George M has excelled himself again, IMO but should have provided an URL

Go here:-

I have sent this letter to the Guardian in reply
to Monbiot's article. No idea if they will publish
it or not.
*****************************
Dear Guardian

George Monbiot (Guardian, "Raising the Temperature",
24/7/01) differentiates between Hamoq and Hamas forms
of protest, and lumps the "Black Block" into the
former. Hamas, he informs us, explains itself. Sadly
for his account, this is not the case with the Black
Block tactic (and it is a tactic, not some kind of
international secret group). If those using it target
property (and they often do not), they make a point of
targeting only corporate property and explain why (as
per Monbiot's own example of McDonald's, I must
stress). As such, the Black Block is clearly "Hamas."
In the words of a white overall (which Monbiot holds up
as an example of "Hamas"):

"We should not criminalize the Black Bloc or accuse
anarchists, for what happened in Genoa has very little
to do with their tactics, and there is ever more
evidence that the top trashers were cops in disguise. I
was in Genoa . . . and I say: do not go hunting
anarchists, do not criminalize the international Black
Bloc. It is our duty to draw distinctions between the
Black Bloc and what happened in Genoa."

It is a shame that Monbiot does not do this,
particularly given the mounting evidence of a fake
"Black Block" operating in Genoa on that day. As a
statement by members of the (real) Black Block makes
clear:

"Smashed windows of banks and multinational companies
are symbolic actions. Nevertheless we do not agree with
the destruction and looting of small shops and cars.
This is not our policy. . . If windows rattle then you
cry, but you are silent when people die."

Funnily enough, the Guardian did not find this comment
worth mentioning when it quoted from this statement on
Monday. Monbiot claims that the "the black block ran
amok." Did they? No, although many justifiably very
angry protesters did in reply to police violence.
Watching the news on TV, I saw the term "anarchist" and
"Black Block" applied to all "violent" protestors, even
when the evidence that they were not was staring me in
the face (how many anarchists carry red flags, for
example?).

Similarly, the steady stream of evidence of a state
organised fake "Black Block" is ignored by him and
instead he states that the police, although they knew
where the "Black Block were," attacked the non-violent
Genoa Social Forum. Perhaps because this venue also
held the indy media site, with evidence of state
violence and the fake Black Block's links with the
police? Perhaps this explains why "the police stood by
and watched as the black block [sic!] rampaged around"?
They were simply watching a successful infiltration and
discrediting operation pay off. It is a shame that
Monbiot is helping them with their work.

The events in Genoa remind me of George Orwell's
account of the Communist/Republican state's attack
against the anarchist workers during the May Days of
1937 in Barcelona. He noted that, originally, the
English papers (incorrectly) put "the blame first on
the anarchists" for the "fairly obvious reason" that
"every English-speaking person shudders at the name
'Anarchist.' Let it be known that 'Anarchists' are
implicated, and the right atmosphere of prejudice is
established." A similar process is clearly at work here
(how many anarchists have been interviewed to present
their side of the events, for example?).

Given that no newspaper has bothered to explain either
what a Black Block is or what anarchism actually
entails, I would suggest the following webpage --
www.infoshop.org . It contains both a detailed FAQ on
anarchism and an introduction to the Black Block
tactic. This webpage will clearly show that anarchism
is "Hamas" (radical), and not "Hamoq" (reactionary) as
Monbiot seems to imply. It will also show that neither
anarchism nor the Black Block tactic is mindless
destruction, as portrayed in the media, and that
neither is responsible for the Genoa events. As the
white overall I quoted above stresses:

"what went on Saturday had very little to do with the
BB's modus operandi: the BB has a method. One may
disagree with them, and yet they have a method . . .
This has nothing to do with the praxis of the Black
Bloc."

I am sorry, although not totally surprised, to see
Monbiot's demonisation of the Black Block (and, by
implication, anarchists in general, although most do
not apply that tactic). Hopefully, he and your readers
will visit www.indymedia.org to read the various eye-
witness accounts and evidence on the existence of a
fake "Black Block" which as been used to smear both
anarchists and the Genoa protests. I would have
expected Monbiot, as a journalist, to have done this
but, as the Genoa reporting has sadly shown, such
objectively is the exception rather than the rule.

I. MacKay
Glasgow

Seems Mr Monbiot wants to have his cake and to eat it. If it's only the "violent" part of direct action that gets any notice, why is he calling for mass non-violent civil disobedience? Because it doesn't get noticed, as he himself argues? Which side is he on? (Though from his pro-capitalist articles earlier I think we can tell - that of curbing the worst excesses of capitalism so that it can survive a bit longer).
The vioence at Genoa and other protests are symbolic of the weakness of our movement. If we were strong, we could hit the capitalists where it really hurts - in their pockets. I'm all for dismantling the HQ of Balfour Beatty or Railtrack or any of these other bastsards, but is Monbiot really so naive as to think no one would be attacked if they tried to do it?