The Media's Spin On Anarchists

There has recently been a growing and disturbing trend whereby right-wing idealogues, organizations, and terrorists have been presented in the media as being “anti-government” or even anarchists. This effectively serves to confuse the public about the philosophy of anarchism and what anarchists actually stand for. And this practice will, undoubtedly, have negative consequences for actual anarchist communities.

This inaccurate media portrayal of right wing extremists really caught my attention after the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin – when Amy Goodman subsequently interviewed a former DHS analyst on the subject of “right-wing extremists.” In that interview her guest dismissed the idea that Timothy McVeigh was a racist and no mention of his Christian fundamentalism was put forward. He was described primarily as being involved with “anti-government” militias. This despite the fact that McVeigh constantly praised the Turner Diaries (a novel that romanticizes a race war), which he sold below cost at gun shows, and despite the fact that he was associated with the fundamentalist Christian Identity movement. And, actually, McVeigh was not really anti-government. Rather, he was merely opposed to certain aspects of the government currently in charge. So, while I am a frequent member of DemocracyNow's audience, I think Ms.Goodman dropped the ball in this particular interview and should have been a little more challenging with her questions.

More to the point along these lines... a prominent headline in the news recently has been about a supposed “anarchist” cell within the U.S. military which was allegedly planning to carry out political assassinations, blow up dams, and poison Washington state's apple orchards. However, despite numerous headline's referring to them as “anarchists,” when one looked a little deeper it was discovered that these "anarchists" were actually just “true patriots” who were essentially looking to take the country back. Later it was revealed that the alleged ringleader of the group was an usher at the RNC in 2008. Like McVeigh, this group seems to be comprised of fairly typical right-wing militants – who are not really "anti-government" and certainly not anarchists.

An Open Letter To Derrick Jensen

Dear DJ,

I hope you don't mind me addressing you by your initials because that has simply become a habit of mine over the years as I've spammed links to your articles and videos all over the internet. Indeed, you have often given voice to certain issues in a way that is very much appreciated. For that, I must thank you.

However... I am inclined to write this letter, and make it public, because I don't feel you adequately address criticism from those of us who share many of your concerns and much of your perspective. I can understand this lack of a response in psychological terms because no one likes to be criticized. Nevertheless, I feel that honestly acknowledging such criticism could be beneficial to expanding the discussion about the issues and ideas you champion. As I don't have much faith in getting a response from you on any public forums, and because my time during any Q & A period would undoubtedly be limited, I've chosen to present my criticism and questions thusly.

The Folly of Christopher Hedges

Often, when describing the inevitable scenes of major protests in the United States, I evoke the image of a person who has lost a brother in Iraq, a person who has also lost a sister to the trumped up drug war, whose father had his job outsourced, whose mother had her pension gambled away by speculators, whose grandmother lost her home of 50 years because she missed a mortgage payment, and whose grandfather died of industrial poisoning and couldn't afford health care. And make no mistake... variants of such individuals readily exist. So when such a person understandably shows up to protest the corporate oligarchy at a G8 meeting (or the national conventions of the corporate parties), they aren't there to sing kumbaya, march along a permitted path, or have their head cracked by the brutal police. And if they get so angry that they throw a brick through a bank window... I will be the last person to condemn them.

I'm not giving the condescending approval of a social worker who understands some flawed psychology behind such actions... I'm suggesting that such rowdiness is perfectly human, rational, and even inspiring. I'm not suggesting that any particular individual at any particular event engage in such actions, but I fully understand some of the motivation behind such actions and wouldn't condemn an individual engaging in them. And I don't feel that condemnation or further punishment of such individuals is beneficial to society. On the contrary, such individuals may likely prove to be on the cutting edge of actual change in this country.

Enter Chris Hedges and the privileged leftist elite trying to pacify and reign in the righteous indignation of many abused Americans. As in his latest article, they primarily prescribe as a method for social change... accepting more punishment and self-sacrifice. But that's easier to suggest for some than others. And why must they so often be quick to condemn those who aren't willing to take anymore punishment? I'd suggest this reflects a shallow understanding of the true pain already administered to so many people and the sacrifices they've already made.

END:CIV – RESIST OR DIE – Full Documentary

From http://submedia.tv/endciv/

Understanding Anarcho-Primitivism

NEWSFLASH: Anarcho-primitivists, rather than seeking to destroy everything, are trying to curtail the anthropocene mass extinction furthered by the techno-industrial civilization which continues it's destructive plunder at this very moment.  

A primary problem with anarcho-primitivism is that it is both maligned in ignorance and promoted with ideals of zealous purity.  As the years have went by, and after constantly having the primitivist critique at my disposal (at least in the back of my mind), it is clear to me that it is often misunderstood by both critics and proponents alike.  And, after garnering some much deserved attention around the turn of the century, I worry now that the philosophy may be getting lost amidst the growing struggle to meet basic immediate needs and the growing number of distractions in a culture of banalities and spectacle.

In an effort to convey the particulars and subtleties of primitivism, pedantic definitions will (perhaps ironically) be necessary.  For those versed in the terminology and who understand the basic concepts of the philosophical positions promoted by primitivism... these definitions may seem over-wrought and excessive.  However, part of the problem with anarcho-primtivism is (as with many philosophical schools of thought) that each thinker writing on the subject will have their own particular idiosyncratic nuances in regard to the meaning of particular words and phrases.  When dealing with a subject that partly criticizes the development and implementation of basic language... the task of clarifying these subjects and terms becomes even more tedious.  Nevertheless, intellectual honesty and a need for thoroughness requires effort on the part of any who would seriously like to ponder complex and intricate subjects.  Efforts will be taken in that regard as this article proceeds. 

Anarchy, Technophiles, Freedom & Primitivism

(The following piece was written to create a dialogue in response to an article entitled: "Anarchy Would Most Likely Prevent The BP Oil Disaster" written by someone known as ComradShaw.)

The ideas presented in ComradShaw's article are somewhat ideal, but they seem to rely too heavily on a misguided notion of self-restraint -- when such a thing seems to be seriously lacking in actual reality. The author seems to think that everyone could vote and agree on everything -- which, while potentially nice in practice, may or may not actually be somewhat more ideal in the consequences. My point isn't that people shouldn't rely on self-restraint in many matters, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't have a much greater say about what goes on in their world. But even free people in a far more egalitarian society could make horrible mistakes. And hubris, whether coming from the whole or from even just a segment of society, can lead to disaster.

Infiltration, Surveillance, Brutality: The Police State is Issue #1

No matter what your primary concerns about society are -- environmental degradation, sweatshop labor, war, racism, etc. -- without foremostly addressing and scaling back the corporate police state, i.e. the prison-industrial complex, any progressive social change you are advocating for can, and will, be thwarted. This matters not if you are part of the most non-violent vegan sewing circle or if you are prepared to throw down in the streets for the dignity of humankind. Any perceived threat to the status quo, to profits and destruction, will be subjected to the evermore brazen and militarized forces of the state.

Zero Point Indeed: A Response to Chris Hedges

In his latest article, Zero Point of Systemic Collapse (February '10 Adbusters),Chris Hedges analyzes the breakdown of the modern socio-economic & global political system. Anyone on the eyes-wide-open radical fringes is likely to have seen elsewhere many of the points Hedges makes in his article. However, as always, such work is often worth a look as it may challenge or clarify some of the ideas you may have had on the various subjects presented. Personally, I took issue with some of the things he wrote and found some theoretical shortcomings which were not very enlightening.

Resist Do Not Comply

Dignity, Freedom, Idealism & Expectations

"We are far too slow to outrun it now but not too far gone to care"
--Balance by the Mountain Goats

I was recently chatting with a dear friend about various philosophical perspectives and, being mildly provoked and not completely devoid of ego, I felt the the need to defend my own perspective. People always seem to try and pigeonhole me as being an excessively idealistic hippie or an excessively cynical anarchist. Perhaps there is some truth in both assessments (I can only hope that Derrick Jensen has the same problem). In any case... this is my personal perspective/self-assessment in regard to what I write and stand for philosophically.

Dystopia Now! How bad does it have to get?

Humanity is in crisis, bodily and spiritually. Humans are the direct cause of the current mass extinction. The biosphere is being laid to waste, in new ways all the time, at a quicker rate each passing day. The evidence, from prestigious bodies of scientists, is readily available via our toxic computers and the world wide web. We who are fortunate enough to get these facts ignore the information, dismiss it, or don't act upon it nearly to the degree which we ought. Human caused mass extinction will eventually catch up with our own species.

Despite pockets of affluence, more people around the world are starving today than at any point in human history OR pre-history (both in total numbers and per-capita). Agricultural practices have allowed for a global population boom but they also deplete the capabilities of the soil with each harvest. Deforestation and petro-chemicals only temporarily alleviate the problem by creating more farmland and fertilizers. But these tactics are not a long-term solution by any means and, in fact, make the long term consequences much worse. Unfortunately, these are the most common solutions implemented.

The potential for devastation caused by war has not lessened since the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. More devastating technologies have since been developed and more groups have an easier time gaining access to them. Intelligence agencies designed to prevent it are often complicit in proliferating the technology. Archaic religious wars have reached the age of nuclear weapons and hostilities are just as great as ever. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler or an evil Ayatollah/Pope gets access to this technological power.

I would make the case connecting the progress of industrialized education with the progress of technological weaponry, but the institution is sacrosanct and scientific progress is presented as both unstoppable and desirable. Consequently, whether that's true or not doesn't matter... too few question or resist it. Most luddites are presented as historically irrelevant, currently misguided, or revered only in the realm of science fiction. Let me just say that primitive children living in the wilderness know as much about the world as children repeating their abc's and multiplication tables.

The prison-industrial complex is a fast-growing business. Already though, in America, more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and per-capita) than in any other nation. Land of the free indeed.

To the extent that other oppressive regimes exist around the world, they work with each and/or the United States of America. The Peoples Republic of China, for example, is the number one trading partner of the U.S. and both benefit by keeping large portions of their population repressed. Oligarchic powers around the world all benefit from (and desire to keep) large segments of the global population repressed and in poverty. They are able to pit these oppressed people against each other by old religious and nationalistic methods as well as modern media propaganda -- and do you think that the U.S. leaders would really want the Chinese to rise up in liberation to throw off their oppressors? No more than the Chinese oligarchs would want domestic upheaval in the USA.

This all amounts to modern humanity, and all life on earth, being in an unprecedented crisis. Our ethics and morality have only kept up with our technological capabilities insomuch as the more that we could do, we did. And make no mistake, supposedly benign mathematics can have surprising implications towards less noble pursuits -- Einstein should have taught us that (if Alfred Nobel didn't). And who are the esteemed intellectuals of science? Why they are rocket scientists, of course. But the point is that the fruits of benign sciences can plant the seeds of further devastation. This is a point that should not be as readily dismissed as it often is.

What we need is a fundamental break from the technological oligarchy, but this is no small chore. Those in power will not accept this because they don't have to face the common realities of the masses and, even if they knew of our crisis, they may be content to let the world die with them. How unprecedented is it that so many care so little about their children and their subsequent descendants? How much more true must this be for a high-tech war-profiteering arms dealer? We are talking about people who don't really care even about their immediate families -- much less you or any of the other billions of people on this planet!

Momentarily, I will get on to a milder response to the present situation but, what we really need is a revolt against the whole techno-industrial oligarchy. Even if they can't be stopped, even if they wholly intend to take the world with them, basic human dignity demands that we resist and rise up against their efforts. It may be wholly futile, but at what point is your entire lineage essentially dead anyway? In the name of non-violence, some people wouldn't punch someone in the nose to prevent them from launching a nuclear holocaust -- I am not one of those persons. As the most domesticated animal, humans have been bred into passivity or blind servitude, but I suggest you break those mental chains and act for the greater good of not only yourself, but also future generations.

In less dramatic terms, we must push the precautionary principle as far and as hard as it will go! The current wikipedia definition will suffice:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. But in some legal systems, as the European Union Law, the precautionary principle is also a general principle of law. This means that it is compulsory. The principle aims to provide guidance for protecting public health and the environment in the face of uncertain risks, stating that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone measures where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm to public health or the environment.

There are many definitions of the precautionary principle. Precaution is caution in advance, or ‘caution practised in the context of uncertainty’. All definitions have two key elements.

1. an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
2. the establishment of an obligation, if the level of harm may be high, for action to prevent or minimise such harm even when the absence of scientific certainty makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring, or the level of harm should it occur. The need for control measures increases with both the level of possible harm and the degree of uncertainty

Full implementation of the Precautionary Principle is just a start of the epic project which humanity must commence with. Not only must we work to prevent the implementation of new potentially devastating technologies, but we must stymie the usage of several ubiquitous technologies which already cause great amounts of destruction. Even simple projects protecting local green spaces are useful endeavors. Horticultural gardening to prevent the need for so much industrial agriculture (and processing) is a simple step which not only works towards these ends, but it is also a pleasant activity which can considerably help preserve financial resources. The list goes on, but moving away from the industrial cycle of consumption is key.

Again, however, we are faced with the problem of power dynamics. As a twist of Margaret Meade's famous statement about activism... I like to point out, "It only takes small group of committed individuals to do a great amount of environmental and social harm." Those who have demonstrated their commitment to environmental destruction and promote policies of war must be stopped. The key is consciousness of our own complicity within the destructive systems and an honest effort to move away from such practices -- without that we are less than human. But you are not on the same scale of a Hitler if you fight back against a rapist and using a tissue is not the same as enthusiastically encouraging the destruction of the rain forests. It is foolish not to consider intent or scale when thinking about such matters. Violence in self-defense (or in defense of others, or in defense of the environment) is not the same as aggressive violence for the purposes of greed and destruction. Do not let people convince you that saying a hurtful word is the same as the President, on national television, encouraging war. Yes, we are all sinners and are flawed, but some of us are just human while others are absolutely diabolic.

Preemptively, in terms of my own personal computer use, I like to say, for example, "The best uses for the tools of destruction are against the other tools of destruction." I hope that makes sense to some people.

Finally, I'd like to take a moment and talk about suppression and repression of radical environmentalists. In the past it was the communists/socialists who were seen as the preeminent threat to big business interests, but now it is the radical environmentalists (who often have a more anarchistic stance). The "red scare" has become the "green scare" and the tactics used previously are being used again. Before 9/11 it was the Earth Liberation Front that was considered by the U.S. government as the #1 domestic terrorist threat. This despite the fact that no one was ever physically harmed in an action claimed by that group. This despite the fact that the KKK still exists and neo-nazi's still flourish. This despite the fact that the police forces in this nation still kill innocent people every day.

So take this as a warning... if you want to struggle against the state's interests, even if you organize in the most peaceful ways, the state will take notice. Resistance is needed, but you must fully consider the consequences of even your most trivial participation in such activities.

With any luck, someday the value system of techno-industrialization civilization will be completely turned on its head. We will have peace and not war. Freedom and not constant surveillance by our so-called leaders. Conservation and sustainability rather than unhindered environmental degradation. But we must work and struggle for these things if we truly want change. It won't come from above, not from god or a politician. We must take it upon ourselves to bring about this the reality or it's not going to manifest. It is our responsibility. It is our duty as human beings.

An Open Challenge to Chomsky, Zerzan & Zinn

Like many others around the world, I owe a great deal of my political awareness and social consciousness to Noam Chomsky, John Zerzan and Howard Zinn.

From reading Chomsky I was made aware of the ongoing effects of bureaucratic policies sanctioning war and death squads. Zerzan made clear the depths of alienation from sustainable pathways and the need for truly radical change. Zinn not only impressed upon me the honest brutality of American history, but his his promotion of Gandhian non-violence (which I don't wholly agree with) is so much more promising than the useless finger-wagging and petition-passing undertaken by so many in the name of activism.

I have personally spoken with Zerzan and Zinn and have exchanged written correspondence with Zerzan and Chomsky in the form of letters and email. And, as much as I respect and admire these three, I have tried to challenge them rather than simply flatter and defer. Often it may have come across as youthful arrogance or hubris, but great people need intellectual challenges from those who esteem them and regard them as allies. Simple deference and toadyism is best left to crumbling aristocracies.

To Chomsky I once wrote:
"I do believe that violence is an ever-present reality that has brought (and can bring) some degree of liberation. For example, when the British pulled out of Gandhi's India it wasn't just because of Gandhian satyagraha -- it was also because many Indians were starting to get up-in-arms and menacing to the empire. Similarly, here in the US, it wasn't just the freedom riders and the MLK's that brought some degree of justice to African-Americans. The black militants of that era proved that people of color were not going to be pushed around any more. They set an example and the riots may have sealed much of the equal rights deal.

As for peak oil, we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe the science is out there to prove it's reality. Furthermore, alternative energy is just not a realistic substitute for all of the uses for petroleum. Solar power will never move grocery store semi-trailers and wind power isn't capable of diverting the Colorado river to the people of Los Angeles. The subtle role petro-chemicals play in our lives will have a devastating effect when the petroleum they derive from is gone. Processed petro-chemicals (largely for agriculture) are the number one export of the US. I'm sure we both agree on the danger of nuclear power (and besides, it's depletable too)."

To Zinn, whom I've spoken with at two of his speaking engagements, I once asked (in my blunt youth):

"How many people do you think it would have take chained to the gates of Auschwitz to shut that camp down?" Caught off guard, he flippantly replied, "About a million," and then went on to explain that WW2 was not about freeing the Jews. And while he was right about the latter point, I couldn't disagree more with his initial response -- and I think it reveals a literally fatal flaw in Gandhian non-violence when dealing with a truly despotic regime.

To Zerzan, I played the devil's advocate in questioning his denunciation of reformist procedures. I did so, mostly, just to get a rise out of the man whom I regard as the most important anarchist philosopher of our age -- and I succeeded. He once bought me a bus ticket out of Eugene.

I beg them all now to forgive any lack of tact or social grace that I may have exhibited. Those who know me, know that I am a flawed character -- and I am painfully aware of this reality of myself. I have tried to become a milder, less objectionable person... but I probably still have a little bit of work to do in that regard.

Let me get to the point of this open letter by way of some personal history...

I am an activist, a radical activist and, in my younger days, a very radical activist. I burnt my first flag in high school while a member of the debate team and I wore its charred tatters on the back of my jacket. After that, I produced a little zine promoting veganism and Gandhian non-violence. Later, I hitchhiked up and down the the west coast with a suitcase full of Gandhi autobiographies for sale. I've been the guest anarchist on a talk radio program and I've called in countless other times to comment -- even getting through to Larry King Live once. I've protested everything from wars, to the KKK, to McDonald's (and the McDonald's I worked against most directly is now a post office).

At the WTO protest, in Seattle '99, I was not only teargassed and pepper sprayed, but I was also drugged at the Capitol Hill protest when the police ran amuck. I was encouraging people to stay in the streets and pointing out the police thugs in the crowd who were wearing the same yellow jackets as the thugs on nearby rooftops. I was generally encouraging resistance and mocking the city councilman who was trying to get people onto the sidewalks. Then a guy approached me with some funny $3 bills (with Bill Clinton's picture on them) suggesting the symbolic act of burning the money. As soon as I took the money my my fingers immediately got sticky and I noticed the guy who handed it to me was wearing gloves. He disappeared into the crowd and I tried to warn others about what just happened. A while later the councilman walked through the crowd again, looked me square in the face with a smile and asked, "So, how are you feeling?" While fairly inexperienced with most drugs, I never tripped harder in my life -- or in a more unpleasant environment. My friend and I were the last two protesters on Capitol Hill that night and I practically had to drag him away as the police were advancing through the teargas.

But it wasn't until I started publicly advocating the actions of the Earth Liberation Front (NOT engaging in their activities, mind you) that the heat really started coming down on me. (I had been run down on my bicycle by a private snowplow [in 70 degree weather] by a driver who should have seen me, but I'm not certain I can blame the sustained injuries on the state.) When I started advocating the actions of the E.L.F. I was assigned a constant tail. This worm showed up everywhere I went in town (Arcata, CA). He parked in front of my apartment (Judi Bari's old Earth First! office) and late at night, when I went to the grocery store, he would be the only other customer there. (I have good reason to believe that he was involved with the arson of the old Northcoast Environmental Center but I have no definitive proof and I am not naming names as I hope to get this article syndicated.)

Suffice it to say, this was a very psychologically taxing time. My friends, and even housemates, were behaving increasingly suspicious. I would find leaflets on my doorstep promoting self-euthanasia in support of the environment. People close to me began spreading lies about others and so... I decided to go back home to Rockford, IL. My grandmother bought me a Greyhound ticket and I began my journey home on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001.

When I arrived back home, after a long absence, my life was in shambles. Physically, mentally, spiritually and psychologically I was in shambles. I was 27 years old, defeated, living with my Grandmother and working as a clerk in a gas station/convenience store.

On the morning of November 23rd, 2001 (the day after Thanksgiving) I attempted suicide by means of self-immolation at Cherryvale Mall (in a would-be last act of protest against materialism, consumerism and generally what I felt was wrong with this messed up world). I went to the upper level, failed to handcuff myself to the thick railing, told everyone to "STAND BACK," and I lit myself on fire. Even now, seven years later, it's hard to talk about. Adbusters published an abbreviated letter I wrote on the subject and that's about all I've said about it.

I expected to die, I expected the mall to close for the day, and I expected my protest to be understood for what it was. I was wrong on all accounts. It was the worst mistake of my life -- one that I regret every day -- and I am ashamed and sorry for what I did. I am thankful to the good Samaritan who saved my life and am glad to be alive (despite being in a coma for a month and having scars over a third of my body). Suicide is a poor option and I hope no one makes the choice to do what I did. I spent 6 months in a mental institution after I got out of the burn unit and, all in all, I can't hardly imagine a more hellish experience.

You don't have to feel sorry for me (as it was my mistake and I've since tried to move on with my life in more healthy directions). But most people aren't aware of all the circumstances and, while they don't justify my actions, I do feel that I was somewhat pushed in the direction I regretfully went. Psyops are used by the U.S. government, people are drugged by the state, and healthier people than me have probably cracked; been pushed over the edge.

The three of you (to whom I address this open letter) may not have experienced this kind of thing personally, but I beg you to consider the truly insidious and diabolic nature of the state -- especially when it's agents feel they can act with impunity against someone, someone like me.

I come from very humble origins, have no degree (was expelled from high school), and socially I'm awkward even outside the realm of politics. I come from a place with horrible politics, redneck central, and standoffish eccentrism has probably served me well in that environment. But the point is... I was isolated. It's true that your books helped, but I was self-educated and radicalized on my own -- alone with hardly even any liberals around. My activism was my own and I stood alone, easily targeted.

But I don't feel that I was targeted because I was simply an activist, I think I was good at what I did. More people have probably read my writing and seen my agitprop than is realized. Sometimes as a sticker, sometimes as a leaflet, sometimes as a letter to the editor, I found ways to spread my ideas without always going through the normal channels or receiving any recognition or accolades. Regardless, I feel like the memes I've helped to spread have, in fact, spread. I even suspect that some of my original ideas may have possibly taken root. This is probably because many societal problems are at a crisis level and people feel the need for direct, radical and immediate action. In any case, ironically, the state probably has a more comprehensive summary of my activism than many of my friends (most of whom know little to none of the information I've written here).

So now that I've told you where I've been and where I'm coming from, I'll tell you where I'm at and where I'm going -- and why I've written this open letter...

I am not the agitating young firebrand I was. I'm honestly less concerned than I was with changing the world and I've realized a certain amount of futility in trying. Not that I'm hopeless, merely that I'm not expecting as much positive change or as consumed by the world's problems. These days I spend as much time playing cards, video games and fantasy baseball as I do on anything else. Nevertheless, some of my recent articles have been syndicated and even headlined at OpEdNews. I think this goes show the level-headed populism of my work. Other individuals have seen the articles at that website and reposted them elsewhere -- again demonstrating the relatively mainstream practicality of my writing. But success has come at a price... I fear that I may once again be on the governments radar.

My most recent article, "Tactics and Prognosis for a Successful RNC Protest" was headlined at the prominent anarchist site Infoshop News and that version of the article has now ranked for about a week near the top of Google search results when querying "rnc protest". As of today, it's the third listed item for that search (only after 2 links for http://protestrnc2008.org). And two other versions of the article (which random people have reposted on their own) are regularly ranking in the top 20 search results (so people looking for RNC protest information can't help but to see the article title appearing repeatedly). Consequently, while I was honored that Infoshop News headlined the article (and that others liked it enough to re-present it on their various sites), I worry now that the state may target me again for continuing to be a successfully vocal dissident. If you search for "RNC protest activist" or "RNC protest anarchist" my article is at the very top of the results page (sometimes in all the various versions, sometimes with the older articles) and that has me a bit worried -- if somewhat proud at the same time.

"Tactics and Prognosis" is the third article I've written on the subject in recent months and the other two, Thoughts on the Upcoming RNC Protests & Be Prepared for Police Violence at the RNC Protest, also appear fairly high in various searches on the subject. In none of the articles do I encourage violence or property destruction on behalf of the protest. The rub is that I don't condemn those who are striking back against the corrupt system which is destroying their lives. In fact, I think certain levels of physically aggressive militancy are quite justifiable. But I'll say it again... I am not going to be violent or destructive at the protest (or in the foreseeable future beyond the protest for that matter). I simply don't want to go through the incarceration process again. I'll be present to stand in the streets with the masses -- armed only with cameras. If I get in trouble, despite my relative passivity, I'll be ready to make my case and tell my story.

In addition to justifying (not encouraging) physical resistance, the articles support the proposed blockade tactics (which many groups have signed onto) and also the idea of breakaway protest marches (as a permitted protest isn't much of a protest at all). The articles also present many clickable text links to video examples of police brutality (which frequently occurs at these mass protests directed especially towards non-violent protesters) and I also focus on the ways in which the corporate media outlets whitewash the criminal police misconduct. The point is that the police are supposed to be disciplined and practice restraint (even with surly protesters) but they readily brutalize even the most passive and non-violent of protesters (not to mention uninvolved passers-by). The pigs should be called out on this and potential protesters should be expecting this treatment (even as they commit to show up and express their dissent).

My fear is that I will be targeted again (as I was at the aforementioned WTO protest) for spreading these ideas in light of my previous protest history. It may even be more likely this time around.

So what I'm asking for (from Chomsky, Zerzan & Zinn) is your public support if the state goes after me. This was obviously written preemptively, but I still fear it may happen and I may at least require legal assistance if I'm not violently decapacitated in some way. You may think it grandiose and absurd of me to suggest these things because I've not had books published or gained any notable public recognition. But I've been in the streets, am going back to the streets, and I've been a part of the revolutionary liberation movement (what there is of it) for years. And that's precisely what makes me a target. I am not the idealized notion of a radical/activist, but I don't think I should be forsaken while my work is trivialized. Here is the challenge I issue to the three whom this article is addressed:

1) Publicly support and encourage people to protest the fascistic Republicans as they gather and organize in St. Paul, MN (Sept. 1-4, 2008). They are going to be networking, promoting and celebrating more of the same destruction they've already wrought.

2) Help find legal support for myself and others when we are targeted by the state for protesting, organizing, and/or advocating radical activity.

3) Consider making an effort towards finding a place for people like myself in more established radical circles. Even work as a fairly compensated wage slave could be helpful. We can write/edit/bake/sew and we deserve support from established communities (rather than being forced to work for a pittance under petit tyrants in the system we are struggling against).

I realize that these challenges combine community building with calls to action, but I only know how to make radical requests. Please respond to the best of your ability, however you may, in as timely a manner as you are capable. I am requesting that this open letter be featured at OpEdNews (as they have a good progressive network in place and deserve any traffic your responses may create). I will also be emailing this to your respective accounts and reposting it in various newsgroups (like alt.fan.noam-chomsky & alt.anarchism). I am requesting that your friends and colleagues bring this article to your attention as well. Whether any of you three choose to stoop in response to this letter, I would ask that you each publicly support a growing protest movement as energetically as you are able. Specifically to Mr. Zinn, I request that you, if you choose to disparage other forms of militancy, pointedly encourage Gandhian militancy (because Gandhi and MLK did much more than simply wave signs and march down permitted routes).

Respectfully & Sincerely,
In Revolution,
RL

Why I keep posting about undercover police leading anti-war protests

Why I keep posting about the undercover police leading protest marches...

Firstly... I think it's a buried story of great importance (reposted again at the end of this analysis) that everyone should see.

Secondly... I want to remind people that their "friends" on myspace are not necessarily their friends. Even the tamest of activists might consider taking some measures of security culture to ensure that they aren't dealing with infiltrating agent provocateurs. If you check one of my older blogs you might see more about this.

Anyway, beyond the Orwellian nature of this police tactic (but somewhat related), I have a little conspiracy theory of my own about 9/11 conspiracy nuts...

While some of them may be good-hearted simpletons with good intentions, I think they may fall victim to some of those who must realize how ridiculous some of their own outrageous claims actually are. Then, when they tie their despicable and disgusting conspiratorial lies to something like the anti-war movement (or basic civil liberties issues) these causes are tied together with the disreputable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. And then the outrageous conspiracies make the plausible connections to governmental misdeeds seem over the top as well.

Furthermore, and here is where I might get a little out there myself... I wouldn't be surprised if these conspiracy wingnuts are actually trying to make connections and earn trust within other anti-governmental liberation movements. I guess I am just reiterating that point but it HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST (see the vids on my page) and you can be sure the government is using deep cover agents who are willing to risk life and limb to destroy current liberation movements. I think the expose about the undercover cops leading protest marches demonstates this reality quite well.

So here's the idea... If you (or persons you care about) are interested in protesting against the war and the police state, please repost this message in it's entirety. I will add the article about the undercover police "protesters" at the end of this bulletin and I ask you, as a personal favor, to copy and post this whole message (in it's entirety) as a reposted bulletin. I'll consider a personal favor and a step towards building a stronger community of activists on myspace.
Sincerely,
nihilo0

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/OAKLAND-Police-spies-chosen-to-lead-war-protest-2492271.php



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/28/SURVEILLANCE.TMP&type=printable