Anarchist/Liberal Violence (Updated)
If you remember my rant from April 18th, I claimed that the attackers of Allee Bautsch and Joe Brown were almost certainly liberals who voted for President Obama. I caught some grief for that for two reasons:
1) We could not know with any certaintly that the attackers were from the protest outside Brennan’s, and even if they were, we couldn’t say for sure that they voted for Barack Obama.
I dispensed with that argument by using statistics to establish that the probability was very high that the attackers had, indeed, voted for President Obama. I never claimed to know it for certain.
In fact, the press treats probabilities the same way as fact all the time. How many times have we seen headlines that say “Candidate X Leads Candidate Y”? They do this because the pollster shows candidate x ahead of y “outside the margin of error.” Of course, that really means “outside the margin of error at the 95% confidence level,” meaning that the pollster would be wrong one time out of twenty, even assuming that the pollster’s methodology was perfect (highly doubtful in most cases).
Or consider the ridiculously myriad afflictions to our planet supposedly caused by global warming. The media breathlessly report any hypothesized connection, because it fits the narrative that they are pushing, regardless of the fact that there is no proof that 99% of these afflictions are caused by global warming.
So there’s a media double standard. In some cases, the media are quite comfortable reporting probabilities as fact, and in cases like the Allee Bautsch attack or the Ft. Hood shootings, the media refuse to connect the dots because they don’t like what the dots have to say.
2) The anarchists of the Iron Rail Collective cannot be legitimately connected to mainstream liberalism. Anarchists do not believe in big government, the way liberals do.
Of course, this presumed that the alliance of anarchists and liberal in New Orleans was only a coincidence: anarchists don’t like Republicans, and liberals don’t like Republicans. Of course, if you thought that was a coincidence, then you’ll think that this one is too:
SANTA CRUZ – A large group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker’s and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said.
Many in the group were carrying makeshift torches as they marched, breaking storefront windows and writing “anarchist graffiti” on buildings, according to Capt. Steve Clark. Many businesses sustained multiple broken windows including very large storefront windows at Urban Outfitters and The Rittenhouse building. Police believe at least 15 businesses suffered damage.[snip]
Haynes admitted to participating in the rally after receiving a flyer at a local anarchist café. Haynes was booked into Santa Cruz County Jail.
Be sure to go to the link and watch the video. Jim Hoft has more video. As NRO’s Jim Geraghty ironically notes,
I cannot tell the difference between the trust-fund radicals who dress in black and try to smash stuff at Urban Outfitters and the tragically hip trust-fund bohemians who actually shop at Urban Outfitters. In fact, a few years back, I could have sworn that the Georgetown Urban Outfitters designed their store window to look like it had already been smashed.
So a liberal rally for workers’ rights and immigration rights just happens to be coordinated with an anarchist cafe whose members commit a large amount of political violence. But the media is worried about right-wing violence coming from Tea Parties.
UPDATE 5-3 4:50 PM: Michelle Malkin has much more about May Day protests across the country. Especially interesting was this report (watch the video) from San Francisco where supporters of the Minuteman project were followed and beaten by anarchists, who yelled at them to “get out” and “go home.” Gee, all this seems strangely familiar somehow.
I was thinking the same thing.
I was thinking the same thing.
[...] The Hayride certainly thinks so: Anarchist/Liberal Violence (Updated) [...]
Please keep us updated on the Allee Bautsch attack. Has any progress been made in making an arrest? Is anyone even looking for the person with the beard (you showed his picture at the rally) along with the person called D Bloc? And isn't this something the US Attorney's Office or the New Orleans Crime Commission should be investigating?? And if this group is known for vandalizing banks in the French Quarter…where are the Feds??
It is ridiculous that the attackers have not been captured and arrested. There needs to be more pressure on the NOLA police department to get results. If we allow people to be senselessly attacked for their political views then it is a travesty and will encourage those perpetrators and like minded individuals to believe that violence will allow them to accomplish their objectives.
Please keep us updated on the Allee Bautsch attack. Has any progress been made in making an arrest? Is anyone even looking for the person with the beard (you showed his picture at the rally) along with the person called D Bloc? And isn't this something the US Attorney's Office or the New Orleans Crime Commission should be investigating?? And if this group is known for vandalizing banks in the French Quarter…where are the Feds??
It is ridiculous that the attackers have not been captured and arrested. There needs to be more pressure on the NOLA police department to get results. If we allow people to be senselessly attacked for their political views then it is a travesty and will encourage those perpetrators and like minded individuals to believe that violence will allow them to accomplish their objectives.
News story: "Haynes admitted to participating in the rally after receiving a flyer at a local anarchist café. "
Commentary: "So a liberal rally for workers’ rights and immigration rights just happens to be coordinated with an anarchist cafe whose members commit a large amount of political violence."
SubRosa is a bookstore and a cafe which is open to the public. It has a community bulletin board.
Do you really not understand the difference between a political event being "coordinated with" a store and a political event having a flyer posted on the community bulletin board in that store?
Do you really not understand the difference between customers who happen to be in a store and looking at the community bulletin board, and an organization's "members"?
Do you actually know anyone in Santa Cruz who knows anything in particular about SubRosa or about how much "political violence" the actual organizers of the store do or do not practice from day to day?
Or are you just playing these guilt-by-free-association games dishonestly, in order to make a rhetorical point?
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
I want to respond to Mr. Booth in his assertions that the attackers in Louisiana were "most likely" Obama voters.
He uses statistics to make readers think he's making a valid point. All he shows is he didn't think about this issue very critically.
I'll give you an important stat that Mr. Booth failed to research.
In your own article, you characterize one of the attackers as having a ponytail with a beard. So can we assume this person is a white male?
81% of White people age 18-24 in Louisiana voted for McCain . http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#L…
I think you use statistics ignorantly at best or dishonestly at worst.
I'm going to jump in here, because that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Are you actually trying to assert that a protestor at a GOP fundraiser who turns violent against one of the organizers of that fundraiser is most likely a Republican voter?
If you're going to be disingenuous, try not to suck at it.
Actually, Scott, I think part of his point is that statistics can be used or misused to argue almost anything. That's valid.
That's why statistics have to be paired with sound logic and common sense. Was the attacker a "typical white person," as the President infamously referred to his grandmother? No. Did white voters in New Orleans support John McCain? No, Barack Obama won the white vote in New Orleans, and by a comfortable margin if you take out the West Bank. So the fact that the attacker was white does not alter the probability that he was an Obama voter.
I've never been to Santa Cruz. I look forward to the help that your local knowledge can provide to us.
Is SubRosa denying that the first man arrested, Jimi Haynes, worked at the cafe for a year? Is it just a coincidence that anarchist symbols were among the graffiti sprayed in the attack? Since SubRosa proudly proclaims that it "challenges the commercialism and rampant capitalism of downtown Santa Cruz," why would it be unlikely for their members to attack said commercialism and capitalism in downtown Santa Cruz? Do the people in the Youtube videos belong to another anarchist collective? If not, what do you think was their motivation in attacking Santa Cruz businesses? Even if the violence was not perpetrated by SubRosa members, why does the collective deny any responsibility for the atmosphere created by "challenging" the commercialism and capitalism?
Ryan,
If you've never been to Santa Cruz, maybe you could chill it a bit on the amateur sleuthing about who's "coordinating" with what and who does or does not "commit a large amount of political violence" in a rather insular and peculiar small community with an unusually transient population?
I notice that we seem not to be discussing the earlier liberal immigration rights rally at all, and now are exclusively discussing SubRosa, the shop one link down the chain. Does that mean you're retracting your earlier speculation about "coordination with" SubRosa?
You ask: "Is SubRosa denying that the first man arrested, Jimi Haynes, worked at the cafe for a year?"
Yes, they are.
You also ask: "Is it just a coincidence that anarchist symbols were among the graffiti sprayed in the attack?"
No, I expect it's not. There are some self-identified anarchists who genuinely believe that street riots, and in particular trashing capitalist businesses, are legitimate and productive tactics for social transformation. And other anarchists who do not believe that. Besides that, there are also lots of people loosely associated with radical politics who like to use Anarchist dress and symbols for their radical flair, but know little or nothing about Anarchism as a body of ideas or as a social movement. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no fatwa from the Supreme Anarch of all the Anarchists which would tell everybody what to believe or what to do.
Anyway, you do understand the difference between "random people passing through who identify with Anarchism," "customers who happened to be at the SubRosa cafe at some point in time," and "members of the organization that runs the SubRosa cafe," no?
You ask: "Since SubRosa proudly proclaims that it 'challenges the commercialism and rampant capitalism of downtown Santa Cruz,' why would it be unlikely for their members to attack said commercialism and capitalism in downtown Santa Cruz?"
Not everybody who "challenges" something physically attacks the person or property of the people responsible for it.
Of course, you already know that — you yourself apply the same distinction when you complain about media paranoia about violence supposedly coming out of Tea Party opposition to Fed power-grabs. Maybe you should keep the same standards when it comes to people you're less familiar with.
You ask: "Do the people in the Youtube videos belong to another anarchist collective?"
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of anarchist collectives in northern and central California, but not all self-identified anarchists are members of "collectives." And those anarchists who do like to participate in street riots often use loose networking and signaling to come up with ways of pulling together a riot without having any central coordinating committee to plan it out.
You ask: 'Even if the violence were not perpetrated by SubRosa members, why does the collective deny any responsibility for the atmosphere it created by "challenging" the commercialism and capitalism?'
See above. Opposing a form of society that you consider destructive or immoral doesn't mean that you therefore take on responsbility for anything that any random person happens to do against people who represent something destructive or immoral. This is the same kind of political baiting routinely, and dishonestly, used by establishment liberalism against conservatives who oppose statist power-grabs. Why use the same kind of rhetoric yourself?
Ryan,
If you've never been to Santa Cruz, maybe you could chill it a bit on the amateur sleuthing about who's "coordinating" with what and who does or does not "commit a large amount of political violence" in a rather insular and peculiar small community with an unusually transient population?
I notice that we seem not to be discussing the earlier liberal immigration rights rally at all, and now are exclusively discussing SubRosa, the shop one link down the chain. Does that mean you're retracting your earlier speculation about "coordination with" SubRosa?
You ask: "Is SubRosa denying that the first man arrested, Jimi Haynes, worked at the cafe for a year?"
Yes, they are.
You also ask: "Is it just a coincidence that anarchist symbols were among the graffiti sprayed in the attack?"
No, I expect it's not. There are some self-identified anarchists who genuinely believe that street riots, and in particular trashing capitalist businesses, are legitimate and productive tactics for social transformation. And other anarchists who do not believe that. Besides that, there are also lots of people loosely associated with radical politics who like to use Anarchist dress and symbols for their radical flair, but know little or nothing about Anarchism as a body of ideas or as a social movement. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no fatwa from the Supreme Anarch of all the Anarchists which would tell everybody what to believe or what to do.
Anyway, you do understand the difference between "random people passing through who identify with Anarchism," "customers who happened to be at the SubRosa cafe at some point in time," and "members of the organization that runs the SubRosa cafe," no?
You ask: "Since SubRosa proudly proclaims that it 'challenges the commercialism and rampant capitalism of downtown Santa Cruz,' why would it be unlikely for their members to attack said commercialism and capitalism in downtown Santa Cruz?"
Not everybody who "challenges" something physically attacks the person or property of the people responsible for it.
Of course, you already know that — you yourself apply the same distinction when you complain about media paranoia about violence supposedly coming out of Tea Party opposition to Fed power-grabs. Maybe you should keep the same standards when it comes to people you're less familiar with.
You ask: "Do the people in the Youtube videos belong to another anarchist collective?"
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of anarchist collectives in northern and central California, but not all self-identified anarchists are members of "collectives." And those anarchists who do like to participate in street riots often use loose networking and signaling to come up with ways of pulling together a riot without having any central coordinating committee to plan it out.
You ask: 'Even if the violence were not perpetrated by SubRosa members, why does the collective deny any responsibility for the atmosphere it created by "challenging" the commercialism and capitalism?'
See above. Opposing a form of society that you consider destructive or immoral doesn't mean that you therefore take on responsbility for anything that any random person happens to do against people who represent something destructive or immoral. This is the same kind of political baiting routinely, and dishonestly, used by establishment liberalism against conservatives who oppose statist power-grabs. Why use the same kind of rhetoric yourself?
I apologize for the slow response. I've been traveling for business — you know, committing evil capitalism. Anyway, you've confirmed what I thought: that trust-fund college dropouts aren't enjoying their funemployment as much and are organizing into gangs of leftist violence that pose a very real threat. What happened in New Orleans and Santa Cruz reminds me of A Clockwork Orange. I'm not particularly concerned whether they are members of your particular collective.
As for coordination, I wouldn't expect a paper trail with directives from anarchist leaders — that seems quite against the point. But the fact that it occurred in conjunction with May Day protests across the country, and the slogans being shouted in the videos that I saw, tell me that there is a strong confluence with "liberal" goals of workers' rights and the push for illegal immigration.
News story: "Haynes admitted to participating in the rally after receiving a flyer at a local anarchist café. "
Commentary: "So a liberal rally for workers’ rights and immigration rights just happens to be coordinated with an anarchist cafe whose members commit a large amount of political violence."
SubRosa is a bookstore and a cafe which is open to the public. It has a community bulletin board.
Do you really not understand the difference between a political event being "coordinated with" a store and a political event having a flyer posted on the community bulletin board in that store?
Do you really not understand the difference between customers who happen to be in a store and looking at the community bulletin board, and an organization's "members"?
Do you actually know anyone in Santa Cruz who knows anything in particular about SubRosa or about how much "political violence" the actual organizers of the store do or do not practice from day to day?
Or are you just playing these guilt-by-free-association games dishonestly, in order to make a rhetorical point?
News story: "Haynes admitted to participating in the rally after receiving a flyer at a local anarchist café. "
Commentary: "So a liberal rally for workers’ rights and immigration rights just happens to be coordinated with an anarchist cafe whose members commit a large amount of political violence."
SubRosa is a bookstore and a cafe which is open to the public. It has a community bulletin board.
Do you really not understand the difference between a political event being "coordinated with" a store and a political event having a flyer posted on the community bulletin board in that store?
Do you really not understand the difference between customers who happen to be in a store and looking at the community bulletin board, and an organization's "members"?
Do you actually know anyone in Santa Cruz who knows anything in particular about SubRosa or about how much "political violence" the actual organizers of the store do or do not practice from day to day?
Or are you just playing these guilt-by-free-association games dishonestly, in order to make a rhetorical point?
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
If SubRosa had nothing to do with the violence, why do comments such as this one appear under web postings by SubRosa:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/05/03/18646…
Peaceful protest mainstains the violent social order i.e. capitalism & the state
by anarchist
Monday May 3rd, 2010 11:45 PM
Society will be a lot better off after we rebel against their establishment and abolish the government that keeps it alive. Americans. They seek to wipe out the corruption of big business and government but when people actually take action to put a stop to it they get all upset and start defending the very system they hate so much. You are defending the new Rome. You know not what you do.
PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE MONEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REVOLT UNTIL THEY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY GOT. THESE TYPES ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES OF UNITY & EQUALITY. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT THEM SELVES AND LIVE ONLY FOR CAPITAL GAIN. ALMOST NO DIFFERENT FROM THE SOULESS CEO'S, BANKERS, AND PAWNS WHO PROTECT AND SERVE CAPITAL OVER LIFE IT SELF.
I want to respond to Mr. Booth in his assertions that the attackers in Louisiana were "most likely" Obama voters.
He uses statistics to make readers think he's making a valid point. All he shows is he didn't think about this issue very critically.
I'll give you an important stat that Mr. Booth failed to research.
In your own article, you characterize one of the attackers as having a ponytail with a beard. So can we assume this person is a white male?
81% of White people age 18-24 in Louisiana voted for McCain . http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#L…
I think you use statistics ignorantly at best or dishonestly at worst.
I'm going to jump in here, because that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Are you actually trying to assert that a protestor at a GOP fundraiser who turns violent against one of the organizers of that fundraiser is most likely a Republican voter?
If you're going to be disingenuous, try not to suck at it.
Actually, Scott, I think part of his point is that statistics can be used or misused to argue almost anything. That's valid.
That's why statistics have to be paired with sound logic and common sense. Was the attacker a "typical white person," as the President infamously referred to his grandmother? No. Did white voters in New Orleans support John McCain? No, Barack Obama won the white vote in New Orleans, and by a comfortable margin if you take out the West Bank. So the fact that the attacker was white does not alter the probability that he was an Obama voter.
I've never been to Santa Cruz. I look forward to the help that your local knowledge can provide to us.
Is SubRosa denying that the first man arrested, Jimi Haynes, worked at the cafe for a year? Is it just a coincidence that anarchist symbols were among the graffiti sprayed in the attack? Since SubRosa proudly proclaims that it "challenges the commercialism and rampant capitalism of downtown Santa Cruz," why would it be unlikely for their members to attack said commercialism and capitalism in downtown Santa Cruz? Do the people in the Youtube videos belong to another anarchist collective? If not, what do you think was their motivation in attacking Santa Cruz businesses? Even if the violence was not perpetrated by SubRosa members, why does the collective deny any responsibility for the atmosphere created by "challenging" the commercialism and capitalism?
Ryan,
If you've never been to Santa Cruz, maybe you could chill it a bit on the amateur sleuthing about who's "coordinating" with what and who does or does not "commit a large amount of political violence" in a rather insular and peculiar small community with an unusually transient population?
I notice that we seem not to be discussing the earlier liberal immigration rights rally at all, and now are exclusively discussing SubRosa, the shop one link down the chain. Does that mean you're retracting your earlier speculation about "coordination with" SubRosa?
You ask: "Is SubRosa denying that the first man arrested, Jimi Haynes, worked at the cafe for a year?"
Yes, they are.
You also ask: "Is it just a coincidence that anarchist symbols were among the graffiti sprayed in the attack?"
No, I expect it's not. There are some self-identified anarchists who genuinely believe that street riots, and in particular trashing capitalist businesses, are legitimate and productive tactics for social transformation. And other anarchists who do not believe that. Besides that, there are also lots of people loosely associated with radical politics who like to use Anarchist dress and symbols for their radical flair, but know little or nothing about Anarchism as a body of ideas or as a social movement. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no fatwa from the Supreme Anarch of all the Anarchists which would tell everybody what to believe or what to do.
Anyway, you do understand the difference between "random people passing through who identify with Anarchism," "customers who happened to be at the SubRosa cafe at some point in time," and "members of the organization that runs the SubRosa cafe," no?
You ask: "Since SubRosa proudly proclaims that it 'challenges the commercialism and rampant capitalism of downtown Santa Cruz,' why would it be unlikely for their members to attack said commercialism and capitalism in downtown Santa Cruz?"
Not everybody who "challenges" something physically attacks the person or property of the people responsible for it.
Of course, you already know that — you yourself apply the same distinction when you complain about media paranoia about violence supposedly coming out of Tea Party opposition to Fed power-grabs. Maybe you should keep the same standards when it comes to people you're less familiar with.
You ask: "Do the people in the Youtube videos belong to another anarchist collective?"
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of anarchist collectives in northern and central California, but not all self-identified anarchists are members of "collectives." And those anarchists who do like to participate in street riots often use loose networking and signaling to come up with ways of pulling together a riot without having any central coordinating committee to plan it out.
You ask: 'Even if the violence were not perpetrated by SubRosa members, why does the collective deny any responsibility for the atmosphere it created by "challenging" the commercialism and capitalism?'
See above. Opposing a form of society that you consider destructive or immoral doesn't mean that you therefore take on responsbility for anything that any random person happens to do against people who represent something destructive or immoral. This is the same kind of political baiting routinely, and dishonestly, used by establishment liberalism against conservatives who oppose statist power-grabs. Why use the same kind of rhetoric yourself?
Ryan,
If you've never been to Santa Cruz, maybe you could chill it a bit on the amateur sleuthing about who's "coordinating" with what and who does or does not "commit a large amount of political violence" in a rather insular and peculiar small community with an unusually transient population?
I notice that we seem not to be discussing the earlier liberal immigration rights rally at all, and now are exclusively discussing SubRosa, the shop one link down the chain. Does that mean you're retracting your earlier speculation about "coordination with" SubRosa?
You ask: "Is SubRosa denying that the first man arrested, Jimi Haynes, worked at the cafe for a year?"
Yes, they are.
You also ask: "Is it just a coincidence that anarchist symbols were among the graffiti sprayed in the attack?"
No, I expect it's not. There are some self-identified anarchists who genuinely believe that street riots, and in particular trashing capitalist businesses, are legitimate and productive tactics for social transformation. And other anarchists who do not believe that. Besides that, there are also lots of people loosely associated with radical politics who like to use Anarchist dress and symbols for their radical flair, but know little or nothing about Anarchism as a body of ideas or as a social movement. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no fatwa from the Supreme Anarch of all the Anarchists which would tell everybody what to believe or what to do.
Anyway, you do understand the difference between "random people passing through who identify with Anarchism," "customers who happened to be at the SubRosa cafe at some point in time," and "members of the organization that runs the SubRosa cafe," no?
You ask: "Since SubRosa proudly proclaims that it 'challenges the commercialism and rampant capitalism of downtown Santa Cruz,' why would it be unlikely for their members to attack said commercialism and capitalism in downtown Santa Cruz?"
Not everybody who "challenges" something physically attacks the person or property of the people responsible for it.
Of course, you already know that — you yourself apply the same distinction when you complain about media paranoia about violence supposedly coming out of Tea Party opposition to Fed power-grabs. Maybe you should keep the same standards when it comes to people you're less familiar with.
You ask: "Do the people in the Youtube videos belong to another anarchist collective?"
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of anarchist collectives in northern and central California, but not all self-identified anarchists are members of "collectives." And those anarchists who do like to participate in street riots often use loose networking and signaling to come up with ways of pulling together a riot without having any central coordinating committee to plan it out.
You ask: 'Even if the violence were not perpetrated by SubRosa members, why does the collective deny any responsibility for the atmosphere it created by "challenging" the commercialism and capitalism?'
See above. Opposing a form of society that you consider destructive or immoral doesn't mean that you therefore take on responsbility for anything that any random person happens to do against people who represent something destructive or immoral. This is the same kind of political baiting routinely, and dishonestly, used by establishment liberalism against conservatives who oppose statist power-grabs. Why use the same kind of rhetoric yourself?
I apologize for the slow response. I've been traveling for business — you know, committing evil capitalism. Anyway, you've confirmed what I thought: that trust-fund college dropouts aren't enjoying their funemployment as much and are organizing into gangs of leftist violence that pose a very real threat. What happened in New Orleans and Santa Cruz reminds me of A Clockwork Orange. I'm not particularly concerned whether they are members of your particular collective.
As for coordination, I wouldn't expect a paper trail with directives from anarchist leaders — that seems quite against the point. But the fact that it occurred in conjunction with May Day protests across the country, and the slogans being shouted in the videos that I saw, tell me that there is a strong confluence with "liberal" goals of workers' rights and the push for illegal immigration.
News story: "Haynes admitted to participating in the rally after receiving a flyer at a local anarchist café. "
Commentary: "So a liberal rally for workers’ rights and immigration rights just happens to be coordinated with an anarchist cafe whose members commit a large amount of political violence."
SubRosa is a bookstore and a cafe which is open to the public. It has a community bulletin board.
Do you really not understand the difference between a political event being "coordinated with" a store and a political event having a flyer posted on the community bulletin board in that store?
Do you really not understand the difference between customers who happen to be in a store and looking at the community bulletin board, and an organization's "members"?
Do you actually know anyone in Santa Cruz who knows anything in particular about SubRosa or about how much "political violence" the actual organizers of the store do or do not practice from day to day?
Or are you just playing these guilt-by-free-association games dishonestly, in order to make a rhetorical point?
Macaoidh, I don't remember reading anything that showed that the protesters outside the convention were the people who attacked these Jindal staff members. You make that statement like it was a fact when there is nothing out as of yet to prove your point. I'm sorry if all there facts are getting in the way of your argument. I think you're making an assumption that confirms a belief that you already have.
Mr. Booth, you are making an assumption they were from the New Orleans area which you don't know. Well, the attack happened in Downtown New Orleans, an area populated by upper income area residents most likely to be republicans. I hope you see things like age, race and location of incident can be manipulated in a number of ways to put forth any argument
I'm glad you saw the point I was trying to make Ryan. Statistics can be used to say anything. They are used to make generalizations about a very large number of people. Statistical relevance tends to break down break down because error is introduced when you try to make assumptions about a small group of people i.e. the attackers.
Ryan, I'm glad we can have a civil discussion on the topic. It seems your friend, macaoidh, tends to suck at it.
Macaoidh, I don't remember reading anything that showed that the protesters outside the convention were the people who attacked these Jindal staff members. You make that statement like it was a fact when there is nothing out as of yet to prove your point. I'm sorry if all there facts are getting in the way of your argument. I think you're making an assumption that confirms a belief that you already have.
Mr. Booth, you are making an assumption they were from the New Orleans area which you don't know. Well, the attack happened in Downtown New Orleans, an area populated by upper income area residents most likely to be republicans. I hope you see things like age, race and location of incident can be manipulated in a number of ways to put forth any argument
I'm glad you saw the point I was trying to make Ryan. Statistics can be used to say anything. They are used to make generalizations about a very large number of people. Statistical relevance tends to break down break down because error is introduced when you try to make assumptions about a small group of people i.e. the attackers.
Ryan, I'm glad we can have a civil discussion on the topic. It seems your friend, macaoidh, tends to suck at it.