I had the “pleasure” of attending the protests, and doing regional and local work in the lead up time, including some work with the WC (although Monica was one of the few organizers I never meet). To paraphrase what you said about your sister’s motivations above, whether or not it is obvious, we created community. My best friends for the past 5 months, who lived several hours away, were introduced to me during a consulta; organizing built and strengthened a lot of ties within the local anarchist community– hell, a lot of us were pretty isolated from the good work that has been going on, and RNC organizing brought us together. Even during the protests, I met a lot of good people from all over the country who I have stayed in contact with. Honestly, despite the police violence, despite being arrested and harassed by police, despite all the bad things, my life is so inconceivably better because of the RNC protests, and largely that is because of the tireless work done by Monica and the others in the WC. The feelings of empowerment, and freedom, and community and love and friendship forged in the streets were just so great that it was difficult to return to “normal” life.

Best of luck to Monica and Eryn, as well as to the other 6 and to Dave and the other 800 still facing charges. Monica should know that whatever sacrifices and hardships she has endured and will continue to face are not in vain. She and her comrades have forever changed my life and the lives of countless others.

Author: Tom Sturgeon Comment: Your post was very interesting to read. I probably disagree with you on just about everything. However, I am against protest zones and other such shenanigans. People have a natural right to protest and speak in the public space, and this right is affirmed in the First and Tenth amendments.”

The lines above are the same as in the (apparently) edited version. The lines below have changed. They were:

“On the other hand, people who block traffic, break things and engage in discourteous behavior should be sprayed with pepper spray, water cannons and/or beaten with nightsticks. If they are damaging property or threatening others, they should be shot.”

They are now:

“It seems that traditionally lawful forms of protest have been outlawed. Obviously, people who would normally protest peacefully no longer have the option and are lashing out.

Perhaps violence is becoming the only viable option for some, since Constitutional protections are being rendered irrelevant.

Like I said, I probably disagree with you on just about everything, but I would like to meet you in a public space and engage in free speech.”

This is quite a change in direction. I wonder what brought it about. Mr Sturgeon, could you explain?

I probably disagree with you on just about everything.

However, I am against protest zones and other such shenanigans.

People have a natural right to protest and speak in the public space, and this right is affirmed in the First and Tenth amendments.

It seems that traditionally lawful forms of protest have been outlawed. Obviously, people who would normally protest peacefully no longer have the option and are lashing out.

Perhaps violence is becoming the only viable option for some, since Constitutional protections are being rendered irrelevant.

Like I said, I probably disagree with you on just about everything, but I would like to meet you in a public space and engage in free speech.

You wrote : “Falling to destruction of property raises the issue of where to draw the line”. I you re-read Luke XIX (IIRC), you’ll notice that our Lord did exactly that : destructing properties.

Not that I take it as (nor imply it is) an approval of violence and destruction in any way. Just that, whatever your arguments, “where to draw the line” is indeed an issue - and one that’s not that easy to solve. Jesus did not restrict it’s action to building communities - he also engaged in public “protest” actions, eventually - that is, in at least one occasion - using force and destroying properties.

Once again, I don’t mean it as a legitimation of violence and destruction - I certainly share a good part of your POV on this. But MVHO is that clearly, building communities, while indeed necessary, is not enough - you (we) also have to engage in public actions (protests etc) to denounce lies. And the fact is that when engaging in such actions, you will have to deal with violence (your own included) whether you like it or not.

Not a simple problem, indeed…

He ended up getting crucified about a week later, for claiming that he was the Messiah (you know, the “this is my Father’s House” statement). The Romans knew full well about conspiracy, the sub rosa thing, but in the case of Jesus preferred to hand the matter over to the Sanhedrin. If they’d gone ahead and shipped Jesus off to Rome to be tried, it might have become an even greater cause celebre than actually happened, well, quicker, anyway. The Roman authorities, along with the Sanhedrin, did their best to sweep things under the rug, and inasmuch as the great majority of Jesus’ followers were illiterate, this was successful for the most part.

What drove the Romans nuts about the Christians is that they had no hierarchy, no leaders, no temple, and they shared their goods in common, they would not swear by Jupiter or by Saturn or otherwise make a good oath in court, and they tended to slack off because they had the idea that the world was ending soon. Romans thought that Christians were atheists, which was a capital offense. The “no hierarchy, no leaders” thing went totally against the Roman culture which depended on leaders and hierarchy which could be subverted, corrupted, or at least co-opted. The bit about “no temple” is obvious - no Roman would be caught dead on a feast day anywhere else than at the temple, whooping it up, getting drunk, engaging in orgies, and having a good time. On the other hand, the Christians had no feast days, did not go to a meeting place one day a week and have ceremonies and rituals - but they did meet on irregular occasions in the catacombs and sewers. No civilized Roman would have anything to do with this kind of nonsense. …

@Tom Usher with regard to private property: Private property has been with us since the dawn of written history. The earliest clay tablets found in Sumer, some 5000 years back, are records of private property belonging to an individual; some of these records are records of land ownership, which could conceivably have begun with the advent of agriculture in 10,000 BC or thereabouts.

I’ll supply references if they’re asked for.

Concerning Chris | 03-Sep-08 at 10:32 pm and Jake | 08-Sep-08 at 8:44 am:

On the issue of property, it was the monarchists who stole the Commons from the whole people. The Commons was and still is the rightful inheritance of all. The only tragedy about the Commons is the theft of the Commons by force of arms by evil people who converted the inheritance of others into so-called private property. Don’t be duped by the capitalists masquerading as anarchists. There is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian capitalist for that matter. The concepts are irreconcilable. The terms are oxymoronic.

Blessings,

Tom Usher

Well, bruno, the Temple was held out as the house of prayer and the house of God and not the house of commerce or capitalists. Jesus was violating nothing by cleaning it of those who refused to obey the real rules within. It was a house clearly demarcated in Jesus’s view. I concur with him.

Furthermore, no one within is dragged in or coerced to enter under Jesus’s rules. In fact, at the time, the so-called great unwashed were rather despised and barred from entering very far, if at all. That is something Jesus clears up. Anyone may enter a sinner and remain provided he or she is undergoing transformation to righteousness.

What is the street on which one finds store windows and bank windows? It is a different universe completely. It is the street of capitalism.

If it is proper to destroy rather than to convert, then total war is totally proper and we ought to get on with it. That, however, is satanic and was, and remains, rejected by the Christ spirit.

Of course, the world is not to remain a place where the ignorance that is capitalism is to last.

The issue is one of means and ends. Jesus did not use the means of the capitalists when he cleaned the Temple. He harmed no one. Not one person innocent of violating the rules of the voluntary house was as much as bent over. Consider it. They didn’t put him on trial for harming anyone when he cleaned the Temple of the selfish, thieving, moneychangers.

God bless,

Tom Usher