|
|  |
Call-out for action
Angry Brigade - 20.05.2010 16:49
This is a call-out for action on the 1st of June
Dit is een oproep tot akties voor 1 Juni
English (dutch below): On the first of June 2010 the dutch State wants to collectively evict all squats by passing one of their laws. This is nothing short of a declaration of war from them to us.
This means that from the first of June we will have to again fight to keep a roof over our heads. Our basic human rights are violated.
We ask that everyone bring their anger to The Hague on the first of June and in the form of decentral actions to show the State we are not going to be evicted that easily.
The time for discussion is over. The time for looking good in the media is over. We have to fight for our squats!
Fire and flames for every State!
Nederlands: Op 1 Juni 2010 zal de Nederlandse State collectief alle kraakpanden ontruimen door het invoeren van één van hun wetten. Dit is een niet misverstane oorlogsverklaring vanuit de Staat aan ons.
Dit betekent dat we vanaf 1 Juni weer moeten vechten om een dak boven ons hoofd te houden. Onze basismensenrechten worden geschonden.
Wij willen dat iedereen hun boosheid meeneemt naar Den Haag op 1 Juni in de vorm van decentrale akties om de Staat te laten zien dat we niet zo makkelijk ontruimd gaan worden.
De tijd voor discussie is voorbij. De tijd voor media-propaganda is voorbij. We moeten vechten voor onze kraakpanden!
Vuur en vlammen voor elke Staat!!!
|
| Read more about: wonen/kraken | | supplements | | some supplements were deleted from this article, see policy | | | klopt niet | nn - 20.05.2010 17:16
nee, niet alle panden worden meteen ontruimd op 1 juni. en 1 juni is dus niet de enige en laatste dag dat er voor het behoud van gekraakte panden kan worden gevochten. op zich is een actie oproep niet onterecht maar motiveer het dan anders.
| | call out? | nn - 20.05.2010 17:40
What kind of call out is that?
"The time for discussion is over. The time for looking good in the media is over. We have to fight for our squats!
Fire and flames for every State!"
I agree with this, but its not really a call out for action to say that we should 'fight'. Whats your proposal?
| | pand x | balletje - 20.05.2010 17:47
het lijkt mij dat het werkelijke moment van de waarheid niet ligt op 1 juni of de inwerkingtreding van het kraakverbod, maar voor de deur van het eerste pand dat ermee ontruimd gaat worden. Daar is het dat elkaar zullen vinden of niet en welke vorm van verzet al dan niet mogelijk zal blijken...
als signaal lijkt het mij zinniger om op 1 juni kraakakties te doen i.p.v. ons te laten inhokken.
het moment waarop wij nog op een of andere manier invloed op het besluit kunnen uitoefenen is op die dag zowieso al voorbij, dus laten we doen waar we echt goed in zijn die dag!
kraken dus...
| | Decentrale akties | Someone - 20.05.2010 19:56
De vraag is: Wat stel je voor dan?
Nou, of je het er wel of niet mee eens bent met deze call-out van deze onbekende groep, in de oproep staat volgens mij echt duidelijk: wij vragen om decentrale akties. (moet ik hier nog uitleggen wat dat betekent???)
Dus het lijkt me dat je vrij bent om te doen wat je wil. Ik denk dat er voornamelijk bedoelt wordt dat je niet netjes een demo moet aanvragen, maar dat je gewoon "je ding" doet.
Een pand kraken is ook een optie dus.
Verder worden niet alle panden letterlijk ontruimd die dag, maar symbolisch gezien wel natuurlijk.
Het is een marginale oproep, maar wel eentje waar alleen polderaars de mening weereens niet van snappen.
| | callout | nn - 20.05.2010 21:36
What kind of call out is that?
"The time for discussion is over. The time for looking good in the media is over. We have to fight for our squats!
Fire and flames for every State!"
I agree with this, but its not really a call out for action to say that we should 'fight'. Whats your proposal?
X 2!
Is dit niet het zoveelste voorbeeld van de problemen beschreven in "Het failliet van de Politieke kraakbeweging". Geen enkele politieke inhoud, geen analyse en geen strategie anders dan "fight".
| | Another frustated foreigner | geppetto - 22.05.2010 12:19
This is just another frustrated foreigner who did not do anything else till now, a person that knows only violence as a matter of comunication, thats why the "time for this and that is over"
please go and visit a specialist...or go and do some krulk...
time for free housing for middle class kids is over! go back to mama and papa, is time for the real emarginated to stands up and get togheter
squatting is not a lifestile but a mean to get back dignity for homeless and emarginated, some don't want to stand up from they're situation, but for the ones that wants to squatting will always be there, as the only solution.
WE ARE THE PROBLEM THE SYMPTOM AND THE SOLUTION OF A CRISIS THEY WANT TO HAVE
what they are going to do? they are going to deport the non european and the others? one year of prison? and when they/we come out all togheter I say lets squat the sociale dienst! :D
I mean personally, I'm orphan, I have nobody to take care of me differently than most foreigner squatter that have mami and dady home, and there is a whole lot of people like me, just they get pissed of by snot leaking stink nose middle class son of daddy squatters.
if there is anything that can be done it will be after the Kverbod is passed and the terror wave is passed living a ton of victims and making all "I don't know anything I just want a house for free!" to go find they're way in life instead.
| | Another frustrated foreigner? | nn - 22.05.2010 18:11
First of all, how do you know it's a foreigner? And second of all, you're posting complete and utter babling, rambling rubbish. It's the indymedia posting equivalent of repeatedly rubbibg your finger over your lips and going *bublbublbublbubl*
Another brilliant lack of political content and understanding coupled with a complete lack of awareness of the history of the squatting movement in the netherlands.
It's got very little to do with dignity, lifestyle, marginalisation or self marginalisation and only slightly to do with homelessness as traditionally understood in terms of destituteness. It's about working class people (which unless you're offering some shitty sociological class definition rather than a political-economic class struggle definition) which can and does include the middle classes, coming together collectively and through self organisation and direct action fulfilling their material needs (housing). What you've posted is just utter utter rambling bollocks.
PROBLEM, SYMPTOM, CRISIS, Social dienst, orphan, terror wave, only solution, ... WHAT?! You're right in that someone here needs to see a specialist.
Seriously, just take 30 seconds to a minute to think about what you're going to write or have written before posting it up on here. You're an embarrassment.
| | !? | nn - 22.05.2010 23:20
"What kind of call out is that?
"The time for discussion is over. The time for looking good in the media is over. We have to fight for our squats!
Fire and flames for every State!"
I agree with this, but its not really a call out for action to say that we should 'fight'. Whats your proposal?"
What do you need, some vanguard or comunist party to tell you exactly what, when and how to do something about this situation??
If you actually know the meaning of concepts like "direct action" or "decentralized action", then you don't need anything else -organize yourself and your friends, and start moving your ass cause this fantasy magical squatting world of bulshit social peace that was existing in the Netherlands for the last 10 years, is gonna end very soon.
| | Direct Action | nn - 23.05.2010 19:20
What do you need, some vanguard or comunist party to tell you exactly what, when and how to do something about this situation??
If you actually know the meaning of concepts like "direct action" or "decentralized action", then you don't need anything else -organize yourself and your friends, and start moving your ass cause this fantasy magical squatting world of bulshit social peace that was existing in the Netherlands for the last 10 years, is gonna end very soon.
Don't need a vanguard, but maybe some suggestions beyond some empty signifiers like "take action" wouldn't go astray.
I'm not sure to humour you and say "No, I don't know what direct action is, please explain?" or maybe provide an explanation myself. However now I'm actually questioning whether you know what direct action is? I'm guessing your definition of direct action is any arrestable activity or even arrestable lobbying, individual or otherwise.
What squatters should be concerned with as an understanding of direct action as "Action taken independently by the working class in struggle rather than appealing to the power of politicians, bureaucrats, and employers. Most mass direct action is in the form of strikes and other workplace action, non-payment of unjust taxes, and blockades."
| | Kumbaya | Shiva - 24.05.2010 09:31
Yeah, let's call out for violence.
There used to be a time, squatting was motivated by idealistic motives. Now it just seems to be a thing for the mentally disturbed.
The comments made above me are so true; most squatters aren't into architecture, freedom or peace. No, they use violence to force their opinion on other people.
And if you're lucky they beat you up so severely you end up handicapped 4 life.
Most of you should take this opportunity to look into a mirror and ask yourselves what your true motives are.
Are you really alone? like this guy that posted before me?
Are you really concerned about architecture and social-economic issues?
Do you really know what the consequences of you, squatting is?
Is violence an intelligent way to make a statement?
Choose wisely.
| | Kumbaya? | nn gal not guy - 24.05.2010 13:44
Who called out for violence? And even if they did, what is the violence of a few squatters compared to that of the police or in the context of the violence that is perpetrated on a daily basis by the state and capitalist system such as the violence of war, poverty, colonialism and environmental destruction.
Your posting is highly dishonest but I'd hope your moral indignation is as high each time a cop beats someone up in a jail cell, shoots someone dead on the street or when someone dies from lack of healthcare due to cuts made that will only impact on the working class because money is needed to bail out the banks and a bankrupt socioeconomic system.
Take your righteous moralistic bullshit elsewhere. You seem to lack an understanding of and are obscuring and denying the sources of violence. Nor do you seem to be interested in the varieties of violence, whether it's subjective, objective or systemic. Whatever about the interpersonal violence of that incident, you are petty point scoring and shit stirring and deserve to be treated with scorn.
There is a need for distinction, perhaps that provided by Benjamin of "mythical" and "divine" violence. Where events proposed for June 1st are understood as merely an impotent passage à l’acte.
The rest of your rhetorical devices again deserve nothing but scorn, save to say that the motivations for squatting are generally a material need for housing, whether that's a living, social or cultural arrangement, probably in that order of importance. The consequences of squatting as a form of direct action is getting and providing oneself with housing, fulfilling those material needs, hence why people take direct action. This is really getting repetitive at this stage but again it shows the lack of political maturity (both on the side of the squatters and on the side of their critics) and suggest the need once more to provide a definition of direct action (which doesn't necessarily have to involve violence).
Direct Action is when people act for themselves without waiting for permission from any higher authority.
"Direct action is when those directly affected by something take action to fix it themselves, rather than asking someone else to do it for them. A strike that forces management to make concessions or face losing money is direct action where lobbying
an MP or going through union negotiations is not. Squatting derelict land and turning it into a community garden is direct action, whereas pressuring the council to clean up vacant lots is not. When people act by themselves to achieve something that they need then they are taking direct action – whether that’s sharing food with others or fighting the police in a riot.
For direct action to be possible then there also needs to be self organisation. This is organising
without leaders or phoney ‘representatives’, and it allows ordinary people to take back the power to make their own decisions. Self organisation allows us to break down and overcome the hierarchies that separate us. In self-organised groups everyone has an equal say and no one is given the right to represent anyone else. This kind of group is capable of deciding its own needs and taking direct action to meet them in a way that any hierarchical group based on representatives – like a political party or a trade union – cannot."
We'll leave the discussion of class composition and why governments actually grant reforms for antoher day, yeah?
| | Kumbaya | Shiva, chick too - 24.05.2010 14:18
Well, your comment proves my point. You are so hostile I wonder if it's just that time of the month or you are actually downright agressive.
In your attempt trying to make a point, you are making comparisons that are totally ruining your opinion.
Because policemen are using violence, being a jackass squatter makes it right? So violence is ok if it is used under the right circumstances? with the right motives?
Give me, and other intelligent human beings a fucking break. If you are representing the squatters in Holland it is even more disturbing than I thought.
There is no reason whatsoever for violence, no matter what your motives are.
Neither does squatting have anything to do with violence or brute force.
Face it, this scene is gone. And everyone gets that except for some smelly alternative asswipes who have all sorts of motives except for the right one.
I have nothing against squatting in general, but I do have a problem with the way some squatters think they can use force to take something from society simply because they believe they are entitled too.
So on one hand you piss on the government and law enforcement because you have a problem with authority, and on the other hand you are using the exact same methods as the people you have a problem with.
Less hypocrisy, more identity plz.
| | Shiva | nn gal not guy - 24.05.2010 15:07
"Well, your comment proves my point. You are so hostile I wonder if it's just that time of the month or you are actually downright agressive."
I wouldn't say 'hostile' just not suffering idiots lightly, which has been happening for too long and led to the current abysmal state of things now, politically speaking. I'll ignore your stupid time of the month comment as a sad example of your inability to actually come up with an argument rather than ad hominem attacks and what seems like some quaint ideological attachment to pacifism.
"In your attempt trying to make a point, you are making comparisons that are totally ruining your opinion."
Care to elaborate? The point I'm making and criticising in your response is that there is no comparision between the systemic violence of the state and capitalism and that of those resisting it.
"Because policemen are using violence, being a jackass squatter makes it right? So violence is ok if it is used under the right circumstances? with the right motives?"
Who said anything about a "jackass" squatter (singular)? What are the circumstances and motives of the police, the state and and capitalism? How or when has wealth and power ever conceded anything without agitation? The rich and powerful won't give their status and privilege up witout their use use of violence.
To quote -
"An authentic pacifism cannot mean refusing weapons, but only refusing to use them. Pacifism without being able to fire a shot is nothing but the theoretical formulation of impotence. Such a priori pacifism is a kind of preventive disarmament, a pure police operation. In reality, the question of pacifism is serious only for those who have the ability to open fire. In this case, pacifism becomes a sign of power, since it’s only in an extreme position of strength that we are freed from the need to fire."
"Give me, and other intelligent human beings a fucking break. If you are representing the squatters in Holland it is even more disturbing than I thought."
I've never made any claims to representation, stop being so dishonest and actually offer an argument or critique that isn't reliant on dogma or orthodoxy.
"There is no reason whatsoever for violence, no matter what your motives are."
Give me a break! Are you actually this naieve, ideological and of such a singular world view that you can see no exceptions to this, even in self defence? If you answer yes to that you reveal yourself as a close minded ideologue lacking in nuance or understanding.
"Neither does squatting have anything to do with violence or brute force.
Face it, this scene is gone. And everyone gets that except for some smelly alternative asswipes who have all sorts of motives except for the right one."
No, but it is about the imposition of our demands upon the state and capital, demands which are in contradiction to 'the economy', 'the market', etc. What are the 'right' motives? Apart form the ones I've already outlined; the material need for housing?
"I have nothing against squatting in general, but I do have a problem with the way some squatters think they can use force to take something from society simply because they believe they are entitled too."
What do you mean by 'entitled'. Housing is a basic material need and demand. The use of direct action and self organisation to meet that demand and need is what defines squatting in general.
"So on one hand you piss on the government and law enforcement because you have a problem with authority, and on the other hand you are using the exact same methods as the people you have a problem with."
I'm not sure if you're continuing with your dishonesty out of some misplaced attempt at winning an argument you don't seem to grasp, haven't read what I've written or are equatting working class movements fighting for basic needs with the imposition of capitalist social relations through the use of force and violence. The power relations between you and me and between the state and the individual are complety different and in no way analogous or horizontal. If this needs explaining, then I honestly lament. If on the other hand you perhaps see some comparison between the methods of the rich and powerful with the methods of the working class to defend themselves from cuts, attacks, etc. and to impose their needs, then that reveals a lack of (class) analysis on your part.
"Less hypocrisy, more identity plz."
Less dishonesty, more argument, thinking, analysis, content and coherency please.
| | Hypocrisy | nn gal not guy - 24.05.2010 15:58
One other thing, your reference to hypocrisy reveals the moralistic interpretation you are attempting to provide and which I criticised. A morality evident in your pacifism. Hypocrisy would imply the setting of moral standards to others which I do not apply to myself. Yet, what you don't get is that I am dismissing such liberal, individualist and moralistic claims in favour of a collective, political and class struggle analysis and understanding.
What I have criticised is the impotency of calls for violence for its own sake without contextual, political and strategic thinking such as this call to take action as if that will achieve something in itself AND criticised the impotency of pacifism.
It is not a moralistic claim with regards the use of force and violence by the state and capital that I am making but a comparitive one, both on a qualitive and quantitive level as well as on a political analytical level. You still don't seem to have grasped this, as if all violence and the use thereof is equal. Re-read what has been posted. You don't accept, analyse or understand the sources and varieties of violence.
Ultimately, all you offer is liberalism, which is just a case of more of the same and will only seek to perpetuate and further this violent society and the violent social relations and system we live under. This has nothing to offer either the working class or those interested in radically changing society. And, as such, should be treated with the derision you have so far experienced instead of the palid acceptance it receives on here and in the squatting scene in general, that has led it to the political bankruptcy it currently suffers under. Enough is enough.
| | Further clarification | nn gal not guy - 24.05.2010 16:30
"It is not a moralistic claim with regards the use of force and violence by the state and capital that I am making but a comparitive one, both on a qualitive and quantitive level as well as on a political analytical level."
That comparitive is between the state and capitalism. I still maintain that "there is no comparision between the systemic violence of the state and capitalism and that of those resisting it", as understood in the rhetorical sense of 'There's no comparison!'.
| | woodstock is over | direct action - 29.05.2010 16:16
So what, are you scared to talk about violence? To deny that we, as human beings, are violent by nature is to be fucking blind and to have this cheap hippy bulshit moralistic positions of "violence is always wrong" is just kind of funny.
Do you consider self defense is wrong? Then I completely understand why the dutch squatter scene/movement/whatever sucks so much: oh, let's sit in a peaceful way to wait for the cops to come and evict us or beat us up, so we'll never be on "their level" (how could you be? do you have a whole in-justice system providing legal, repressive and material weapons to fight as well?) and, of course, we'll always be the good guys of the movie...
Well, I think all this comes from a typical bourgeois point of view... How could you be angry about evictions if you know you will never end up in the street? You can always go back to your parents house, finish the university studies, pass this rebelious stage of your life and finally become a productive member of the great Dutch society, right?
by the way, violent direct action is just one of the forms direct action can take: as it should be clear already, to take direct action is to take control of one's life and interests.
| | on Violence | nn - 30.05.2010 00:35
Why do you think it is that we don't all rise up right now to overthrow this horrid system? We're afraid of getting killed or sent to prison. Violence works great as a deterrent. It's just we don't use it.
So maybe we should change that?
"The people in power will not disappear voluntarily; giving flowers
to cops just isn't going to work. This thinking is fostered by the
establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence.
The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot
from a high window."
- William S. Burroughs
Derrick Jensen:
We may as well acknowledge that our entire culture- from top to
bottom, inside out, personally and socially- is founded on,
motivated by, and requires a systematic and absolute avoidance of
responsibility. This is true both of our actions and our failures to
act. And what is our failure to stop each of these things? It's just as
much an avoidance of responsibility.
If you want freedom, you will have to fight for it and those who are
exploiting you are going to have to pay for it. If you want a livable
planet, at this point you will have to fight for it and those who are
killing the planet are going to have to pay for it."
Oh and before someone comes up with some ghandi shit rmemeber that in 1946, with full knowledge of the extent of the Holocaust, Gandhi told his
biographer Louis Fisher, “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from the cliffs.nice huh?
but Ghandi goes on: "Mankind has to
get out of violence only through non-violence. Hatred can be
overcome only by love.” By now you should be able to spot the
premises that, like any good propagandist, he's trying to slide by
you. Violence is something humankind “has got to get out of.” Nonviolence
is the only way to accomplish this. Hatred is something
that needs to be overcome. Lover is the only way to accomplish
that."
Whether a campaign or struggle is waged through violence or nonviolence, the oppressors are going to respond the moment the uprising gets serious.
Ward Churchill:
"the fact that this power, this force, this entity, this monstrosity called the State maintains itself by physical force, and can be countered only in terms that it itself dictates and therefore understands"
| |
| supplements | |
