Interview 968 – The Asia-Pacific Perspective with Broc West

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. BennyB says:

   11/14/2014 at 6:07 am

   I’m glad you guys talked about the larger question of what the actual purpose of protesting these sorts of events comes down to. Personally, at this point I think the main issue comes down to responding to the event as a transparent manifestation of what a police state looks like and using the situation as a platform to expose it for what it is and attempt to find strategies to do so which don’t simply descend into violence.

   It’s not that I don’t think the issues behind what these sorts of meetings represent are important. I just think the complexity of what they represent doesn’t seem to break down into categories which have been effectively addressed by protests in the past.

   As I’ve stated numerous times, just showing up somewhere and saying; “fuck the man”, falls pathetically short of a persuasive argument and, if anything, it only serves as a convenient sound byte for those who wish to undermine core concerns.

   Pointing out the gross irony of an Olympics rate security state for an international game of brinkmanship, which is closed to the public and only a spectacle for the citizens of the respective ‘host’ country, who have to deal with the ways this pageantry imposes itself on people just trying to go about their day to day activities ought to be enough to galvanize even the most apolitical members of society to see that there’s something terribly wrong with these events.

   Last, I think addressing and dealing with the other AP Perspective (aka: the Agent Provocateur), at protests is probably the most pressing issue for any form of resistance to the police state to take on. I’m all for the sousveillance tactic and I’m glad this was employed successfully in Pittsburgh. Documenting police violence is important (and never in short supply), but documenting and exposing violent elements of public protest; whether they’re undercover police or not, is arguably more important in my opinion.

   I may be missing something about groups like Black Block, but my feeling is that the use violence as a means to confront the police state is dangerously counterproductive. I’d like to see this issue addressed more comprehensively, as I’ve only really heard of Black Block (for example) mentioned in passing. I can’t understate how important I think this is. Resorting to violence is the easiest way to fracture solidarity, marginalize legitimate concerns, and justify an escalation in violence on the part of the police.

   I’d be interested in hearing what other people have to say on the matter, but again, I’d just really like to see this discussed more.

   Log in to Reply
   • BennyB says:

     11/14/2014 at 6:09 am

     wow… that looks pretty ‘tldr’ now that I see it. Oh well…

     Log in to Reply
   • mammique says:

     11/15/2014 at 7:31 am

     I don’t think that they need agent provocateurs anymore to muzzle people, regarding what happened for the recent dissidence congress in Belgium.

     TPTB just twist the arms of the authorities to take illegal and anti-constitutional decisions, then give illegal orders to the police who executes it without question. The system is naked, identified as a totalitarian regime, so why bother justifying their authoritarian brutality when they can hit in broad daylight?

     Remember how the French Supreme Court (Counsil of State) was forced to ban a comedian show (talking about 9/11, banksters, Zionism, etc.), and how the police sabotaged his show on stage in Brussels based on illegal decisions and abuse of authority. But yes, in that case as well sousveillance seems to be the solution 🙂

     Log in to Reply