruckus.

Not that I'm aware of. But I'd like to read it, if anyone knows of one.

People in not giving a shit why they were vandalised when vandalised SHOCKER.
No one in this thread was vandalized. And you're right, if I was vandalized, I wouldn't care why. I'd probably just want to get out and kick someone's ass.

But, I wasn't vandalized. I'm an observer with several thousand miles of distance between myself and the nearest capitalism protests.

And it's the people in this thread, who shouldn't be responding emotionally, who are avoiding the whys and simply assigning blame while ghettoizing the participants. That's ultimately as counterproductive as the people throwing rocks in the first place. People who support the anti-globalization efforts should be the first in line to figure out the 'why' and how to change it - for the public face of the movement if nothing else.

Sorry, milo, but as you said yourself: what percentage turned violent? A very small one. Everyone else found perfectly reasonable ways to express frustration, anger, and dissent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to then make the logical jump to the concept that there might be people who join a cause--any cause, this one just happens to be the one on the news right now--simply because they're bored and into starting trouble.

I don't disagree that there are some meatheads just trying to start trouble and hippies living out their Che fantasies.

But focusing on them as the sole violent protesters, and in effect focusing on them as the sole protesters, still avoids asking why this happens and how it can be stopped in the future.

If the actions of the more violent Montreal protestors are putting these people you describe off, then surely these violent techniques are counterproductive? Wouldn't this be a more sensible explanation than simply assigning blame?

Look at the first paragraph and the phrasing - the intended answer is "NO, those dirty posh hippies SUXOR!!!"

I disagree with the stereotyping and avoidance.

Given the first paragraph and the phrasing, the assumption was that answers would be "HIPPIES BAD" and somesuch.

Yes, there are several books out there on riots. The entire literaure of sociology, in the subfield of social movements. Starting with _Mass Panics_ and its classic "contagion theory", through resource mobilization, radicalism, and cultural/symbolic aspects. If you are *really* interested I could email you a bibliography; it's too long to post.

am i the only one who thinks vandalism isn't the only [or indeed the main] way violence manifests itself at demonstrations?

also contagion theory primer to thread

This is the start of rioting theory not the end.

That would be Colgoscz, Chris Barrus' personal Assassin. (I think my spelling is a little closer)

However, what happens when that person is too emotional to be suitably controlled?

I know for a fact that this happened in Genoa, and people I've talked to think that it's happened at the other "anti-globalization" protests as well.

Oh yeah, and the guy who shot McKinley is Leon Czolgosz.

In that case, the crowd wouldn't need a catalyst (such as an agitator); the emotions already existed, beforehand.

Now you can smash all the windows that you want
All you really need are some friends and a rock
Throwing a brick never felt so damn good
Smash more glass
Scream with a laugh
And wallow with the crowds
Watch them kicking peoples' ass

But you get to the place
Where the real slavedrivers live
It's walled off by the riot squad
Aiming guns right at your head
So you turn right around
And play right into their hands
And set your own neighbourhood
Burning to the ground instead

Riot-the unbeatable high
Riot-shoots your nerves to the sky
Riot-playing into their hands
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast

Get your kicks in quick
They're callin' the national guard
Now could be your only chance
To torch a police car

Climb the roof, kick the siren in
And jump and yelp for joy
Quickly-dive back in the crowd
Slip away, now don't get caught

Let's loot the spiffy hi-fi store
Grab as much as you can hold
Pray your full arms don't fall off
Here comes the owner with a gun

The barricades spring up from nowhere
Cops in helmets line the lines
Shotguns prod into your bellies
The trigger fingers want an excuse
Now

The raging mob has lost its nerve
There's more of us but who goes first
No one dares to cross the line
The cops know that they've won

It's all over but not quite
The pigs have just begun to fight
They club your heads, kick your teeth
Police can riot all that they please

[Chorus]

Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast

Moshpit/Teenage Pyromania/Stupid and Dangerous School Crazes threads to thread plz

When I read this title, I thought of that common drawing in children's bibles everywhere of Jesus at the temple bustin' down the columns when he gets mad at all the greedy people selling stuff on the steps. Or maybe I made that up..?

ppl have been talking too much abt the 5% that cause trouble and not talking abt the actual issues being raised.

its sad but there you go.

But I'm not asking people to divine anything.

I'm saying that the first step shouldn't be to lump all protesters in with all violent protesters and all violent protesters in with a small subset of thrill-seekers and to lump all of them with a vague, unfounded and insulting stereotype.

If you agree with them (even if you disagree with their methods) then it's up to you to defend these legitimate hidden causes of anger and frustration from rhetorical attacks, preferrably by identifying the causes so unempathic dolts like me can join in.
Well, I did. In my first post, when I took issue with the thread's emphasis on bashing whatever bourgeois group individuals decided these people belonged to.

"They're (mostly) young, angry, and feeling helpless in the face of the capitalist juggernaut.

What are they going to do - write their Congressman/MP? Vote? Stage a peaceful protest and still get beaten by the police/arrested (sans beating)/made irrelevant by placement (the Augusta National protests for a non-economic version)? Find a corporate donor (HA) to fund an anti-capitalist TV commercial that's just going to get denied airtime anyway?

Ghettoizing protestors as a bunch of posh-dirty-hippy-hooligans who are doing nothing contributive for humanity might be easy, but it seems more like a convenient way to dodge the issues being raised by anti-capitalist/anti-globalist groups."

"Hell yeah, if them commies want I have they should have to work for it Goddamn it"!!!

I like Chomsky and I don't think smashing up Starbucks is a positive way to spread your message. In fact, it really pisses me off. Ghandi showed that there is a lot to be said for peaceful demonstration.

PS I'm torturing a puppy RIGHT NOW.

Dyson WTF are you getting at? All I said effectually was "teenagers like to play mailbox baseball" and pointed out that this is of course no way to debate a topic like frinstance global trade. That's not going to stop youngsters from breaking shit! They like to break shit! It's VERY SIMPLE!

Oh wait I forgot everybody here was born a tightass

(*this is a joke sorta kinda)

PS I'M WEARING A FUR COAT MADE OUT OF KITTENS!!!!!!

I think it's a pretty rubbish way of protesting, but on the other hand I am in agreement with their basic ideas, and I'm not that concerned about this. I'm sure loads of the protesters will abandon any kind of idealism at some point, but that seems to me an irrelevant argument - Tom has nailed this, I think. I do agree that there has been more coverage of anti-global-capitalist protests since they have become violent, but my guess is that this will turn as many people against them as towards their views. It's rather like Sinkah's excellent points on the Manics-vivisection thread (sadly not about vivisecting the Manics, but we can dream): are you just making yourself feel big and clever, or are you making a contribution towards winning the argument? Whatever the intentions here, I'm very doubtful that it is useful.

At least in the U.S. this is the opposite of true, so I'm confused as to what you mean. There is an entire field of historical political sociology.

Orbit wins most self-righteous poster of the day! Congratufuckinglations!
And Oops wins the mosts insecure reponse of the day! Good job.

But seriously, I have been driven crazy by this thread. I'm sorry but a lot of the argument here is fueled by simply being un-informed. Ok, it boils down to the fact that there is no objective answer. Your position on the subject will boil down to your personal opinion, informed or uninformed, about what kinds of politics are effective; and what counts as politics.

If you have an underlying radical (root) political philosophy, you will see riots as beneficial for several reasons. They focus attention to the problem; they force media coverage on an issue; the larger cause is more impt than the local shops' broken windows; in the end social change is something that is the sum of its parts and no action is too small or large as long as it achieves some progress towards changing the large systems (economic, social) of which society is made.

If you have an underlying liberal (classic liberal) you believe that change is possible through the existing legislative and political process. You will not see riots as a legitimate method for achieving political goals of any type.

You can argue back and forth forever, but it boils down to these things:
1. Pro-riot=the system will not change unless we make it change by any means it takes

2. Anti-riot=the system will change it we all just behave and register to vote, circulate petitions, and the like.

3. American=fuck it, where's my Chinese food?

Apologies for my frustration with this thread.

i like big marches because of all the different people you meet on them, not because i think the powerful will fall over backward in astonishment and change all their policies: i don't really like violence bcz what if my friends get hurt?... but the anti-poll tax riots especially — where certainly many windows were smashed and things set on fire — didn't have political force because they attracted or repelled armchair followers, they had force because it suddenly looked it was going to be very expensive and dicey policing a furious nothing-left-to-lose populace in so many regions of the country ... "if you don't like the consequence don't produce the cause": this is sometimes an argument that gets across

(interesting distinction: the poll tax arose out of state centralism, really, which idslikes turbulence => i'm not at all sure that capitalism minds things getting smashed up, it kind of depends on it and would like it to happen more, no?)

so i wz really just making a joke about that

You aren't Anthony Miccio in disguise, are you?

Tracer: Yes, this is classic. A lot has been written about how social movements and smaller organizations use loose affiliations and networks to garner support for large actions.

I guess the artistic person hates the lack of imagination in some people's tactics.

(6 o'clock news lead story = "cooler heads prevail". three arrests, no major incidents)

In order to see the effect of radical action, liberal action, or a combo of the two (see the 1960s American Civil Rights Movement as an excellent example), it has to be looked at in the aggregate, as about *groups* of people in society, not about your individual experience as a brick throwing 8 year old. There is indeed an argument that all tactics and groups are needed. I've seen liberal theorists say it print that they like the radical arm of a movement, because it makes *them* look more reasonable in contrast. Good point about tactics.

I loved that quote when I first found it, but — after three years of discussing things on ILM especially — I think that I maybe now think "Oh no!! Not more art!!"

Huh?

-- Orbit (cstarrcstar...) (webmail), July 29th, 2003 3:01 PM. (Orbit) (later) (link)

But that's a simplification. What you really get is: BIG STORY - windows smashed in Pumpherston; SMALLER STORY - peaceful Pumphereston protestors distance themselves from smashers; SMALLER STILL STORY - discussing what the Pumpherston peaceful protestors really want.

The results being:

1) More people get to read the BIG STORY than the other STORIES, and maybe the BIG STORY only. They, the most people, can dismiss all protest as nihilistic and alien. But the trick is: the people liable to receive only this message, and I feel I have license to invoke stereotypes on this thread, will be the Daily Mail readers & the complacent. That is, the people already least likely to get involved no matter what the spin.

2) The SMALLER STILL STORY gets printed, where it would not be previously. Without the smashers it would not be printed at all. The people whose views are expressed in the SMALLER STILL STORY get to distance themselves from the smashers, while still leaving room available for their own opinions. The people who will read these opinions are the people who may be most likely to be struck by them. They may be people who have experienced minor demonstrations, and seen how causes are hijacked by troublemakers. They may be people who do not automatically trust the police. They may be people who, often stupidly, try to interrogate the standard line fed to them.

Also, I agree that the violence serves a role as an attention-getter, and it also gives the more moderate, nonviolent majority of the protest movement to define itself as such -- and to say to the people they're protesting against, "Look, you can either deal with us moderate, reasonable folk, or you can deal with the brick throwers." But I'm still leery of ends-justify-the-means arguments, because I think means are pretty important in determining what end you get to -- you need to begin as you intend to go on.

Has anyone mentioned Do the Right Thing on this thread yet? The whole movie leads up to that window-smashing, and ends up pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.

No doubt. I'm skim-reading here as my buzzer is going non-stop.

In these circumstances, I can only simply everything I have to say as: smashers, however misguided > smirkers, however guided.

Or: people who do the wrong thing passionately > people who do nothing.

This is romantic. And this is no romantic place. But I think the realist (and therefore as fantastic) formulae described above require just as much elaboration as mine to make them work. Elsewhere, if not here. So: we can all be glib, and Eyeball Kicks likes to indulge in glibness, but what after?

I kept an eye on activists who were taking pictures and looked at the same things they were.
The police are aiming for an overkill: I've never seen as many of them in one place, in full body armor and sheild etc. It's very heroic fantasy. Representation of military "heroism" in medias, movies etc = dud. I was going in the park to read a book but I took some notes instead. The translation:
Said by mens and womens beatened-up by life, in their late 30's or '40's but looking much older, most likely on wellfare:
"(...) breaking windows is breaking capitalism, it's not like hurting people(...)"
"(...)police, government and medias they are in the same gang"
"I'm not a hooligan, I'm just here to check it out"
"last time I was hanging here I didn't do a thing but they still got me to the station"
"there is already a girl in a coma"
"(...) nothing will happen? just let the nite arrive..."

The police are totally securing the perimeter, rues et ruelles.
They ran out of mini-vans to cram their staff in so they rented about 10 of them to a company called "jean légaré".
An ol'timer talked about the strike in shawanigan in the '40's, he was saying how they were turning the PP's (the provincial police they were called back il précise) trucks upside down.
"they(people fighting for our social rights) were more courageous then" some guy said.
A guy kept interrupting him, saying he have heard about that strike, asked him, like, if he met syndicalist hero Chartrand :"yes"
The old man also talked a bit about forced enrolling of french canadian dudes for WW2, MP's in civilian clothes running after them while they were escaping in the woods then leaves.
The guy who was interrupting him said "These are good things to know, I'll go to sleep tonite a little less dumb!"
old timer: "bien oui!"

One poor guy near me, drinking beers and smoking cigarettes, was always saying out loud excited comments like:
"It's starting"
(a church bell rings) "It's the hour O' truth! haha!"
"ça va barder! (it will rawX0r!)"

The key comment to me was when someone else said:
"(...)as long as they (activists)don't cross the border (barricade) (...)"

Most of the kids and activists were next to the barricade or across the street. In the meantime among poor or homeless people, tv vans and the police, business people were crossing the park as usual to get to the car park or the metro. Some young kids were skating in the empty streets but otherwise it was pretty much business as usual: a hobo was lying on the grass reading a free paper, the regular mötley crüe were chating it away, a jock couple were sitting on a picknick table among shopping bags from posh stores were kissing passiionately and exchanging hand jobs.

I haven't watched tv for days and I don't know exactly what deal(s) will be made at this event. I'll check later/ right now I'm just thinking "bah, it's just a manifestation of Empire, get with the concept."

What if Trotsky substituted another word: 'Insurrection is a [practice / job / vocation / etc], and like other [...]s it has rules'?

I have a feeling that it is not true that insurrection has rules, unless we are talking about very breakable rules.

I'm wondering this... is, say, climbing up the top of the London Eye and hanging off a gigantic motherfucking banner, or beaming your message onto the side of the Houses of Parliament at night likely to attract more headlines than smashing a window at a protest?

What the anti-capitalist faction should be doing is persuading Trinity Mirror to buy majority stakes in McDonalds and Starbucks, ergo blanket media vilification within days.

There were some rubbish posters up on the Tube a while back, but they contained about 3,000 words and any real advertising executive would have pissed himself laughing.

I will avoid quoting Billy Bragg's 'North Sea Bubble'.

P.S. The problem with smashing up MacDonalds is that those who are in the lowest paid positions in these shops, the lower class, the uneducated, the coloured, immigrants - those that British society generally deems only worthy to work as cleaners - are now having to mop up glass. At any rate, this fucks the gesture royally and, besides which, as much a symbol of American multinationalism that MacDonalds may be I personally don't want any fucker telling me where I can and cannot eat. Surely this boils down to Facism rather than someone simply being concerned enough about de-forestation or factory farming to put a brick through a fast food restuarant's window?

As someone with, let's say, a skin colour that has made people think I'm Italian and which led to incredibly racist jibes at school as a youngster ("paki" etc) I am someone who really, really, really fucking objects to any form of racism. I've experienced it first hand. How many white pasty face middle class morons can say that on this forum?

Funnily enough, my skin colour is purely white now, but when I was young myself and my sisters were darker.

And how funny you would think that someone who has expressed such ideals I have on the more serious threads on ILM is in any way shape or form the kind of person you think. I would kick your lousy racist ass you twat, you don't deserve to fucking be on the same forum as me.

Ha! Calum splits his infinitives!

Your views are shameful and as someone who was the victim of racism I doubt you can ever be in the position I am in when it comes to hating those who hate people of other colour.

P.S. Any half decent uni will tell you split infinitives are now acceptable.

It rhymes, though.

TS: Facism vs. Rasism

How many anti=war protests did you go to mate?

Martin can you remove this racist prick?

"do you need me to point out your 'rape is not a crime' posts elsewhere? or your 'the darkies are ruining british music' "serious" posts?"

As any and every ILM moderator knows I have never posted anything even slightly racist and I do not wish to be Googled on this. I'm sure if I posted this crap about someone it would be (rightly) removed.

Thanks.

http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/kilroy/posters/images/awardc~1.jpg

By the way i'm new to this site, do you always answer that fast and with little photos at the ready, or am I just the lucky one ;-. Just curious...

http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/adamsandler_punchdrunklove_shoppingcart.jpg

I think you guys need to get out more, I haven't seen this much pent up frustration since high school, seriously guys, grow up it's embarrasing...

'spoon ered' - I know no one is likely to get confused (esp. as most people think Calum is Spoonered anyway) , but still, it's not just a one off jokey 'this isn't really x but I'm pretending for a joke' so please do as you say and take this offboard if you want. If you go on doing this I think the moderators to make it clear which poster you really are.

Calum and anyone else - you can hide your real email address and still provide it in a hidden way if people want to contact you via ILX's webmail proxy. Go to the Settings screen. If you want to have a private email fite.

Anyway, ramble.

I have deleted your supposed surname so you can't really call it slander (published = libel, btw), Calum.

If 'spoon ered' carries on I'll think about deleting things, but there isn't really anything in the FAQ guidelines that indicates anything is worth of deletion. S/he is calling you a racist because you use the term 'coloured'. S/he may be right or s/he may be overreacting and talking bullshit. But people get called on racism/sexism all the time. It's hardly lawsuit stuff.

Bang goes the MA.

I am trying very hard to feel appropriately censorious towards spoon ered but then I'm also trying very hard to keep a straight face. If this nonsense starts up again though the thread should be locked.

P.S. What a dump this thread is.

Tonight it's very clear
As we're both lying here
There's so many things I want to say
I will always love you
I would never leave you alone

Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying
I don't wanna lose you
I could never make it alone

Cause I am a man who will fight for your honor
I'll be the hero that you're dreaming of
Gonna live forever
Knowing together that we
Did it all for the glory of love

You'll keep me standing tall
You'll help me through it all
I'm always strong when you're beside me
I have always needed you
I could never make it alone

Cause I am a man who will fight for your honor
I'll be the hero that you've been dreaming of
Gonna live forever
Knowing together that we
Did it all for the glory of love

Just like a knight in shining armor
From a long time ago
Just in time I'll save the day
Take you to my castle far away

I am the man who will fight for your honor
I'll be the hero that you're dreaming of
Gonna live forever
Knowing together that we
Did it all for the glory of love

[3x:]
I am a man who will fight for your honor
I'll be the hero that you've been dreaming of
Gonna live forever
Knowing together that we
Did it all for the glory of love

Kevin Bacon rides into town to save a city run by Preacher Bloomberg...

CRIMINAL. To the chair with him.

"why are you allowed to denigrate and call for violence against anyone who's not a straight white male subject of her majesty the queen and I'm not allowed to call you a misogynist racist facist jackbooted thug?"

Which is fucking defemation of character if ever there was one. As somebody who was the victim of racist middle class pricks I do not wish to be one on this forum and I learned long ago that the only way to deal with racists is to kick them hard between the legs. [violent threat removed by moderator]

Thank you.

Liz Lofts is a 19-year-old University of Victoria student and part-time lifeguard who has come to hang out in Montreal for the summer. She was one of the 340 people arrested following the anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) protests last week. This is her story, as told to the Mirror.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/images/may05.jpg

lol

haaaaaa

i might use tt as a generalized linkdump thread for anticapitalist stuff rather than starting a SMASH THE CAPITALISM thread

http://i.imgur.com/5SyKpOU.png

i wish my hair looked like that