´Free Öcalan’ hunger strikes for Kurdish ‘Nelson Mandela’.

Abdullah Öcalan,the ‘Nelson Mandela’ of Kurdistan has been incarcerated since 1999 by the Turkish State, without trial in solitary and now totally isolated, even from his lawyer.

 Öcalan is credited with adapting the ‘municipal anarchism’ of Murray Bookchin to create a new anti-state non-hierarchical system based on feminism and ecology, which has swept through Turkish and Syrian Kurdistan as well as parts of Iraq and Iran, , and has a growing influence among Arabs and Turkish and around the world.

ocalan 2

HDP MP on hunger strike for Öcalan, : My demand is the demand of millions

“I am on the 20th day of the hunger strike ( note: now over 30 days). An action I began on my own free will. I am willing to be doing something against the isolation regime that I think is a crime of humanity. I know this is the demand of millions.”

  • ANF English  HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party) co-chair Sezai Temelli read the message at the party’s weekly meeting. The HDP deputy has been on hunger strike for 20 days calling for an end to the isolation regime imposed on Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, which is an isolation imposed on the whole Turkey.

When the State is Unjust, we may Use Violence as one Tactic

When the state is unjust, citizens may use justifiable violence
by Jason Brennan   from Aeon with thanks. (Inserts and illustrations added)

If you see police choking someone to death – such as Eric Garner, the 43-year-old black horticulturalist wrestled down on the streets of New York City in 2014 – you might choose to pepper-spray them and flee.

You might even save an innocent life. But what ethical considerations justify such dangerous heroics? (After all, the cops might arrest or kill you.) More important: do we have the right to defend ourselves and others from government injustice when government agents are following an unjust law?

I think the answer is yes.

Image result for the failure of non violence Peter Gelderloos pdf ...

But that view needs defending. Under what circumstances might active self-defence, including possible violence, be justified, as opposed to the passive resistance of civil disobedience that Americans generally applaud?

Civil disobedience is a public act that aims to create social or legal change. Think of Henry David Thoreau’s arrest in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes to fund the colonial exploits of the United States, or Martin Luther King Jr courting the ire of the authorities in 1963 to shame white America into respecting black civil rights. In such cases, disobedient citizens visibly break the law and accept punishment, so as to draw attention to a cause.

..’The police are not your friends..–..More police come and push a lot of people back. As there is still nowhere to go people trip over and collapse and soon have police standing on them as they try to grab their targets. I am grabbed by the arms by two officers whist a third punches me in the face three times. I think he is trying to knock me unconscious so I’ll be easier to drag out of the crowd. There is a lot of screaming. A woman to my left shouts ‘someone is going to die…’/

But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice­. If you stop a mugging, you are trying to stop that mugging in that moment, not trying to end muggings everywhere. Indeed, had you pepper-sprayed the police officer Daniel Pantaleo while he choked Eric Garner, you’d have been trying to save Garner, not reform US policing.Related image

Generally, we agree that it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, deceive, manipulate, destroy property or attack people. But few of us think that the prohibitions against such actions are absolute. Commonsense morality holds that such actions are permissible in self-defence or in defence of others (even if the law doesn’t always agree). You may lie to the murderer at the door. You may smash the windows of the would-be kidnapper’s car. You may kill the would-be rapist.

Here’s a philosophical exercise. Imagine a situation in which a civilian commits an injustice, the kind against which you believe it is permissible to use deception, subterfuge or violence to defend yourself or others.

The Failure of Related imageNonviolence  .. Peter Gelderloos ..’A diversity of methods is necessary in our struggle because none of us have the answer regarding the one true strategy for revolution; because there is no one size that fits all and each of us must develop a unique form of struggle for our respective situations; and because in fact our movements are harder to repress when we replace a party-line unity with a broad solidarity, when we attack as a swarm and not as an opposing army. Whether that army is pacifist or combative, the discipline required to coerce or intimidate everyone into following one set of pre-approved tactics, and to exclude those who fall out of line, is authoritarian. In such a contest, whichever army won— the army of the government or the army of the movement—the State would triumph..’.

For instance, imagine your friend makes an improper stop at a red light, and his dad, in anger, yanks him out of the car, beats the hell out of him, and continues to strike the back of his skull even after your friend lies subdued and prostrate. May you use violence, if it’s necessary to stop the father?

Now imagine the same scene, except this time the attacker is a police officer in Ohio, and the victim is Richard Hubbard III, who in 2017 experienced just such an attack as described. Does that change things? Must you let the police officer possibly kill Hubbard rather than intervene?Related image

Most people answer yes, believing that we are forbidden from stopping government agents who violate our rights. I find this puzzling. On this view, my neighbours can eliminate our right of self-defence and our rights to defend others by granting someone an office or passing a bad law.

On this view, our rights to life, liberty, due process and security of person can disappear by political fiat – or even when a cop has a bad day. In When All Else Fails: The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice (2019), I argue instead that we may act defensively against government agents under the same conditions in which we may act defensively against civilians.

In my view, civilian and government agents are on a par, and we have identical rights of self-defence (and defence of others) against both.

<p><em>Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images</em></p>

We should presume, by default, that government agents have no special immunity against self-defence, unless we can discover good reason to think otherwise. But it turns out that the leading arguments for special immunity are weak.

Some people say we may not defend ourselves against government injustice because governments and their agents have ‘authority’. (By definition, a government has authority over you if, and only if, it can oblige you to obey by fiat: you have to do what it says because it says so.) But the authority argument doesn’t work.

It’s one thing to say that you have a duty to pay your taxes, show up for jury duty, or follow the speed limit. It is quite another to show that you are specifically bound to allow a government and its agents to use excessive violence and ignore your rights to due process. A central idea in liberalism is that whatever authority governments have is limited.Image result for the failure of non violence Peter Gelderloos pdf ...

Others say that we should resist government injustice, but only through peaceful methods. Indeed, we should, but that doesn’t differentiate between self-defence against civilians or government. The common-law doctrine of self-defence is always governed by a necessity proviso: you may lie or use violence only if necessary, that is, only if peaceful actions are not as effective. But peaceful methods often fail to stop wrongdoing. Eric Garner peacefully complained: ‘I can’t breathe,’ until he drew his last breath.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t act as vigilantes. But invoking this point here misunderstands the antivigilante principle, which says that when there exists a workable public system of justice, you should defer to public agents trying, in good faith, to administer justice. So if cops attempt to stop a mugging, you shouldn’t insert yourself.

But if they ignore or can’t stop a mugging, you may intervene. If the police themselves are the muggers – as in unjust civil forfeiture – the antivigilante principle does not forbid you from defending yourself. It insists you defer to more competent government agents when they administer justice, not that you must let them commit injustice.Image result for the failure of non violence Peter Gelderloos pdf ...

Some people find my thesis too dangerous. They claim that it’s hard to know exactly when self-defence is justified; that people make mistakes, resisting when they should not. Perhaps. But that’s true of self-defence against civilians, too. No one says we lack a right of self-defence against each other because applying the principle is hard. Rather, some moral principles are hard to apply.

However, this objection gets the problem exactly backwards. In real life, people are too deferential and conformist in the face of government authority. Image result for police kill black man

They are all-too-willing to electrocute experimental subjects, gas Jews or bomb civilians when ordered to, and reluctant to stand up to political injustice.

If anything, the dangerous thesis – the thesis that most people will mistakenly misapply – is that we should defer to government agents when they seem to act unjustly. Remember, self-defence against the state is about stopping an immediate injustice, not fixing broken rules.Image result for the failure of non violence Peter Gelderloos pdf ...

Of course, strategic nonviolence is usually the most effective way to induce lasting social change. But we should not assume that strategic nonviolence of the sort that King practised always works alone.

Two recent books – Charles Cobb Jr’s This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed (2014) and Akinyele Omowale Umoja’s We Will Shoot Back (2013) – show that the later ‘nonviolent’ phase of US civil rights activism succeeded (in so far as it has) only because, in earlier phases, black people armed themselves and shot back in self-defence.

Once murderous mobs and white police learned that black people would fight back, they turned to less violent forms of oppression, and black people in turn began using nonviolent tactics. Defensive subterfuge, deceit and violence are rarely first resorts, but that doesn’t mean they are never justified.

Image result for the failure of non violence Peter Gelderloos pdf ...

Jason Brennan is professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University. He is the author, together with Peter Jaworski, of Markets Without Limits (2015), and his latest book is When All Else Fails: The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice (2018).

authoritarianism, Conservative Moral Hierarchy, identity politics, Philosophy, Violence


#France: “Topple the System or it will Crush Us!”

#France on the brink: “Either we topple the system or it will crush us!” Translated statement from French radicals

      Lundi matin,

Support our Jailed Hero, Jeremy Hammond In Solitary

#ManiOkupa 1 de Desembre – Manifestació per l’Okupació

cartell Ara més que mai okupa tu tambe.jpgRead in English HERE..

El proper dissabte 1 de desembre sortirem als carrers en defensa de l’okupació. Davant la repressió i l’onada de desallotjaments no reculem, al contrari, fem un pas endavant.

Dissabte 1 de desembre totes al carrer! Cap desallotjament sense resposta.

Difusió i acció!
L’okupació de llocs abandonats per a l’autogestió de les nostres vides és una realitat des de fa més de dues dècades a Barcelona. Així s’ha donat resposta a la necessitat d’espais socials i a la manca d’habitatge accessible a les ciutats.

En el darrer any, i com d’altres vegades, estem vivint una onada de repressió dels nostres projectes: Centres Socials Okupats com La Clandestina, la REA, l’Ateneu la Pua… i habitatges com Ca La Trava, el Kubo, la Kantonada, Montmany 3… han estat desallotjats.

mucha policia poca diversión / lotta coppers little fun!

El Banc Expropiat, Kan Kolmo, l’Àsgora Juan Andrñes, La Protestona, La Teixidora, Puntales, La Llamborda, Kasablanka… es troben sota amenaça de desallotjament.

D’ençà 2015 hi ha hagut canvis en les lleis de l’estat espanyol: l’aprovació de la llei mordassa, les reformes del codi penal, la llei d’enjudiciament civil i l’administrativa. Aquestes afecten directa o indirectament a l’okupació i a la possibilitat de romandre al lloc on vius i defensar-te.

D’altra banda, s’han extès els desallotjaments extrajudicials i la contractació d’empreses de matons – com Desokupa- per part de propietaris que, amb la complicitat dels cossos de seguretat, mossos i urbana, desallotgen espais amb mètodes intimidatoris.


Continue reading “#ManiOkupa 1 de Desembre – Manifestació per l’Okupació”

#ManiOkupa December 1 .. Why We Squat .. Demo for Occupation ..Barcelona

English translation .  llegiu en català cartell Ara més que mai okupa tu tambe.jpg#ManiOkupa  .Squat Demo December 1 Demonstration for Occupation

On Saturday, December 1, we take to the streets in defense of Occupation. In the face of repression and the wave of evictions we do not retreat, on the contrary, we take a step forward.

Saturday December 1 .. All on the streets! No eviction without response.

Spread the word and Act!

The occupation of abandoned sites for self-management of our lives has been a reality for more than two decades in Barcelona.

This was our response to the need for social spaces and the lack of accessible housing in the cities. In the last year, and like other times, we are experiencing a wave of repression of our projects: ccupied Social Centers such as La Clandestina, REA, Ateneu la Pua … and homes such as Ca La Trava, Kubo, Kantonada, Montmany 3 … have been evicted.

okupas de Gracia

Continue reading “#ManiOkupa December 1 .. Why We Squat .. Demo for Occupation ..Barcelona”

Al-Qaeda and ISIL still Operate in Turkey as ´Charities´

note: this blog thefreeonline.wordpress.com, has now been banned in Turkey with Dozens more pro Rojava and anti Fascist sites

Image result for proof Turkey helped ISIL and al Qaeda

via SCF   By Abdullah Bozkurt  

Two front aid groups that operate in Turkey’s southeastern border provinces near Syria, led by known militants of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), have been allowed to keep collecting new recruits to fight for armed jihadist causes in the permissive environment created by the Islamist government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

A high-profile Turkish al-Qaeda operative identified as Aytaç Polat has been involved in several charity outfits to mask his jihadist activities and appears to be untouchable despite the fact that his front association was named in court proceedings as an operation that sends fighters to Syria for enlistment with armed radical groups.

Continue reading “Al-Qaeda and ISIL still Operate in Turkey as ´Charities´”

%d bloggers like this: