Dealing with police horses
Barry | 06.05.2009 10:23
There has been some criticism of people throwing things at police horses on the recent Smash Edo-ITT demo in Brighton. There is an alternative.
A tried and tested technique for halting a stampede of police horses is to cover the line of advancing horses from either side with a long visible rope held at horse shoulder height. This is likely to unseat the mounted polices as the horses are brought to a halt.
It was apparently very popular in the late middle ages!
It was apparently very popular in the late middle ages!
Barry
Comments
Hide the following 46 comments
And again...
06.05.2009 10:54
This animal rights nonsense at demos has to stop. This isn't a game; these animals can kill. This is precisely why AR gets the flak it does from class struggle anarchists; get a grip on reality or march on your own.
It frightens me that folk like this are going to actively put me and others in danger, because "it's not the horse's fault they're about to trample us".
Anarcho
or
06.05.2009 10:55
you could try
Homepage:
http://www.earthfirst.org.uk/manchester/porder.htm
Protecting animals is not nonsense!
06.05.2009 11:44
Gemma
oh please
06.05.2009 11:51
Animal Rights Activists can get as hot and bothered as they want, but that is the fact of the matter.
Much the same as the Police (ordinary human animals) are transformed into weapons of state repression with the addition of a uniform. Animal Rights Activists are not particularly coming forward to defend police animal rights. There are real issues of animal rights, but the arguments put forwards frequently border onto sentimental bollocks.
Read up on Peterloo, Waterloo, The Charge of the Light Brigade, any number of Medieval battles and so on. Horses, under the control of riders are weapons. Telling people to not respond to the use of horses in this way is morally repugnant. It is telling people to put themselves in danger on the whim of someone else.
There are important issues at stake that some Animal Rights Activists choose to ignore. The position of defending animals who cannot defend themselves is not a blanket justification for instructing any person (human or animal) to endanger themselves for your ideology.
Buck rodgers
@Gemma
06.05.2009 11:58
If you think people only get charged by police because they refuse to "behave in a way that wouldn't warrant the police to charge you on horse back," you are quite breathtakingly naive. If nothing else, horse charges (like most police violence) are indiscriminate; those who get trampled are not always the ones who have been aggressive, and often, very much the opposite.
Those who would maliciously harm animals are scum and should be treated as such. However, in what the boys in blue call a "public order situation," the situation can very easily become a decision between defending yourself and others or allowing yourself and others to be seriously hurt. If you want to take a beating/biting/trampling go right ahead, but you have no right to force your dogmas on the rest of us.
anonymous
a sensible solution?
06.05.2009 12:34
Is there anyone who has experience of being around horses who would be up for facilitating a workshop at an upcoming gathering, or just posting some hints and tips about how to react assertivley to mounted police without endangering the animal?
For a class war that includes ALL of the exploited,
(A) Sab x
On the day it was mindless attacks not self-defence
06.05.2009 13:19
The majority of the people on the day were not losers that attack animals and it was a small minority that did it. We must find a way of dealing with and ejecting losers who mindlessly attack animals. It's not what we are about. The horses do chooses to join the police unlike the cops.
Most of the people above don't seemed to have been on the demo judging from the situations they were referring to in justification for attacking animals. These situations were not the reality of the day. It is ironic that the commentators that are opposing the many animal rights supporters (and other generally nice people) that turned up on the day to support this primarily human rights issue seem to have not been on the protest themselves!
Of course genuine self-defence is a different issue, but went it's not in self-defence I hope everyone can agree we must act.
((A))
@ ((A))
06.05.2009 13:29
anonymous
Horses
06.05.2009 14:04
as for peoples saftey throwing a bottle isnt going to do anything to stop the horses charging, if you had a muppet digging sharp metal spurs into your side you would also run forward regardless of bottls being thrown.
forcing animal rights agendas on people has to and will be done. animals unlike other oppressed members of society cannot organise amongst themselves therefore the liberation of animals has to come from the people that care.
so please stop being fucking twats about animal rights and realise that they are the oppressed and your justifications are only adding to the problem
mayflower
e-mail:
mayflower@riseup.net
...
06.05.2009 14:06
Does anyone know of any way to calm horses down when the police are charging? When the cops use alsations it's best to keep your arms behind your back (as they're trained to go for your arms). I don't know what's best to do in a situation involving horses though.
Ms Anne Thropy
I have to agree with mayflower...
06.05.2009 14:11
((A))
@mayflower
06.05.2009 14:44
Translation:
"Agree that I'm right you fucking idiots!"
I can only hope you're not allowed anywhere near the public if this is your idea of a compelling argument.
If police horses charge a crowd - or if the police deploy "their" dogs - what would you suggest people do?
anonymous
@ Ms Anne Thropy
06.05.2009 15:09
((A))
the two issues
06.05.2009 15:21
The tactical view is based on things i have witnessed myself in the past 8 years, its a bit 'stream of consciousness', i'd welcome some constructinve responses to any of the
points in it.
Morally I have an issue with attacking a police horse. Unlike a police officer it has not volunteered for service and has no option to quit. However, self defence in these situations is
justified - even if the animal you are defending yourself from is being coerced. I see violence against them as being a 'last resort' in defence of oneself or ones comrades. I would therefore find an attack on a police horse that was 'unprovoked' (eg it was moving away from a demo or static not blocking the route) objectionable.
This is of course always going to be a subjective view.
Tactical situations:
mounted police charging:
Throwing things at horses is unlikely to stop them charging, and knocking off a
rider as horse charges towards you would be a complete disaster.
I have seen numerous times, police horses stopped dead in their tracks by either a)
someone standing facing them with a bannar or flag at 'rider' hight and b) someone standing and facing AWAY from them waiting for them to stop.
The latter takes some either brave or stupid and of course both techniques rely on the officers not actually wanting to kill you as you stand still. - in the current media climate this isn't too much of an assumption. I've seen someone mention a police horse just wouldnt run someone down, but i dont want to be the one to put that to the test.
Static line of mounted police:
Throwing things at police horses/riders can have a tacical use in pushing them back. However cavely is never good at holding a line and i assume police officers know this, if even a handful of people charge/march towards it may just fall back. Being really loud can help, i dont know if the horses care, but the police officers riding them react like they might.
(i've seen aprox 8 people force back a line of 10 horses in the past).
That only leaves "a static line of really sadistic and/or stubborn mounted cops", they are more likely to respond to a crowd approching them by drawing battons and/or cantering forward. in this situation maybe throwing things is tactically justified - altho aiming for the
rider would be the best idea, so maybe don't throw things if you can't accurately hit a man sized target at 20' ? ... actually that should go for every protester ever, i've been hit in the back by paint/bottles/stones numerous times when close to the front lines! (and they hurt me a lot more than they would someone wearing body armour and a helmet)
I would think small devices that made loud noises and flashes that wouldn't injur a human or horse would also be desireable for this situation, or something likely to make the rider want to stop -- like the rope mentioned previously.
I assume the plan is to make the rider think "OH ****" and stop, rather than to actually knock him/her off, looking away from the on coming horses would insure you don't loose this game of 'chicken' .
Other things that would make a rider want to stop: non mounted police in the way, large amounts of fire, or the classical warfarefavorite - Long pointy sticks.
anon
"Real militants"?
06.05.2009 15:29
This place gets more mental every day.
Anarcho
@ Anarcho
06.05.2009 16:44
The people willing to stand on the front lines and face police violence were not the people lobbing stuff at horses. Went we used the banner to stand in front of cops at McDonalds, for example, there was a effort made to mind the horses.
((A))
@ anon
06.05.2009 16:48
((A))
small devices that made loud noises
06.05.2009 17:12
I accidentally hijacked this thread (
You can buy a sonic dog repeller such as
Horses and dogs would hear it like a very loud rape alarm, and it could be made more powerful I imagine, most simply by having many of them. What effect it would have on a police horse or a police dog you'd have to find out by trial and error but I suspect you would be able to silently block any advance of horses. The range is very short though. Bear in mind horses are especially dependent on their hearing for social interaction so this should be viewed as a weapon, albeit a non-lethal weapon and far better than throwing stones.
I don't see flashing lights being useful unless a horse is epileptic. You can build more powerful sonic devices that will drop a running horse without actually hurting it, but that is risky.
Two other tips I was told but haven't used are lion shit, which panics horses. Also when the police are breaking up a crowd using slow-moving horses, if you can stick to its outside back legs then neither it or it's rider can hurt you, at least not without the rider risking being so unbalanced as to be easily unseated.
Danny
((A))
06.05.2009 18:19
Ratamahatta
militant block
06.05.2009 18:29
Ratamahatta
Dodgy
06.05.2009 18:35
I suggest the smart-arse goes and tries it himself first before recommending it to others.
Better still, go to you local stables and ask who their most aggressive and angry horse is and go watch it losing the plot in its stable, and then reassess the idea of antagonising something that big, dangerous and deadly.
I have to say I am somewhat surprised that modern horses would still harbour a flight reaction in response to a species that haven't coexisted with since their days on the Asian Steppe millennia gone by???
Nyqvist
Boring.
06.05.2009 18:35
Because the two are mutually exclusive.
And for all the people trying to tell animal rights people about dangerous horses, you seem to forget for over 40 years, week in and week out hunt saboteurs have been confonting people who have a tendency to use their horses as weapons. Yeah they can kill, two people have died out on hunt sabs. When was the last time some self-proclaimed class struggle anarcho hardcore militant died in a course of an action? Infact, when was the last time they did anything that risked serious sacrifice? When was the last time they did any bird for a cause they believe in?
Fair play to people who have made detailed, througful posts about a serious issue, that one way or the other needs addressing. I would say on the issue, that if you are in are in serious danger of injury by anyone, human or animal, you have a right to defend yourself. That doesn't excuse you from doing irresponsible and aggressive things to animals, regardless of who they are controlling. I hit a horse with a stick once, and I don't feel big and clever about myself. That said, I had just whacked the huntsman on the back a few times as he was attacking my friends with said horse, and he moved back so I missed on my last blow. My conclusion? Next time I will try my best not to miss. Where were all the hardcore self-proclaim class struggle anarchists when we're out actively confronting the ruling class? Probably studying for their uni exams.
In regards to A Sab, I always find the best way to defend onesself against an aggressive horse is by grabbing the reigns under it's neck and therefor being able to control it. Also, the rider has to lean quite a distance to try to hit you, making you able to pull him off. Whether this is the same with police horses I do not know.
I'm just sick to the back teeth of all these arm chair activists who sit on here spouting bullshit like they know something, when in reality the most militant thing they've done is read a few books with pictures of armed foriegners in them, and not payed their bus fair. If you're all so fucking militant, why don't you get some CS gas and do the coppers on the horses, then you wouldn't need to complain. Fuck off back to your middle class lifestyles.
Likpo
more tactics
06.05.2009 18:40
Plastic bags, many a sab that horses are scared of plastic bags blowing, flapping and rustling in their face. I've never seen this proven though.
I did once see a many jump out with his hands wide up making as much noise as possible. This stopped the horse dead in it's paces. I don't know whether the bally helped.
lkdfl;ksfkjlvfl
HC Class Struggle Anarchist
06.05.2009 20:39
you got me here, sorry i couldn't come to ya from poland and i'm learning for uni exam , but c u next time i visit your island to scrounge the money off and by the way smash some shit up without hurting animals!!!!
Ratamahatta
Where are the admins?
06.05.2009 21:23
not indymedia
anyone for a horse burger?
06.05.2009 21:47
Horse burger
100 dead in afghanistan
06.05.2009 21:49
Cheese Burger
@ Cheese Burger
07.05.2009 00:00
((A))
Troll alert - again
07.05.2009 00:18
In response to 'Anarcho' (so-called): if babies were being used as shields would you still feel justified in lobbing bottles? The anthropocentric attitude you display is one of the principal reasons this world's so fucked up, and I'd want nothing to do with any 'victory' that was achieved through such actions. Attack the exploiter, not the exploited.
Thanks to others for alternative suggestions though.
Black Beauty
clarification
07.05.2009 00:24
1. Is attacking offensively against police horses acceptable,
2. Is acting defensively against police horses acceptable.
3. Is attacking offensively police horse riders/police acceptable.
4. Is defending yourself from police acceptable (similar to point 2)
5. Should we attack those who act offensively towards the innocent?
1. There has been lots of talk of whether attacking horses is morally acceptable or strategically effective. The answers are quite simple.
Firstly, when police horses have metal hurting their mouth/sides by their riders, bottles/rocks thrown at them is not going to positively effect the situation. For example, if they would be put off by pain, the horses would of already disappeared at the start of a riot; this is rare. It is clearly ineffective to directly attack police horses, and will only encourage the non-human animals to defend themselves against human protesters (because it's not just human animals that understand and use self-defence, it's an animal instinct).
Secondly, is it morally acceptable. Look at it this way; the animals have been kidnapped (and admitedly used as weapons) against protesters. As innocently kidnapped animals, its clearly immoral to attack them. An easy understanding of speciesism is if you would attack human animals who are kidnapped and used as weapons - would it be morally accepatable to attack them? Obviously not, so there's no excuse to attack them as an offensive act.
2. What about when they are stampeding, or planning to do so, is it morally acceptable to defend youself? The answer is again obvious; of course, unless we want to be pacified by the police - everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether its against horses, dogs or other animals human or non-human. Self-defence is a logical right, not a debate. As an @ntispeciesist (antispeciesist anarchist or veganarchist) I would happily defend myself, and even encouage anyone else to do so. Otherwise we submitt to the pathology of pacifism.
3. A more difficiult debate is whether attacking police riders is acceptable, for example with bottles, rocks or sticks (preferably poles though, lets face it). Again, I would hope this is easily understood. Offensives against police are morally acceptable. They are paid by the state, understand what they are doing and are far from innocent.
As long as individuals are not intending to harm other individuals (human or non-human) - this is part of basic strategy. I understand that people may miss and harm horses, but if not intentional, I see this as entirely acceptable. Similar to those who try and harm police but may harm protesters by mistake. As long as its not intentional, this is acceptable, as part of effective strategy. If I were a horse, I would hope that people attack the riders that abuse me, I hope others can recognise this and act accordingly. If you have bad aim; simply don't bother. If you have good aim; go for it and do your best to liberate the animals that don't deserve to be harmed. At the same time, obviously aiding the liberation of human animals.
4. Again, as explained, defending yourself from police is a must. Whether mounted on horses, or with dogs, self-defence is a MUST for us not to be pacified. If you harm a horse/dog by defending yourself - this is self-defence and saves more harm than perpetrated.
5. A final point; if people are intentionally harming innocent individuals, should we stick up for them and attack them if necessary? I would again hope that people recognise this as acceptable, as a part of extentional self-defence. If people are harming innocent protesters or horses/dogs intentionally, they deserve to be taught a lesson. I have seen time and time against fellow 'comrades' attacked for attacking fellow innocent comrades, and I hope the same would go for so-called 'comrades' attacking innocent horses intentionally. If not, then we will continue to be speciesists un-united with the broader movement, nothing more.
---
This may seem difficult to understand, but that's exactly why police kidnap non-humans; to try and un-unite a very united movement and throw us a moral complexity. The bottom line is; how we act to bring about anarchism is how we will act in anarchy. We clearly don't want to bring about anarchy by attacking the innocent, as we wouldn't act in such a way within anarchy. This goes for humans or non-humans; as part of an antspeciesist agenda.
@ntispeciesist
@ Horse Burger
07.05.2009 05:46
On a serious note, as ((A)) pointed out, those condoning animal abuse are more likely to be trolls/the usual cops. Animal liberationists have made great bonds with the earth/human liberationists and are only lacking a genuinely strong connection with class struggle (something that is being worked on day by day). The very use of the theme 'class struggle anarchist' to promote animal abuse (for me) highlights either a persons niavity towards non-humans as human animals, or a cop using an obvious divide between two groups of anarchists - antispeciesist anarchists and class struggle anarchists.
*Inspired by some great lyrics from veganarchist punk band Propagandhi.
"I swear I'll do my best to ensure that; YOUR final moments are swift and free from fear...
Be careful what kind of world you wish for. Someday it may come knocking on your door"
not a friend of yours by a long way!
@Nyqvist
07.05.2009 09:55
That could well be which is why I am not suggesting sticking the device in a horses ear and turning it on. Do you remember Father Ted explained how 'far way' is different from 'close by'? Well, similarly, sounds that get louder the closer you get to them aren't really getting louder.
I am suggesting having a wall of sound in place before the horses are close enough to even hear it. It won't do the horse any damage unless they are right next to you for prolonged periods, in which case you can press the 'off' button.
>I have to say I am somewhat surprised that modern horses would still harbour a flight reaction in response to a species that haven't coexisted with since their days on the Asian Steppe millennia gone by.
I am envious of your ignorance, you must spend a lot of time surprised. After humans, lions were the most widespread mammal. Herodotus reports that they were common in Greece 2500 years ago and would attack caravans. You can buy lion pellets to keep cats out of your garden, or the real shit from zoos.
"Lion shit makes police sniffer dogs run away. Not to mention police horses, as evidenced by his use thereof at some of the demos he used to go to in the 60s where the aforementioned gee gees - together with the cops riding them - would belt off pretty damn quick as soon as they got a sniff of the stuff."
freedomfortooting.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/lion-shit/
Danny
Loud and Quiet for Dummies
07.05.2009 14:20
Stick to something you actually know something about: dBspl changes in relation to the distance from the sound source. It's elementary physics in terms of the loss of velocity by impedance. The rated dBspl of devices is only a reading normally at 1m DISTANCE.
Go to a club and walk up to the PA system and then tell me it isn't getting any louder as you get closer. This is the sound pressure level increasing= getting louder.
While the power output of the amps isn't getting any bigger, but the power you are enduring IS very much getting increased by proximity...
Which is why a shotgun would deafen you at sub 1m dBSPL but won't at 100 meters. Why a bomb could blow your windows out at 100 meters and not at 30 miles (despite being audible).
Which all in all makes your Father Ted quip totally irrelevant, because sound obviously does get louder the closer you are to the source, and equally, while cows do not get physically larger, they also do occupy a larger area of the retina the closer you get, and visually also get "bigger".
And the point of me arguing the toss of something so rudimentary is:
1. dBSPL increases with proximity so a device rated at 130 @ 1m would be louder at sub 1m from an eardrum.
2. Furthermore adding more sound sources makes a louder cumulative noise (the increase will be governed by several factors, chiefly the number of devices with proximity)...
But again, you seem completely happy to be suggesting people to do something potentially very dangerous that you openly haven't tried yourself.
Can you provide some RELIABLE evidence of the lion poo scaring horses?
Nyqvist
Give a man to fish, he trolls for a day
07.05.2009 15:16
2. Furthermore adding more sound sources makes a louder cumulative noise (the increase will be governed by several factors, chiefly the number of devices with proximity)...Can you provide some RELIABLE evidence of the lion poo scaring horses? <
You mean more reliable than the testimony of protestors of who successfully used this against police horses in the past? Well, I could provide you with links to a few scientific papers, just like I educated you about the ongoing lion/horse relationship. That feels like I am doing your homework for you though. Are you doing a school project ? Cos I'm an adult and shouldn't really be talking to you. Rather than show a google link every time you make a fatueous and ignorant allegation, I would rather teach you how to use google.
That way you would have the skills required to make a convincing argument that horses aren't scared of lions.
I apologise for sounding like a smart arse just because I know more than you and I know why to do basic research before slagging someone else off, but really, you leave me little option when you opinionate without thinking.
On the lion shit tactic, here is how I visualise it in terms of the G20. Three rucksacks of lion manure are emptied in the middle of the road between police lines and protestors. That's it. Since this has been reported as a successful tactic by genuine older activists, it is worth a try. Maybe modern police horses have been trained to overcome their instinctual fear of lion shit but I seriously doubt that.
Now, do you want a lesson to how to research information, or do you want to continue with your current argument which I am happy to summarise as "I am Nyqvist, and I am all knowing and infallible".
Danny
Would people attack human shields if the police used them?
07.05.2009 19:14
You say this is because the police are using them as a tool and you are justified to defend yourself.
I think it is really because of your attitude towards animals which sees their suffering as irrelevant.
Suppose in a riot situation the police grabbed some young children from the crowd (or from a stash they had conveniently placed!) and used them as a "human shield" by holding them in front of themselves while they bludgeon people with their batons.
Are you suggesting those children now become just "tools" of the police and therefore people can continue pelting the cops with missiles even though it risks injuring those children? I doubt it somehow.
Therefore the real issue is that you see the suffering of non-humans as less real than the suffering of humans.
animalista
Troll?
07.05.2009 19:18
You obviously are way out of your depth with sound and also with horses, but nonetheless suggesting potentially lethal actions to others, whilst being unwilling to do as much yourself.
Feel free to post any link you can find which disproves my comments about dB spl, and thus reveals me to be a troll!
Yes, something more reliable than another anecdote. Two anecdotes don't equal a verifiable source.
Nyqvist
@Nwhatever
07.05.2009 19:52
I fully admit your science on that was correct, just inappropriate - I never claimed you were wrong on that. Deafening police horses wasn't what I was proposing though so it is the equivalent of a 'strawman argument'.
So far, the only point we disagree on is whether horses are scared of lion shit or not. You sort of admitted that by ignoring it. For the sake of the other activists here, wouldn't you like to admit at least that one fact is true? I think even the biggest stallion would admit to feeling cautious next to lions. If you admitthat I am happy to discuss the effects of ultrasonic noise on horses openly and honestly, including your hypothetical but possible risks. I am not trying to diss you, just progress the discussion.
Danny
It has been done
08.05.2009 00:45
From what I remember of seeing it on film and TV a long time ago, it's hard to believe some of the horses weren't injured, especially those attached to carriages.
The royal wedding itself eventually just about took place by the skin of its teeth. Activists almost managed to storm the cathedral. In the official film of the ceremony, it is drowned out most of the time by the noise of the riot going on outside.
Anyone know if this is available in a modern format so it can be linked to?
Stroppyoldgit
this topic explains a lot about the uk anarchist movement
08.05.2009 02:23
As an anarchist I can proudly say that I am ANTI-HUMANIST and I defend opressed people's right to use violance against their opressors. Well, some argued that police animals are not conciously doing their job, but so? You can apply the same argument to police officers, when you're doing violance against them, you also effect their families, children etc.... Anyway there's no end to this liberal, 'give peace a chance' type crappy arguments; ignoring the main sufferings and injustices that take place in the world, enslavement and suffering of billions of people under capitalism but instead paying their whole attention to the use of violance by the opressed.
I think one of the main reasons for that because the anarchist movement hasn't manage to cut its all links from middle-class hippy types. Anarchist movement needs people who have nothing to lose but their chains; while these middle class hippy types have lots of things to lose: their homes, their cars, their snobbishness...
Time to work for a proletarian militant anarchist movement and make anarchism a threat again!
Anarcho-Communist
nowt to lose but our chains
08.05.2009 08:43
here here
@StroppyOldGit
08.05.2009 09:08
Elizabeth, ma'am, you are a crap head of state but a damn fine rider. (respect where it due, she didn't fall off and I would've)
Danny
reply to Anarcho-Communist
08.05.2009 13:45
As regard your ad-hominems about middle class hippies, it has been my experience that animal rights has far more ordinary people involved and "middle class hippies" are more prevalent on the class struggle anarchist side.
Animal rights activists have carried out hundreds or thousands of attacks on banks and their directors in recent years, far more than other activist groups. It is hardly what you would call a liberal pacifist hippy movement. Hunt scum used to get physically assaulted all the time.
Anarchism is about breaking down hierarchies of dominance, and human abuse of animals is one of those.
I don't understand what you mean about being anti-humanist - I though in general humanists put people above animals and justified their abuse?
I think the challenges facing the anarchist movement in the UK are the state using the media for propaganda and brainwashing, and rapidly increasing authoritarianism and a Big Brother surveillance society. Challenging the status quo isn't easy so it stands to reason that the people involved are going to be "different" in some way and maybe involved in a subculture as a way of finding moral support.
animalista
Most activists care about seals?
08.05.2009 22:56
As animalista pointed out, the animal liberation movement has been involved in far more militant direct action (such as firebombing corporations and home visits) than any other anarchist-based movement in the country. The Animal Liberation Front prove this as no.1 terrorists, a title granted by the US state because of its effective autonomous strategy - directly targeting the oppressors and their industries; whenever, wherever.
This all begun in the UK and has roots deeply entrenched in UK anarchism. If the anarchist movement took examples out of the ALM's tactics it would be a great start. I await the day anarchists are the number one threat to the the global elite with joy and hope; seriously.
me
Homepage:
http://www.directaction.info
what do i mean by 'humanism'...
09.05.2009 15:54
also speaking about the difference between animal rights movement and anarchist movement; while the anarchist movement is a political movement (the movement of the subject of politics ie humans), animal rights movement is about morality. The society isn't based on the contradiction between those who abuse animals and the animals themselves; but the contradiction is between the people who owns the means of production and those who are wage-slaves. While I am against the mistreat/torture of animals personally, its very silly and anti-rational to attribute human features to animals. In an anarchist society , animals still won't be represented in workers councils, so the dominance of the animals will go on.Its no wonder why most of these ALF-type groups members are anti-civilization freaks; rejecting rationalism and materialism and wanting to force down our throat their middle-class values. ( 'you shouldnt eat meat bla bla, as if victims of imperialist looting have the chance to eat meat.)
And speaking about the tactics of ALF, its the exact type of movement capitalist media wants to represent as 'anarchism'. Some anti-rational social-outcast looneys doing vandalism without any popular support or class basis. Almost all of them are white middle-class anti-socials posing no real threat to capitalist order and their vandalism denounced by everyone in society. In most cases its the workers who have to clean up the mess of these looneys. And I am sorry to tell you number 1 threat to American state comes from Islamic organizations, not from ALF.
Anarcho-Communist
a reply to the above
11.05.2009 01:01
"while the anarchist movement is a political movement (the movement of the subject of politics ie humans), animal rights movement is about morality."
So the civil rights movement was just about morality, not political, and is not based on 'the movement of the subject of politics ie blacks'. Or is it possible that morality and ethics can be a part of politics? Anti-racism (anti sub-speciesism) is a political viewpoint as much as a moral one, just like anti-sexism (anti cross-specieism) and total anti-speciesism.
"While I am against the mistreat/torture of animals personally, its very silly and anti-rational to attribute human features to animals."
This is just hilarious, nothing more, nothing less. HUMANS ARE ANIMALS - that's why its relevant to attribute human animal features to our biology as animals. Should we also not attribute the features of cats, dogs, sheep, cows, rabbits, etc to animals?
"In an anarchist society , animals still won't be represented in workers councils, so the dominance of the animals will go on."
Animals don't want to be represented for a start, they want to be respected just like other intensely oppressed sections of socity such as women and blacks. They want the freedom of choice, to live and be respected like everyone else, not some white males representing them. The very idea that you think (any) animals (inc. humans) want to be represented is part of a non-anarchist perspective. Representation has nothing to do with anarchism.
A further point to make is that severely mentally disabled people who aren't able to work aren't represented in workers councils, does this mean the dominance over them will continue so we should not attempt to treat these individuals as equals? Seriously?!
If you think anti-civilization anarchists are about middle-class values then you're quite simply deluded. It's about the total destruction of all hierarchies, including the authority over nature and its inhabitants and of course the oppressive class system.
"Some anti-rational social-outcast looneys doing vandalism without any popular support or class basis."
Like anti-slavery activists, suffragettes and black liberationists had no popular support? These liberationists just like the liberationists today are infact extremely rational, taking action because they are not social-outcasts, but trying to re-establish social relationships with fellow earthlings and the environment we clearly depend on, instead of destroying it.
To say they have no popular support is buying into the media-frenzy of lies, there is plenty of support for them. You only need to look around to see the number of ALF supporters. Indeed they don't have the majority of the public behind and I'm glad, otherwise there'd be something seriously wrong and out of tune with how all past liberationists were demonised/marginalised.
They basically wouldn't be a successful threat to the state, but promoted by our oppressors.
"In most cases its the workers who have to clean up the mess of these looneys"
Yeh yeh, just like throughout history - maybe its an exciting change for these workers from the dull daily routine? Do you also oppose Jews and anarchists who trashed gas chambers, suffragettes who stoned parliament and other supremacists because the working class might have to clear it up (those who were unable to work for other instituions)? This statement clearly shows your priority over property rather than the values of life. Big shame.
"And I am sorry to tell you number 1 threat to American state comes from Islamic organizations, not from ALF."
My bad, I ment real freedom fighters, not religious fundamentalists, see -
Still top domestic terrorists... It was only the other week an alleged activist from the Animal Liberation Brigade was labelled under FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list. He's currently most wanted and at no.3 overall - take a look. He's the first ever domestic terrorist and environmentalist to enter the list as a genuine (secular) threat to state oppression.
total liberationist
me again
11.05.2009 01:13
Looneys = lunatics.
Lunatic = someone who is mentally ill with a clinical condition
Choose your words with wisdown next time instead of boldy discriminating. Not only is it discriminating against people with mental illnesses, but also against direct activists who have rarely ever been lunatics. Look at some recent cases and they didn't get sentenced to mental institutions, they were sane individuals who believed strongly enough in liberation to act. All oppressions are interconnected and you unfortunately show an awful example of how.
Were past liberationists all just lunatics? Smashing gas chambers is for the insane?
Seriously look at yourself and see what ludricious claims you are making here.
anti-fascist