I write this post, now I put a video on the events in Genoa a few years ago that everyone will remember well. At that time someone said that during the G8 Ligurian there was the largest suspension of human rights in a Western country.
The summer of that bloody G8 was 18 years old, good times ... I was an idealist and I wanted to go with my girlfriend at the event. It seemed right to participate in such an event, to protest against something that seemed illegitimate.
All the money and the world's resources in the hands of a few people and everyone else in the cold? Unacceptable. I was only 18 years old, but already I knew that the world is so organized it made no sense and could not stand. I was just a boy however, and did not understand why everyone would not be outraged by such a blatantly unfair behavior on the part of the world leaders who wanted everything for themselves and their friends, taking it from anyone else (including me).
In the end I went and I was relieved, seeing the incident. Over the years I met several people who told me of the brutal violence committed against them by agents sent by the Italian State. The documents are there, you make a review.
What I do remember that summer and that all the newspapers were not talking about black block anarchists. These groups, according to the majority of journalists were organized with the purpose of carrying out violence against police.
The concept of "organized anarchists to do violence" is a contradiction, however.
First thing: the anarchist condemned the state, has condemned the army and condemned the violence.
Violence is the most commonly used by the company and individual to oppress others. If we follow the anarchist principle of equality for every individual, no oppression is tolerated, let alone perpetrated by the means of violence.
In history there were anarchists who committed violent acts? Yes, some. They were mostly isolated acts committed by an individual who, through various types of weapons or bombs, trying to eliminate hierarchy in sight. Sometimes they got it as well.
As mentioned, however, these actions were carried out by a single and without a doubt in the conduct un'eccezzione anarchist. All these attacks and have suffered harsh criticism from the same environments anarchists. Anarchy
but never had an army, an armed group or something like that.
It 'obvious that to be against his principles. But one day, that's born to spell this paramilitary organization which now is called "anarchic" by the media. An anarchist army?! It's roughly like a square circle, the two concepts are contradictory, no doubt about it. In addition, the army revealed itself only to the G8 events, limited to vandalism of street and urban warfare ... very strange. Despite these obvious
inaccuracies and many obscure points, most of the public did not take long to make good for these "truths".
Anarchists had made up an army to smash shop windows and set fire to rubbish bins.
Obviously this description given by the media had no effect, but it was fine because he could blame the riots on the anarchists, very easy target.
For most people the anarchist is one who occupies a social center, it is against the company and this is a dangerous and violent criminal.
In that case the violence was artfully created by groups infiltrators among the protesters, to divert attention from the decisions taken at the G8 as an excuse to give a lesson to those who want to rebel against a system controlled by few and inaccessible to many.
Anarchy has never had an army and has never fought a war weapon.
Army and war are out of the anarchist conception, because the direct consequences of the state.
0 comments:
Post a Comment