"You best separate yourself!"

originally posted by: Beatnixx1414
a reply to: dreamingawake

One.... you cant control anarchists. Two.. you realize the Black Bloc are anarchists right?

You are right about not following a "leader" though, and one thing is certain, you wont find anarchists doing that. Agree?

Yeah they are. Not all anarchists are Black Bloc(the paid agitators) however.

Yup they shouldn't be following a leader, those who are given instructions do create riots, more sure do.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Look, when someone starts a riot, you better get out of there or else you risk being a part of it.

I am very tired of cops having to try to control a riot and then getting flack from the person who was peacefully protesting and got caught in the tear gas or pepper spray.

You were talking like a cop before. What do you do? Nicely walk up to each person and ask them if they are a protester or rioter?

a reply to: Puppylove

You have been lied to. I just love rewritten history. You see Ghandi was a safe person to negotiate with. The brits were exhausted from ww2 and trying to colonize india. Look up Bhagavat Singh( correct spelling?) He was the real reason. MLK was also non threatening person to negotiate with, but the real fear was the black panthers behind him. Read Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill. I promise it will be enlightening. Paradigm's will be shattered. Trust me

a reply to: dreamingawake

But the black bloc arent paid agitators. At least 99% arent. And they are a small faction of anarchists. Ive seen them at work and they thoroughly vet themselves. Wanna know who the paid agitators are? The ones in very small groups with the tactical boots causing sh!t around the everyday protestors when things are getting stale. And most of the time are never arrested. To be clear i am not on the side of the bloc, im a boycott/embargo/occupation kinda guy. But i do respect what they do. So dont fall for that paid agitator narrative.

a reply to: Beatnixx1414

I disagree the black panthers had no positive effect on the populace. It was MLK that helped expose the injustices being committed. The only thing the black panthers did was get people to start looking. If once they had done that, stepped back and let MLK do his thing, it woulda all come to fruition much sooner. Having both working at the same time hindered each other.

The key is, make a commotion, get people to start looking, then, cut those ones off by creating a reasonable peaceful movement people can actually get along with. The first group, clearly scary and extreme, but these guys are rational, we can side with these guys.

If all you have is the first psycho group, all you do is create fear, chaos, and turn people against you.

originally posted by: Beatnixx1414
a reply to: dreamingawake

But the black bloc arent paid agitators. At least 99% arent. And they are a small faction of anarchists. Ive seen them at work and they thoroughly vet themselves. Wanna know who the paid agitators are? The ones in very small groups with the tactical boots causing sh!t around the everyday protestors when things are getting stale. And most of the time are never arrested. To be clear i am not on the side of the bloc, im a boycott/embargo/occupation kinda guy. But i do respect what they do. So dont fall for that paid agitator narrative.

IMO this was respectful: Source

Burning buildings, vandalizing, violence against innocent people,more not so much.

Hey DREAMINGAWAKE

They also block charges from police on "peacefull" protesters. De-arrest people. Fire tear gas canisters back to protect those without gas masks. Always fight nazis etc. I couldnt do what they do, but they are pretty cool in my books.

originally posted by: Beatnixx1414
Hey DREAMINGAWAKE

They also block charges from police on "peacefull" protesters. De-arrest people. Fire tear gas canisters back to protect those without gas masks. Always fight nazis etc. I couldnt do what they do, but they are pretty cool in my books.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Puppylove

By showing up at a protest I demonstrate that I support the protest. When somebody else shows up and starts rioting, they're there to riot. You expect me to stop my protest because somebody else is breaking the law? Or to let you know that even though I'm over here not breaking the law and they're up the street breaking the law, I don't think it's cool?

Okay...

And, again, talking about ATS. Not talking about giving an interview to the local news crew so everybody knows I don't like riots.

Can't tell you how much I love this post.

a reply to: Puppylove

The panthers fed inner city kids. Helped single mothers. Kicked out drug dealers. Raised funds for lawyers. Protected each other.

MLK was one hell of a rallying orator though. Such passion. And he let white people in.

a reply to: Beatnixx1414

Letting the whites in was necessary to victory. White people were the overwhelming majority. If you think making nothing but an enemy of white people would have lead to victory for civil rights with such overwhelming numbers you're not being realistic at all. White people fought and died for civil rights, and they did it more because of MLK than anything the panthers did. In the end things changed because the people demanded it, not because of the black panthers.

Is why the whole white oppressors thing is absurd. Whites fought and died for civil rights, and the civil rights movement was successful because the majority of the US which was white made it successful by being convinced it was the right thing to do. Which is much more MLK's perview than the black panthers shouting "Kill Whitey."

If you think civil rights woulda been successful with just the black panthers and no MLK I've got a bridge to sell you. The panthers on their own at best woulda gotten a race war.

a reply to: Puppylove

U got me all wrong. Im saying MLK and the panthers were both integral. You need a variety of tactics to be successful. and you are right letting the whites in was necessary. MLK knew that. He was clever too with his tactics.

a reply to: Puppylove

Your civil rights history is flawed. The Black Panthers worked with white people, there may have been some kill whitey types but largely those were plants. The US government had to shut down the BPP at all cost, most of what you think you know is COINTELPRO propaganda.

a reply to: Beatnixx1414

Right but you'll notice something about their tactics. They drew a very clear line between themselves. MLK made it very clear where he stood separately from the panthers.

There is no equivalent today. Everyone protests together. There's no groups that are exclusively peaceful and march together as such, and don't allow non peaceful protestors to speak for them as part of their group. There's no rational peaceful people to identify with.

Yes I'm aware the panthers and King have marched together, but when they did, it was made clear they disagreed with each other on tactics and while marching for the same cause, fundamentally disagreed on this aspect. This was also after MLK had already earned respect for his peaceful marching, so people already respected that when he said he was against violence, he meant it, and so did those who followed him. So everyone knew if violence broke out, who to blame.

This disorganized, everyone protesting together doesn't work, no clear lines between the irrational and the rational, thing we have today doesn't work. No one knows who they can actually talk to, who represents the rational side of the debate, nothing.

a reply to: Kali74

Then how did MLK pull it off if the Panther's couldn't?

a reply to: Puppylove

Think about it.

a reply to: Kali74

Only reason I can think of is tactics. King was very vocal about non-violence. The panthers were not, and did little to nothing to deter or speak against it.

a reply to: Puppylove

It's that the Panthers were Leftist, Socialist and militant, they carried guns... they scared the snot out of white people. MLK just wanted access to the status quo and there were a lot of white people on the side of black people regardless of whether they were from the MLK camp or the BPP camp. The government had to conceded to one.

a reply to: Kali74

Right, like I said, one played the role of the scary lunatic fringe and the other the reasonable acceptable compromise.

That's what we're lacking, a clearly visible, reasonable acceptable compromise. The only ones making the news these days are the lunatic fringe because the reasonable rational people refuse to find a way to make themselves known.

Which is what I'm trying to promote. I'm a leftist for the most part, mostly a socialist, but our side lacks a clear non lunatic fringe at the moment. We desperately need one.

a reply to: Puppylove

I said they scared white people, not that they employed scare tactics. There's a huge difference.