Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Cancer in Occupy - somewhat shortened!

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 8, 2012, 9:06 a.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Cancer in Occupy By Chris Hedges The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists - so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property - is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.

Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers' movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.

Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended "Industrial Society and Its Future," the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski's bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in "The Making of a Counter Culture" called the "progressive adolescentization" of the American left.

In Zerzan's now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website) he published an article by someone named "Venomous Butterfly" that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that "not only are those [the Zapatistas'] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary." It also denounced the indigenous movement for "nationalist language," for asserting the right of people to "alter or modify their form of government" and for having the goals of "work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace." The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for "nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism."

"Of course," the article went on, "the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one's aims, in a way that moves one's revolutionary anarchist project forward."

Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement.

"The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement," the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. "If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn't fit their ideological standard."

"I don't have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically," Jensen continued. "This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists."

"Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy," said Jensen, author of several books, including "The Culture of Make Believe." "They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness."

Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of "feral" or "spontaneous insurrection." These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on "feral" or "spontaneous" acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.

There is a word for this - "criminal."

The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.

"We run on," Erich Maria Remarque wrote in "All Quiet on the Western Front," "overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils: this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance."

The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc's confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and "less lethal" rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted "Fuck the police" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away."

This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war. Nonviolent movements, on some level, embrace police brutality. The continuing attempt by the state to crush peaceful protesters who call for simple acts of justice delegitimizes the power elite. It prompts a passive population to respond. It brings some within the structures of power to our side and creates internal divisions that will lead to paralysis within the network of authority. Martin Luther King kept holding marches in Birmingham because he knew Public Safety Commissioner "Bull" Connor was a thug who would overreact.

The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Black Bloc plays into the hands of our opponents, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, is really an irrelevent question. They simply play into the hands of our opponents.

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

I would also say that non-violent civil disobedience often plays into the hands of our enemies. Occupy never had any traction in Oakland until scuffles broke out and people saw "wow these people are actually serious about confronting power and will put themselves on the line." Walking up to the police line and voluntarily surrendering would have never accomplished this. Moreover, in the grand scheme of things it seems pretty insane. More or less no successful political movement in history lacked a militant wing, from Indian decolonization, to civil rights. Indeed, most of the valiant strikers of the 19th and 20th century labor movement would have been perplexed to hear that today people are socially condemned by their comrades for throwing a rock at the bourgeois police after they attack with bombs and poison gas. I'm still unable to understand the doublethink necessary to hold that police have the right to attack political dissidents in the streets with (sometimes only slightly) "less than" lethal weapons, but that the dissidents don't have the right to respond with anything but total compliance.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago


[-] 2 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

Keep in mind that this obsession over the black bloc is a response to Oakland, where for the most part the "violence" of the black bloc has been confined to not retreating when the police advance, and throwing rocks at them when they attack the crowd with poison gas and bombs. Black bloc is a popular TACTIC. It is not the sole domain of "anarchists" or anywhere near the core of their philosophy. I hate how "anarchists" are becoming the new "pinkos." It's absolutely insane. Please talk to someone who identifies as an anarchist before you spew out all of this crap. He says the black bloc is ignorant and dogmatic for not being dogmatically attached to the ideologies of traditional non-violent civil disobedience and accepting the consequences of this break (seeking anonymity in a surveillance state). I'm not saying they are the best group to have parading around on your next sunday morning "tax the rich" march, but please think critically about why people might think these tactics are appropriate. And he is quoting Derrick Jensen. Understand. This is the man who advocates for underground networks of activist cells to dynamite industrial infrastructure to "bring down civilization." This makes no sense.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i have a long history with anarchism and understand the use of violence - this is for sure not the time or place for that tactic - this is a long hard fight - those who use violence or property destruction are trying to satisfy their own ego

[-] 2 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

calling it "ego" is a bit ironic considering they hide their faces so nobody can know who they are. reactionary? maybe. Egotistical? no.

and I agree that random property destruction is NOT a good idea ever, and targeted property destruction is not a good idea right now. The point is that people in black bloc is not really engaging in these actions, aside from a couple of broken windows back in November.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

you could be right - i can't say much about any violence - sounds like oakland was small potatoes - i know in nyc and most places the violence has come from the police which hurts their cause - i do think it is ego gratification but we don't need to go on with that

[-] 1 points by DonnaEvans (16) 6 years ago

It's nice to see a comment from someone who actually reads. There are few of you around here.

[-] 0 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 6 years ago

True, calling the problem "anarchists" is doing a disservice to both anarchism and the movement. Violence is bad, and I fully agree with that, but anarchism is not and has never been about wrecking stuff, or mindless or primarily destructive. In fighting violence we shouldn't just throw out those who identify as anarchists, we should throw out those who perpetrate pointless vioilence. I mean, Chomsky is very explicitely an anarchist and he does't seem all that dangerous or divisive for the movement. Also not throwing anything at anyone.

[-] 2 points by OccupyReality66 (16) 6 years ago

The problem with anarchists is they don't occupy reality. They expect that you can just have no government and the rest of the world will just respect that. Obviously the rest of the world wont and we would be open to attack. Also anarchy just leads to rule by the most heavily armed. Anarchism is a child hood rebellious stage that most kids go through then grow up.

[-] 2 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 6 years ago

Anarchy has become that in common parlance, and rebellious kids have self-identified with it, but it really is not about pure free-for-all. It is, in fact, a political system. I personally think it's a good one too, though I recognize, as do most thoughtful anarchist, that trying to jump directly and alone to it will end in tears. The problem with anarchism is that it often seduces people who are too hasty, and by being fairly radically different from things as they are, often encourages a fall in symbolic ideological purity. Reasonable anarchists understand that the end goal is very, very far away and will not be reached by some political coup. If it is to be reached, it will be by a long cultural process, probably not in their time. They also recognize positive movements like OWS and don't try to hijack them or force their ideology on them, they simply support and join them(which is, again exactly what Chomsky did).

Less oppression of the majority by arbitrary and destructive political and economic structures ? That's an unqualified good. Any anarchist trying to sabotage that cares more about being right than he does about human happiness, which, incidentally, disqualifies him as an anarchist.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33472) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago


We do not defeat criminals with power by acting like criminals.

We defeat them by claiming our rights in peace and unity.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Hedges makes a good point that violence and random property damage are not helpful. However he does go a bit over the top in his attempt to understand the black bloc tactic, and who and what he perceives it to be. In fact it seems he does what he is warning about; he generalizes and projects on all involved based on the actions of a few.

The important take away from all this to me is that all people are different and tactics will always vary. The good to come from this is some clarifications on what tactics are to be claimed by Occupy. A few will always deviate but the bulk of the movement and the actions it takes will be informed by the new debates around useful and widely acceptable tactics.

Violence is never a good tactic however some will find a use for it that can generate good outcomes.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i won't agree that violence is never a good tactic but for sure it is not here or now

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

people need to stop being afraid of being identified

our identity defines our individual freedom

The media is certainly treating the audience for fools telling the world unidentified people represent anyone

They chanted "Fuck the police" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away."

they called the police anti-gay ?

B. Dolan - "FILM THE POLICE" ft. Toki Wright, Jasiri X, Buddy Peace, Sage Francis

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

not sure what your point is but chanting "fuck the police" is not the way to go here

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

The author has no idea what they are talking about. you are instigating a witch-hunt. THIS is what they want.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

the author is a very smart guy - he is raising a legit question - i personally think that those who destroy property etc are doing serious damage to the movement - i doubt that you h ave thought this through but here Randall Amster - you can read the whole piece on znet

Thursday, February 09, 2012 You would be hard-pressed to find anyone on the American Left who has not either benefited from or been influenced by the writings of Chris Hedges. His is a singular and potent voice of progressive journalism, combining the best virtues of diligent reporting and unabashed advocacy for a better world. Hedges has rightfully earned many accolades for his work, and he has been an effective chronicler of the rise of people-powered social movements in the U.S. and around the world. Undoubtedly like many others, I have personally been inspired by his writings, and have appreciated his willingness to dialogue with me on occasion. Hedges, in short, represents something of an ideal for those of us who deign to wax publicly on the issues of the day.

All of which makes his latest piece so disturbing in its full implications. Hedges calls out the anarchist-influenced Black Bloc as “the cancer of the Occupy movement,” and in the process vilifies with a broad brush an entire class of activists and anarchists as “not only deeply intolerant but stupid,” accusing them of “hijacking” and/or seeking to destroy Occupy and other progressive movements. The problems with his analysis are numerous, including that he points to a mere handful of sensationalized episodes of alleged “violence” without subjecting them to further scrutiny or engaging the voluminous literature in social movements discourse on what even constitutes violence, as well as the utility of potentially disruptive tactics in the annals of social change. Indeed, Hedges himself seems to comprehend this, and has written favorably about it in other contexts:

“Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage and loot their country. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare – the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it.”

So what gives? How is it that someone of his stature, influence, and insight has seemingly “drank the Kool-Aid” of divisiveness and internal finger-pointing that the power elite so obviously want to inculcate within our movements? Does Hedges really believe that a relatively small subset of the larger movement is somehow responsible for scuttling Occupy nationwide? Never mind the coordinated and militaristic assaults on the camps, media smear campaigns, unjustified mass arrests, or police-instigated violence in many locales – better to blame those black-clad anarchists in our otherwise-equanimous midst who broke a few windows and tried to actually occupy a couple of buildings for the use of the movement and houseless people alike. Seriously? It’s Greek to me.

Now, don’t get me wrong: the tactics and strategies deployed within a movement are fair game for critical intervention and even open contestation if we believe them to be dangerous or misguided. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the hard questions and calling people to account for the consequences of their actions. In fact, Occupy itself possesses mechanisms for precisely this sort of internal reflection, through the use of consensus-based processes and the workings of the participatory General Assembly model. Anyone is free to advance a vision, air grievances, urge a course of action, engage a debate, or offer alternatives for the group’s consideration. The task is to reinvigorate our collective capacities to reach agreement, rather than excise those who disagree.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

At Adbuster's web site, anarchist thinker Dr. Zakk Flash disputes Mr. Hedges assertions and brings up the inconsistencies in his writings.The difference between police violence towards us is, we become stronger when it can be proved, but if the public views Blak bloc as being part of occupy, that doesn't help. I do know that all of this is being debated by the GA's and it is a hot button issue.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i will look into dr flash - nobody is perfect so i am sure hedges can be challenged but any violence against people or property will be used to turn large numbers of the 99% against the movement

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

I agree violence and vandalism should be avoided. For some who have been really victimized by the system, or have to deal with steroid-like induced PD's, or lack the discipline for non-violence it is somewhat understandable although very regrettable, and definitely not helpful. I think that we can weather any sporadic outbreaks of bad behavior by our supporters, which I believe will be inevitable, but this movement should overwhelmingly be conducted in a non-violent way.

There is an affinity group in NY called Occupy Town Square (on facebook) that is doing a fantastic job at reaching out to the mainstream by holding Saturday events at parks and churches...At there first event at Washington Square Park (near NYU), they had around 500 people attend ..occupy parents was there with coloring books for the kids...there were teach-ins by uni profs...union rights reps... ..refreshments (great chili)...health-care workers advocating for single pay...literature ...people discussing issues etc....demonstrations in alleviating pepper spray pain (take contacts out first)... great drummers...they had flowers......and they supplied paint and cardboard so you could paint your own sign and then display them. One sign read, "You can crush the flowers, but you can't stop the spring." Alexander Dubchek from the Prague Spring... This event was not about war on the system, rather it was about HOPE.

The Wall St Journal covered the event, quoted that sign, and other than the title of the article, it did a fairly accurate job. They are having another event this Sat., the 11th at a beautiful church on the upper west side. Most importantly though, OTS has come out with a strong peaceful civil disobedience only stance, and is trying to persuade OWS to do the same. I hope they succeed.

Also, I had suggested that anyone taking part in demonstrations, marches,etc should wear a certain color ribbon, badge or something if they were committed to non-violence. That would encourage people to find the strength to remain non-violent in what often turn out to be difficult situations.

I just noticed that OWS is promoting this event on their web site...I am very happy for all the people who I know that worked so hard for this event to happen. For anyone that lives near NYC, I encourage you to attend either this event or one in the future, and you will meet some of the brightest, most dedicated, and simply the best in OWS!

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

I do not promote his point of view, believe me. I like most other posters here am on a learning curve. For now though into the forseeable future non-violence is what will work.



[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

no its good to be anti gay, dont mix new wine into old bottles, theres nothing good about supporting immorality. Fuck the police and fuck the gays is the chants they should be saying. A dam plague directed specifically at gays (AIDS) didnt get your attention I dont know what will, besides the majority will never be convinced by the idiotic few that gays is not a blessing to society but an infestation. If i see two fags kissing in front of my kids, you damn sure better believe Im going to say something to them. My poor neighbor kid was raised by a gay guy, and now hes just weird. and nobody at his school likes the boy cause hes weird, he talks funny, like a gay guy. And children do emulate their parents. Just like gangsters kids become gangsters, Ive seen this also. The child is an innocent victim, Its a dam shame.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

you are off the wall

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

isnt our entire society off the wall? or else what is the hooting and hollering of OWS all about. We are dumbed down and brainwashed, and infected at many levels. I wonder if we will ever bring our heads above water.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

yes it is - we are killing people every day - kids sitting in air conditioned offices sending drones to bomb and kill women and children and you are ranting about two people kissing

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

gays help men love men and women love women

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

You are a bigot and a dim-wit fool. Please go away.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

i disagree a bigot would be someone who is against someone because of their religious beliefs, but when a people are so set against nature that they even foster an epidemic that threatens our entire civilization (aids) and consumes much of our monetary funds for medical treatment because they have sheared their conscience to the point that they cannot hear nature itself speaking to them of how much in error they are, I say there is a line we should draw, which is simply hey, this isnt right, but none the less like adam and eve, they are free to choose for themselves. Or shall will we see the day when a man wants to marry his cow, and we speak out saying, "hey thats not a marriage" to which the minority reply again, hey shuch, you biggot, you dimwitted fool?"

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Like I said you are a dim-wit. You do not speak for "nature", as homosexuality is common in many animals including humans. AIDS is not gay specific at all. Homosexuality has nothing to do with farm animals, your statements are simply foolish and bigoted hatred. Go to a religious right-wing hate site if you wish to spread your ignorance, they love that sht.

If you don'e believe in gay marriage don't have one.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

its not hate, its a disagreement on a specific issue, besides i didnt bring up the point, i just responded to it in the original post topic posted above, ( like a congressman disguising his agenda added to an otherwise good bill) but he was caught. And even to this day, homosexuals are the number one class of people who are infected with aids, call down to your local std clinic and verify it for yourself.

[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the post and you know it.

If you can tell gay people to just not be gay, why can't I just tell you to just not be straight? Do you really think it works that way? Get a clue.

[-] -1 points by airplaneradio (50) 6 years ago

I've owned some anarchist literature (for research) and I can see Hedges clearly works for someone. For instance CrimethINC always talks about how much they admire the Zapatistas and they are one of the most well known anarchist groups. So who is Hedges playing ball for?

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

crimethinc barely qualifies as anarchist—more like pure insurrectionism, with some anarchist tendencies. However, based on the philosophies they espouse, they'd be the last of all "anarchists" to admire the Zapatistas. If they do, I'm willing to bet most others who label themselves "anarchist" or are even sympathetic also do.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

do you know much about him - who do you think chomsky plays ball for?? and who does subcomandante marcos play for?


[-] 0 points by airplaneradio (50) 6 years ago

Chris Hedges is free from scrutiny and criticism now? We're not allowed to ask questions or dissect something he wrote?

[-] 1 points by airplaneradio (50) 6 years ago

Chomsky is definitely a gatekeeper. Marcos, not sure if he is acting alone or not. Seems really small scale but wouldn't be surprised if he was on a payroll.

[-] 3 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

What in the world are you talking about? Anarchists are very open about their point of view. They have no hidden agenda. They are for what they are for and there is a huge literature and internal debates regarding what that is all about. And of course people with shared views work together with other people with whom they share those views. Doesn't everyone?

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

you have no idea what you are talking about.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

gatekeeper - you do not know what the term means - gatekeeper - god do you have it backwards! most cited living author but you can't find him in united states media - gatekeeper - you must be retarded - or very young - maybe just stupid! marcos on the payroll - if it weren't so stupid it would be funny. wow - you have no idea how the world works - and whose payroll?? soros - buffet - the soviet union (oh no, they are gone now right?). living up in the mountains - have you read his stuff - how can it be that there are sooooo many stupid people here?

[-] 1 points by airplaneradio (50) 6 years ago

You don't have to be in the mainstream media to be a gatekeeper Flip. All you need to be is very influential. And then keep your constituents in line.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

agreed but does not go to the point - and marcos - on the payroll - come on!