Re: Meatspace
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is a response to the claim was that the Panther's repression of internal dissent was somehow a result of CIA mindrays making them do evil things. They did evil things because they were bad people. What a simplistic and self serving viewpoint. What I do is ok because I'm a good person, what they do is bad because they're bad people. More angels among men crap. Got a newsflash bubba, people(!) do both good and bad things. There is no such thing as a 'good' or a bad 'person' per se. Just self-serving bigotry and self-justification, and nobody escapes either. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Meatspace,
-- I find it much more plausible that commies did bad things, things characteristic of commies, because they were bad people. Faustine True: but then there's always the gray area of exactly what's done in the name of what bad people deserve that keeps me uneasy about the whole thing. Have you read Gordon Thomas' book about the Mossad, Gideon's Spies? He was allowed to interview all the top agency people, so you can be sure nothing got out the agency didn't want out. Even still, it's a fascinating, hard-hitting look at what happens when an organization of brilliant, ruthless people come to exist in a system with limited accountability: hardcore realpolitik at its most elemental. We know the spooks do bad things. They have done bad things to people who post on this list. We also know commies do bad things. The argument I object to is that all the bad behavior, the authoritarianism, the crimes, the repression, that we saw from the new left during the seventies is somehow the fault of the spooks, and somehow not the fault of the people who were doing it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG jPlXakhxGCRandRTr/nKWOWtDxJX5Ry/EdBKmGPk 48oYFhL2YWrsHQTQ5bqQ6kvR/ZoWWOypTg9iDTuDD
Re: Meatspace,
-- On 16 Jul 2001, at 15:52, wrote: James A. Donald: The black panthers were torn apart because they murdered dissidents Faustine My point was the feds didn't have to murder anybody--play them off each other and they do it to themselves. If they were the kind of people who could so easily be tempted to murder dissidents, perhaps the spooks had the right idea. Still, if you read the documentation, COINTELPRO was quite a formidable program. Perhaps. The FBI by its very nature tends to do bad things, and we have seen some bad things done by the FBI to people who post on this list. I took a look at a few web pages reporting COINTELPRO, and found them long on unspecified rumors about things happening to unspecified people at unspecified places and times, and very short on any concrete evidence concerning specific people to which specific things had happened, much resembling web pages reporting widespread use of slaves, or widespread alien abductions. Now obviously we know of some real world activities that correspond to COINTELPRO, notably the attack on Randy Weaver, but it seems to me that there is absolutely zero evidence that the authoritarian and self destructive actions of the radical left during the late sixties, the seventies, and the eighties were the result of evil CIA mind rays. If such evidence existed, it would have been prominently displayed on some of the web pages I encountered. I find it much more plausible that commies did bad things, things characteristic of commies, because they were bad people. I did a web search for KGB and COINTELPRO, to find a web page that mentioned bad conduct by all such agencies. I found no relevant hits, from which I conclude that of all the people so vitally concerned about the bad things done by the FBI in the sixties and seventies, not a one is at all concerned about the bad things done by the KGB in the sixties and seventies. Of course it is reasonable for people in the US to be more concerned about US spies that Soviet spies, since the US spies mostly on US people, and the Soviet Union spied mostly on russian people, but still, zero relevant hits? I find that a little odd. This gives me reason to doubt the sincerity, and therefore the truthfulness, of those reporting COINTELPRO --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CWUGSojScqdtb2OLwAmSDcwtXUw2BbiGQuFlO+64 4RIC9wK5YzoTa1WEOK1TCXmhoxiOg7zoB1ujHqbdZ
Re: Meatspace,
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Besides the obvious hypocricy, part of that comes from the unfortunate tendency to care about what's close to home at the expense of a more significant larger picture. Come to think of it, I can't believe more isn't on the web about the horrors of the Stasi; Do some research on the US Army in the 50's... To hark back to a older topic, Black Box and illegal street activity. Consider the Boston Tea Party. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Meatspace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # #The blank panthers and the rest were opposed to the #bourgeois democratic process. Is that some sort of excuse for the treatment I listed?
Re: Meatspace,
Jim wrote: -- there are plenty of SDS and Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail. Faustine: Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their organizations were torn apart by operations conducted against them, This is incorrect. The black panthers were torn apart because they murdered dissidents, and dissidents came to include anyone who wondered if Newton was snorting too much of the Black Panther funds. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent of most of the other communist armed communist organizations. The first target of those arms was always themselves, to a greater or lesser extent, though this was most dramatic and bloody in the case of the Black Panthers. The FBI explioted this mindset to the hilt--COINTELPRO kept them all twitching like galvanic frogs. The merest stimulus and they exploded right on cue. Getting your enemies to destroy themselves, what a strategy. The whole thing is a depressing reminder of what happens when hot-headed idealism faces off against cold-blooded realism. Call me a fence sitter, but there's got to be another way. Here's a great link, if youre interested: The COINTELPRO Papers Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States by Ward Churchill Jim Vander Wall South End Press ISBN 0-89608-359-4 http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm ~Faustine.
Re: Meatspace,
-- there are plenty of SDS and Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail. Faustine: Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their organizations were torn apart by operations conducted against them, James A. Donald: This is incorrect. The black panthers were torn apart because they murdered dissidents, and dissidents came to include anyone who wondered if Newton was snorting too much of the Black Panther funds. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent of most of the other armed communist organizations. The first target of those arms was always themselves, to a greater or lesser extent, though this was most dramatic and bloody in the case of the Black Panthers. Faustine: The FBI explioted this mindset to the hilt--COINTELPRO kept them all twitching like galvanic frogs. To blame COINTELPRO for radical leftist internal violence is as silly as blaming Pol Pot and the Ukraine famine on the CIA. If those radicals were being murdered by the feds, the radical left would have been eager to have them investigated, instead of closing their eyes and looking the other way, and suddenly dropping vanished radicals down the memory hatch. The way we all reacted shows that we all knew full well who was doing it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Nj6L7D4+iqIYLrqePScZ1+RnIYBVbTSDAfIfAvK8 4jz/6Wo05VLuzxtUNNceNbo+ZirjyFUgSU4e1dUt5
Re: Meatspace,
Faustine wrote: Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such. Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day. What? You are really a bit ignorant -- there are plenty of SDS and Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail. And while Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi). Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn. Ghandi was also pissed because the Brits had confiscated all the privately owned firearms, and spoke out against this -- and from the sounds of it, would have advocated using those arm to fight the Brits. Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it. Who do you think it was that kicked the Brits out of the most of Ireland, with a *lot* of violence? If it weren't for Irish picking up the gun, the whole country would still be a Brit colony. And they will succeed in driving the Brits out of the rest, and hopefully their progeny, the Protestants along with them. Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and the vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story. God, what bullshit. MLK preached civil disobedience, not just nonviolence -- if he were doing this in today's repressive political climate, he would be getting exactly the same treatment as the WTO protesters. What stopped the war was explicity the growing violence (SDS's Bring the War Home campaign) and the fact that returning combat vets were joining the protests in throngs, and new draftees were fragging and shooting their officers and NCOs in Nam. What does Bobby Kennedy have to do with it? He and his brother were just another couple of politrixians who got what they deserved. The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the The thing stopping them is knowing that they are vastly outnumbered, and if they escalate into using deadly force against the protesters, there are more than enough people who would come back with guns the next day and wipe them out. If Kent State had happened, for instance, at Berkley or Madison, there is no question of what would have happened next, and probably that very same day. Geez, just look at the what those Pakistani kids are doing to the cops in England. And they have no access to guns. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Meatspace,
Faustine wrote: Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such. Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day. What? You are really a bit ignorant -- there are plenty of SDS and Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail. Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their organizations were torn apart by operations conducted against them, I'm sure I don't need to give you a lecture about all that. Maybe the Panther party is making a comeback, but you can't deny they're a long way from where they were before the intel community went to work on them. Look what's happening to the radical environmentalists today, they're up for exactly the same kind of treatment. You declare open war on the state, and the state is going to declare open war on YOU as a threat to public safety. And while Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi). Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn. Ghandi was also pissed because the Brits had confiscated all the privately owned firearms, and spoke out against this -- and from the sounds of it, would have advocated using those arm to fight the Brits. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a side issue when youre talking about what made his tactics a success. Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it. Who do you think it was that kicked the Brits out of the most of Ireland, with a *lot* of violence? If it weren't for Irish picking up the gun, the whole country would still be a Brit colony. And they will succeed in driving the Brits out of the rest, and hopefully their progeny, the Protestants along with them. Of course!! Proof that violence only works when it's more than symbolic. I should have been more clear about what I meant: if they really engaged in an all-out prolonged conflict (the way the original Irish Republican Army did)it would have been a totally different issue than a march here, a bomb there etc. The government never just gives in out of the goodness of its heart in recognition of superior spirits or something vague like that. And at the very least, you have to admit they aren't relying on bloc noirs, vinegar hankies and catapults. Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and the vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story. God, what bullshit. MLK preached civil disobedience, not just nonviolence -- if he were doing this in today's repressive political climate, he would be getting exactly the same treatment as the WTO protesters. But he wasn't an anarchist. My point is if you're out to overthrow the state (as opposed to fighting for your rights within the system like the causes above) you better have more than turtle suits and golf balls. What stopped the war was explicity the growing violence (SDS's Bring the War Home campaign) and the fact that returning combat vets were joining the protests in throngs, and new draftees were fragging and shooting their officers and NCOs in Nam. I still think it's too complex to boil it down to a single element like that. Have you heard the newest batch of Nixon tapes? The Kissinger transcripts from the National Archives? Worth a listen. What does Bobby Kennedy have to do with it? I can't believe you don't think he had an impact... He and his brother were just another couple of politrixians who got what they deserved. How can you even talk about civil rights (or rights at all) when you think something like that. The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the The thing stopping them is knowing that they are vastly outnumbered, and if they escalate into using deadly force against the protesters, there aremore than enough people who would come back with guns the next day and wipe them out. Dream on. This isnt the 60's anymore...read about preparations for urban operations (keyword MOUT) and see what you're in for. It's a whole new ball game. If Kent State had happened, for instance, at Berkley or Madison, there is no question of what would have happened next, and probably that very same day. But it didn't. These days, people get a little pepper
Re: Meatspace,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Jim wrote: Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe. It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes believed in violence at all! Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such. Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day. And while Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi). Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn. Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it. As to women sufferage, you need to do some more research there as well, not all women are pascifist. they burned more than bra's... Guess you totally missed what I was trying to say about the Pankhursts. You paint with too broad a brush (typical of the indoctrinating education of the day - going all the way back to when I was a kid in the 60's) Oh come on. Address my points, don't insult me. We can get as specific as you like--there are too many issues here to cover them in adequate detail in a couple of posts. Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate people. Every ilk assassinates every other ilk if given the oportunity and the personality. Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and the vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story. What came of it? The Indians are a free country. You and blacks can vote. Not because of the anarchists decision to espouse violence, which the point of the above question. If you want to talk about tactics of anarchists today, why not draw on examples from other groups who espoused violence, rather than comparing them to groups which largely used peaceful tactics. Apples and oranges. The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the 'kindly policeman who's there to help you' of their youth. After Rodney King? the LAPD scandal? Abner Louima? Mumia? Patrick Dorismond? Not anymore. Ever see statistics on the way people perceive racial profiling? Maybe the kindly cop stereotype still holds in whitebread middle America, but the rest of the nation is getting a clue. Want to see the other side? Kent State. True... The Sacco and Vanzetti case. Here's an uncomforably familiar bit on that--just fill in new details and it's as contemporary as ever: One case does not a generalization make. Who said it did? I thought it was interesting to note how it paralells quite a few different cases today. Anyway, I certainly think it's more relevant to the effects of the tactics of anarchism than bringing up Ghandi. Ouch. There's a real lesson there! Yeah, you need to study history more. Who doesn't? Anyway, I wasn't bringing it up to score debate points or some childish thing like that, why counter it that way. Too bad you didnt see anything interesting there-- I really do think it's really worth considering, especially in light of the whole counterterrorist mania. You're trying to sit on the fence and at the same time stand on both sides. Not really, it's a complex set of issues. Why don't you say a little more in detail about why spirit is a more central issue than tactics, that ought to be interesting. ~Faustine.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, A. Melon wrote: They've got a good idea -- one of the tactics used by cops for quite awhile is to have undercover agents in the crowd who spot the *real* troublemakers, leaders, etc. and then often an affinity squad will target that individual. By making it very difficult to differentiate any individuals, that whole cop tactic becomes useless. So there will be joint prosecutions, with each of the Bloc-ers receiving indictments for *all* of the operations performed. I also think such aggressive demonstrations will make the police even more trigger-happy than they are now. They have probably discussed this, and are willing to deal with it. After all, given the state of the American Press, this would be P.R. Suicide for the Police. The other part of the bloc is that by staying together in a tight group, they can grab arrestees from the cops more easily. We used to have groups of two or three who worked together this way, more is better. The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on street operations, and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless Maybe in Finland, but here in the US, the government official that gave the orders to shoot a crowd of protestors would *not* be working much longer. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Frankly, I don't see how any kind of short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police could be good for anything more than the symbolic. What did these Frankly, I think you're missing the point. illegal operations really accomplish apart from getting out a The point of the bloc noir attire is to attempt establishing anonymity in meatspace. Sure, but to what end? It's hardly an irrelevant question... This is the issue we're discussing, and it's strictly orthogonal to protester's other agenda. Fine. So how much anonymity do you anticipate having after the feds squirt a little of some new nonlethal substance straight down the middle of the thing and your vinegar hankies just aren't up to it? Go ahead, rack yourselves up like billiard balls for them--I'm sure they'll appreciate how much easier it is cleaning up the sticky foam afterwards. Speaking of which, here's a great quote about nonlethals from an awesome (and frightening) book on urban operations, The City's Many Faces by Russell W. Glenn, quoting someone from LASD: When I was in Somalia we had issues with foams, particularly sticky foam. I recall a conversation with our staff Judge Advocate that went something like this: Gunner, what happens if you shoot someone in the face? I said, Sir? He says, Will it stick their lips shut? I replied yes Sir, it'll stick their lips shut. He says, Well, they'll die. I said yes Sir, and that's why *we* dont call it nonlethal. So much for that. The other emerging crowd control technologies might make you reconsider, too. Worth a look!! And think of what a person really needs to be fully prepared to go into a riot situation--you'd be outfitted and equipped just like a fed. That's a clue for you right there. Of course, I guess you could always spraypaint your class IV body armor, locking plates, aramid fiber helmets etc. etc. pink or something. Or green. Now *that* would be a turtle suit worth talking about. But since nobody thinks its worth explaining why the bloc noir is more than symbolic, I guess it's a moot point. And IMHO the best way to achieve anonymity in meatspace? A great place to start would be by not deliberately engaging in possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police. You're doomed before you ever get started. But I could be wrong. Don't say I didn't tell you so. Something to think about... ~Faustine.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0400, Faustine wrote: Fine. So how much anonymity do you anticipate having after the feds squirt a little of some new nonlethal substance straight down the middle of the thing and your vinegar hankies just aren't up to it? Go ahead, rack Right. That's the problem with the Black Blockian protests: They're using 1960s technology against 2001 police arsenals. -Declan
Re: Meatspace
Faustine FUDed: And IMHO the best way to achieve anonymity in meatspace? A great place to start would be by not deliberately engaging in possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police. You're doomed before you ever get started. But I could be wrong. Don't say I didn't tell you so. Bitch, you really are a pig, aren't you? Oh, don't protest, don't be an activist, that's much too dangerous, you don't stand a chance they'll get you, blah, blah, blah. Just a little Tokyo Rose for the cyberage.
Re: Meatspace,
somebody behind a remailer wrote: And IMHO the best way to achieve anonymity in meatspace? A great place to start would be by not deliberately engaging in possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police. You're doomed before you ever get started. But I could be wrong. Don't say I didn't tell you so. Bitch, you really are a pig, aren't you? Oh, don't protest, don't be an activist, that's much too dangerous, you don't stand a chance they'll get you, blah, blah, blah. Just a little Tokyo Rose for the cyberage. Nonsense, that's not what I said at all. I raised some serious issues--and all ad-hominem attacks aside, here are a few more for anyone who feels up for it: Can you see a fundamental difference between activism/protest/resistance that makes a difference and illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police? What's the point of putting yourself into a situation where you have no chance of accomplishing anything besides getting arrested(or killed)and making some sort of symbolic statement--that doesn't fundamentally affect a single soul beyond whoever gets their property damaged? Why does pointing out the myriad ways it's possible for unarmed people to get swatted like flies by provoking people with superior gear and training automatically mean one in any way identifies with the swatters? Do you really think being an idealist should preclude you from reasoning like a realist? Who's more likely to make a difference at the WTO: a) someone outside, throwing golf balls at the building b) someone inside, presenting compelling arguments to the assembly and individual delegates Can't you think of a better way to use your skills and talents than fucking shit up and getting arrested? Can't you even think of a better way to get across your message? I can, lots of people here can. But then, it could just be you're trying to troll me from behing that anonymous remailer of yours. agent provocateur (azhang provocater): an agent employed to induce or incite a suspected person or group to commit an incriminating act. If you're not one, it's better than even money that you didn't know that the idea of the agent provocateur was invented by Czarist Russia over 100 years ago to stir the Serbs in the Balkans to a rebellion against the Turks, which Russia could use as a pretext to declare war. But its use was most prominent in combating the Socialists during the Russian Revolution of 1905. The Czars targeted young students for the operation of the agents provocateurs because students were deemed more impressionable and emotional. At one point 20 percent of all young Russian students were reported to be paid undercover agents who were to organize anti-government demonstrations and then lead the demonstrators straight into the fire of the Czarist police. Think about it. Given that, if you can't even keep a cool head posting to a message board, then you really ARE doomed. ~Faustine.
Re: Meatspace,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Can you see a fundamental difference between activism/protest/resistance that makes a difference and illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police? What's the point of putting yourself into a situation where you have no chance of accomplishing anything besides getting arrested(or killed)and making some sort of symbolic statement--that doesn't fundamentally affect a single soul beyond whoever gets their property damaged? Why does pointing out the myriad ways it's possible for unarmed people to get swatted like flies by provoking people with superior gear and training automatically mean one in any way identifies with the swatters? Do you really think being an idealist should preclude you from reasoning like a realist? Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe. Highly heirarchial defence mechanisms, such as you tout as invincible, work just fine when faced with that sort of competition. When faced with a more distributed and idealistic confrontation they eventualy fail. The question is not one of tactics, but of spirits. Sun-Tzu should be added to your summer reading list. -- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Meatspace,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 06:22:12PM -0400, Faustine wrote: Who's more likely to make a difference at the WTO: a) someone outside, throwing golf balls at the building b) someone inside, presenting compelling arguments to the assembly and individual delegates Of those two choices, probably the former, actually. Delegates won't change their positions based on oratory. Nor, in the case of a U.S. delegate who might actually grok free trade, would we want him to. -Declan
Re: Meatspace,
Jim wrote: Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe. It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes believed in violence at all! Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate people. What came of it? The Sacco and Vanzetti case. Here's an uncomforably familiar bit on that--just fill in new details and it's as contemporary as ever: The arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti coincided with the period of the most intense political repression in American history, the Red Scare 1919-20. The police trap they had fallen into had been set for a comrade of theirs, suspected primarily because he was a foreign-born radical. While neither Sacco nor Vanzetti had any previous criminal record, they were long recognized by the authorities and their communities as anarchist militants who had been extensively involved in labor strikes, political agitation, and antiwar propaganda and who had had several serious confrontations with the law. They were also known to be dedicated supporters of Luigi Galleani's Italian-language journal Cronaca Sovversiva, the most influential anarchist journal in America, feared by the authorities for its militancy and its acceptance of revolutionary violence... During this period the government's acts of repression, often illegal, were met in turn by the anarchists' attempts to incite social revolution, and at times by retaliatory violence; the authorities and Cronaca were pitted against each other in a bitter social struggle just short of open warfare. A former editor of Cronaca was strongly suspected of having blown himself up during an attentat on Attorney General Palmer's home in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 1919, an act that led Congress to vote funds for anti-radical investigations and launch the career of J. Edgar Hoover as the director of the General Intelligence Division in the Department of Justice. The Sacco- Vanzetti case would become one of his first major responsibilities. In 1920, as the Italian anarchist movement was trying to regroup, Andrea Salsedo, a comrade of Sacco and Vanzetti, was detained and, while in custody of the Department of Justice, hurled to his death. On the night of their arrest, authorities found in Sacco's pocket a draft of a handbill for an anarchist meeting that featured Vanzetti as the main speaker. In this treacherous atmosphere, when initial questioning by the police focused on their radical activities and not on the specifics of the Braintree crime, the two men lied in response. These falsehoods created a consciousness of guilt in the minds of the authorities, but the implications of that phrase soon became a central issue in the Sacco-Vanzetti case: Did the lies of the two men signify criminal involvement in the Braintree murder and robbery, as the authorities claimed, or did they signify an understandable attempt to conceal their radicalism and protect their friends during a time of national hysteria concerning foreign-born radicals, as their supporters were to claim? Ouch. There's a real lesson there! Besides, I think a lot of the success of the symbolic protests you mentioned were actually a logical result of what was going on behind the scenes--sure, they protests functioned as a PR-strategic push, but without very intelligent and dedicated people interfacing with the power structure, nothing ever would have happened at all. You remember the people who conceptualized, organized and signed the treaty, not the ones who threw the bombs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton didn't *need* the Pankhursts, if you get my drift. Highly heirarchial defence mechanisms, such as you tout as invincible, work just fine when faced with that sort of competition. When faced with a more distributed and idealistic confrontation they eventualy fail. Maybe, but keep in mind asymmetry and idealism don't always go together. Also, define idealistic. For instance, Mao appealed to the idealism of his followers, but his tactics were as hardcore as they come. And what happens when a repressive state starts to adopt asymmetric strategies to overcome asymmetric threats? That's the way it's moving, slowly but surely... The question is not one of tactics, but of spirits. Hm. I still think you need both. Sun-Tzu should be added to your summer reading list. Yep, it's certainly worth another look. Meanwhile here's a relevant quote of his I do remember: The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative. So there you have it... ;) ~Faustine.
Re: Meatspace,
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Jim wrote: Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe. It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes believed in violence at all! Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such. And while Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi). As to women sufferage, you need to do some more research there as well, not all women are pascifist. they burned more than bra's... You paint with too broad a brush (typical of the indoctrinating education of the day - going all the way back to when I was a kid in the 60's). Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate people. Every ilk assassinates every other ilk if given the oportunity and the personality. What came of it? The Indians are a free country. You and blacks can vote. The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the 'kindly policeman who's there to help you' of their youth. Want to see the other side? Kent State. The Sacco and Vanzetti case. Here's an uncomforably familiar bit on that--just fill in new details and it's as contemporary as ever: One case does not a generalization make. Ouch. There's a real lesson there! Yeah, you need to study history more. Besides, I think a lot of the success of the symbolic protests you mentioned were actually a logical result of what was going on behind the scenes No shit? That is true of everything You're trying to sit on the fence and at the same time stand on both sides. -- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To make it clear, I'm not a member of the Black Blocs, associated with them in any way, nor do I think the tactic is effective. I was asking Sampo if he was being sarcastic in his association of this tactic with an anarchist ideology of any value. Frankly, I don't see how any kind of short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police could be good for anything more than the symbolic. What did these illegal operations really accomplish apart from getting out a statement? Serious question. I'm just not seeing it. Symbolically, not much good except for recruiting young males with visions of being the storm-troopers of revolution or something. I had an off-list discussion with someone about wether these actions were purely symbolic or not, my position is that they are not. My argument is based on what these people are writing in their calls-to-arms or whatever you call them. They are actually trying to develop tactics for these situations, not present an image to others. I can respect the desire to develop tactics for operating in situations like that (breaking barricades, evacuating downed marchers etc...), if only because I imagine that such tactics will be neccesarry to provide sufficient symbolic victories. A WTO protest that has people in turtle suits running around outside the fenced off area is one thing, a WTO protest that results in the storming and/or burning down of the hotel the conference was being held is another. Oops, I just put myself on some Fed list. -- Craig Brozefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.red-bean.com/~craig Indifference is the dead weight of history. -- Antonio Gramsci
RE: Meatspace anonymity manual
Hi Can u tell me how I can unsubscribe from this mailing list ? Regards, Vinayan Menon System Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph : 3412266 Ext: 2021 VisualSoft Technologies www.visualsoft-tech.com www.visualmart.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Craig Brozefsky Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 12:37 PM To: Faustine Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Meatspace anonymity manual Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To make it clear, I'm not a member of the Black Blocs, associated with them in any way, nor do I think the tactic is effective. I was asking Sampo if he was being sarcastic in his association of this tactic with an anarchist ideology of any value. Frankly, I don't see how any kind of short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police could be good for anything more than the symbolic. What did these illegal operations really accomplish apart from getting out a statement? Serious question. I'm just not seeing it. Symbolically, not much good except for recruiting young males with visions of being the storm-troopers of revolution or something. I had an off-list discussion with someone about wether these actions were purely symbolic or not, my position is that they are not. My argument is based on what these people are writing in their calls-to-arms or whatever you call them. They are actually trying to develop tactics for these situations, not present an image to others. I can respect the desire to develop tactics for operating in situations like that (breaking barricades, evacuating downed marchers etc...), if only because I imagine that such tactics will be neccesarry to provide sufficient symbolic victories. A WTO protest that has people in turtle suits running around outside the fenced off area is one thing, a WTO protest that results in the storming and/or burning down of the hotel the conference was being held is another. Oops, I just put myself on some Fed list. -- Craig Brozefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.red-bean.com/~craig Indifference is the dead weight of history. -- Antonio Gramsci
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
Ray Dillinger wrote: On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: the protection afforded by Black Blocs is quite thin (just indict them under organized crime or gang laws), The similar clothing is enough to charge with gang membership and invoke RICO. Also, the 'black bloc' tactic has 'premeditated' written all over it. I'd say these kids haven't provided more protection for themselves; on the contrary, they've raised the stakes. The cops will have to arrest *more* people in order to deal with the bloc, but the people arrested when it happens are going to be charged with more serious crimes, like racketeering, conspiracy, and membership in a corrupt organization, than if they'd stuck with the simpler tactics. And most of what they might otherwise have claimed as defenses are going to crumble under that 'premeditation' thing. That's irrelevant -- the fedz, and even state courts, are already giving the heaviest sentences to protesters of anytime in our history. And you obviousely have never taken part in any street actions. They've got a good idea -- one of the tactics used by cops for quite awhile is to have undercover agents in the crowd who spot the *real* troublemakers, leaders, etc. and then often an affinity squad will target that individual. By making it very difficult to differentiate any individuals, that whole cop tactic becomes useless. The other part of the bloc is that by staying together in a tight group, they can grab arrestees from the cops more easily. We used to have groups of two or three who worked together this way, more is better.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, A. Melon wrote: They've got a good idea -- one of the tactics used by cops for quite awhile is to have undercover agents in the crowd who spot the *real* troublemakers, leaders, etc. and then often an affinity squad will target that individual. By making it very difficult to differentiate any individuals, that whole cop tactic becomes useless. So there will be joint prosecutions, with each of the Bloc-ers receiving indictments for *all* of the operations performed. I also think such aggressive demonstrations will make the police even more trigger-happy than they are now. The other part of the bloc is that by staying together in a tight group, they can grab arrestees from the cops more easily. We used to have groups of two or three who worked together this way, more is better. The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on street operations, and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless the Bloc actually has enough muscle to overthrow something before then, which I highly doubt, their raising the stakes seems fairly unwise. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
Sampo Syreeni wrote: The only logical conclusion I can see to skirmishes between black-clad anarchists, going on street operations, and governmental riot control forces, is that the police are eventually given the right to just gun the protestors down, irregardless of whether they have *done* anything. Unless the Bloc actually has enough muscle to overthrow something before then, which I highly doubt, their raising the stakes seems fairly unwise. Maybe that would be a GoodThing@ -- violence by the government always radicalizes more people, and more people need to become aware that all those cops need killing. And things won't change until enough people are willing to pick up a gun.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On 6 Jul 2001, Craig Brozefsky wrote: So are you being sarcastic or are you really failing to understand that Black Blocs are a short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police, and not some demonstrative symbol of anarchist philosophy representing their vision of society? I would have to be flatlining pretty bad in order not to see that. But as the protection afforded by Black Blocs is quite thin (just indict them under organized crime or gang laws), the excercise has publicity stunt written all over it, and they *are* still undeniably broadcasting a message telling Black Blockers are willing to operate in ways diametrically opposed to the core anachist ideology, the whole thing seems both clueless and untrustworthy. I think those are precisely the criteria sarcasm was invented to be applied by. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On 6 Jul 2001, Craig Brozefsky wrote: So are you being sarcastic or are you really failing to understand that Black Blocs are a short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police, and not some demonstrative symbol of anarchist philosophy representing their vision of society? I would have to be flatlining pretty bad in order not to see that. But as the protection afforded by Black Blocs is quite thin (just indict them under organized crime or gang laws), the excercise has publicity stunt written all over it, and they *are* still undeniably broadcasting a message telling Black Blockers are willing to operate in ways diametrically opposed to the core anachist ideology, the whole thing seems both clueless and untrustworthy. I think those are precisely the criteria sarcasm was invented to be applied by. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: the protection afforded by Black Blocs is quite thin (just indict them under organized crime or gang laws), The similar clothing is enough to charge with gang membership and invoke RICO. Also, the 'black bloc' tactic has 'premeditated' written all over it. I'd say these kids haven't provided more protection for themselves; on the contrary, they've raised the stakes. The cops will have to arrest *more* people in order to deal with the bloc, but the people arrested when it happens are going to be charged with more serious crimes, like racketeering, conspiracy, and membership in a corrupt organization, than if they'd stuck with the simpler tactics. And most of what they might otherwise have claimed as defenses are going to crumble under that 'premeditation' thing. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but this just looks like a silly mistake that's going to bite them in the butt to me. Bear
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
Black Blockers are willing to operate in ways diametrically opposed to the core anachist ideology, the whole thing seems both clueless and Bullshit. The anarchist ideology (which is a stupid assertion in itself) does not comprise of standing on the road alone to be run over by the truck. Anarchists were organised quite well at times. And chastising anarchists for not following their ideology makes you the Idiot of the Month. Re: Black Bloc on Broadway Yes the smells-like-teen-spirit-'anarchists' are good for little more than a laugh, though they're setting themselves up as the next domestic boogeymen after the militia Any display of force against the establishment is a very serious business. Societal order is always based on force/guns and any real challenge comes through force. On some grand scale of things, teenage black blocing will influence society more than any intellectual discourse on any forum. That is why the pigs are there and not in Tim May's* place or Chomsky's lecture - the language and semantics of both of them do not represent a threat to the establishment, they are harmless and benign. So it is quite masturbatory (in the bad meaning of the word) to denigrate kid's actions on the streets. There is no record in the recent history (few thousand years) that any real change was effected without force. Everything else is pacifying farce. * This is purely stereotypical and has nothing to do with the actual TM.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
At 09:36 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: The similar clothing is enough to charge with gang membership and invoke RICO. I love it. If my kid goes to public school, he'll be prohibited from wearing = 50% black clothing as that would indicate sympathy with an UnAmerican Activity.
Re: Meatspace anonymity manual
Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Anonymous Coredump wrote: THE BLACK BLOC The whole idea of a Black Bloc is that people wear all black, and stay in a tight formation. If people don't stay in formation, and wander around with large gaps in-between, well, that's not a black bloc, that's a march of anarchists wearing black. Now, let me get this straight...anarchists whose primary display of ideology is to stay in tight formation? I understand that anarchy does not imply lack of organization...but formations? Sheesh. So are you being sarcastic or are you really failing to understand that Black Blocs are a short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police, and not some demonstrative symbol of anarchist philosophy representing their vision of society? Frankly, I don't see how any kind of short-term tactic for possibly illegal operations on the street in an environment full of police could be good for anything more than the symbolic. What did these illegal operations really accomplish apart from getting out a statement? Serious question. I'm just not seeing it. Making a few gestures pantomiming paramilitary operations is just plain suicidal. The bottom line is that in a protest-type situation, you're relying on the power of negative PR to keep the police from mowing you down any old time they feel like it. It doesn't matter what color you wear or how tight you march, you're still as vulnerable as anyone else if you don't have some serious, serious gear and training. And is that really the direction you're prepared to go? Think about it. A few acts of vandalism isn't exactly anything I'd call significant. And it's kind of sad that you really think anyone with real power and influence actually gives a damn about anything that happens at these protests to begin with. Sure, it keeps their PR spokesmen spinning, but otherwise it's laughed off as a total joke and annoyance. You don't have to like it to realize that's the way it is. So why not spend your time writing some useful and relevant software or books instead, something that really makes an impact. Creativity, not destruction. At any rate, it sure beats facing the prospect of rotting in jail as a political prisoner on trumped-up destruction of property charges--sending your whole life straight down the toilet for absolutely nothing. But it's your lives, do whatever you want. I'm sure you will. ~Faustine.
