Divided we fall...

“Solidarity” can be defined as: Unity or agreement of feeling or action, esp. among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.

It is unity with mutuality: The quality of correlation; reciprocation; interchange; interaction.

(thanks online dictionaries)

As much as one can legitimately credit the 99%, Occupy and other affinity groups with the hashtag #winning (e.g. bank day transfer, SOPA temporary failure, change in national discourse, etc.) we must also consider in what forms the elite, or counter, has pushed back. Never should we forget that these are the masters of subtle tactics. Behind closed doors and in unknown locations there is talk of how to disrupt the momentum of the populous as it yawns and stretches its limbs, awakening from a long deep slumber. These parasites, who grab all they can in times of our slumber (i.e. apathy), have grown fearful but yet remain powerful and their greatest tactic is to see us die from within.

In-fighting is all that will bring us down. Our numbers are many and together we are the people so who is left to defeat us? Together there is no use for the term defeat, win, etc. Together we form the populous consensus and with that our future.

Let us be wary of marginalizing any group with which we should stand in complete solidarity even when we disagree with their tactics. Let us not denounce each other when the 1% exacts daily violence on whole populations. Discourse, critique, compromise, etc. are one thing. Marginalization is another. The 1% is “#winning” when we spend all our efforts to debate who is “right” or “wrong”. As David Graeber stated:

Since we are talking about Gandhian tactics here, why not consider the case of Gandhi himself? He had to deal with what to say about people who went much further than rock-throwing (even though Egyptians throwing rocks at police were already going much further than any US Black Bloc has). Gandhi was part of a very broad anti-colonial movement that included elements that actually were using firearms, in fact, elements engaged in outright terrorism. He first began to frame his own strategy of mass non-violent civil resistance in response to a debate over the act of an Indian nationalist who walked into the office of a British official and shot him five times in the face, killing him instantly. Gandhi made it clear that while he was opposed to murder under any circumstances, he also refused to denounce the murderer. This was a man who was trying to do the right thing, to act against an historical injustice, but did it in the wrong way because he was “drunk with a mad idea.”

Over the course of the next 40 years, Gandhi and his movement were regularly denounced in the media, just as non-violent anarchists are also always denounced in the media (and I might remark here that while not an anarchist himself, Gandhi was strongly influenced by anarchists like Kropotkin and Tolstoy), as a mere front for more violent, terroristic elements, with whom he was said to be secretly collaborating. He was regularly challenged to prove his non-violent credentials by assisting the authorities in suppressing such elements. Here Gandhi remained resolute. It is always morally superior, he insisted, to oppose injustice through non-violent means than through violent means. However, to oppose injustice through violent means is still morally superior to not doing anything to oppose injustice at all.

And Gandhi was talking about people who were blowing up trains, or assassinating government officials. Not damaging windows or spray-painting rude things about the police.

Link to Graeber article: here

Gandhi never denounced those who were, in some form or another, united in a cause against the brutal power of the 1% (in their time exercised in the form of colonialism). Today we fight the same concept and are opposed by the same type of power. In his time many elite attempted to pit those in that movement against one another. They were not successful. Nor should they be today.

Beware of those that would make this their main focus. Beware of those who would rather denounce an affinity group rather than the common opposition. For if that is their goal then they act as extensions of that opposition and play into the most subtle of their tactics. This tactic being: pit them against themselves and watch them destroy themselves from the inside-out.

Unfortunately for the 1% too many are now aware of this. We are too awake with eyes wide open. As those around you open their eyes be there as a companion, a friend, in solidarity – even when your ideologies stand so far from their own. We are in this together and mutually we will support each other. If you do not appreciate one’s tactics then do not participate or perpetuate that tactic or idea. If it comes to be the consensus of the populous then so be it. If it is not then let it go. Most of all, NEVER denounce a fellow 99percenter. By doing so the 1% maintains this violent scheme and wins by doing nothing – an age old tactic...but this time it will not work.