Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF IMC Sits Down with Matt Gonzalez
Transcript of SF IMC interview with Matt Gonzalez.
SF IMC: In SF, when the war in Iraq started, there was obviously a bigger response
than anywhere else in the country, coupled with lots of demonstrations and subsequent
police action, I wanted to get your thoughts on what happened in those days?
Matt Gonzalez: Well you know the board had passed a resolution opposing the war, and we're very mindful of the impacts that engaging in a war like this, not only the negative impacts on the people of Iraq and the humanitarian issues at stake, but it's a lot of money that's being mispent that should be spend on municipalities and building infrastructure in our own country. Instead we're sending a ton of soldiers to another place and that's very expensive, and just on that level there's a lot for us to weigh in on it.
I thought that the protesters could have focused their energy more on the Federal Building, as opposed to the local more city hall-type buildings. I thought that the protesters by and large behaved well. Those engaged in civil disobendience expected to be arrested, and that's fine.
The police overreacted one day, when they made arrests around McAllister and Gaugh Street when they made a decision to arrest peaceful marchers; and I think that was a terrible mistake. It cost the city probably two or three million dollars, and I think that it doesn't make sense.
When you're in a city like San Francisco, and you've got an extraordinary thing happening, you've got people participating in a peaceful demonstration, do you really want to invoke things like they're obstructing the sidewalk, or they don't have a permit to march?
I think the better course would have been, hey, let folks march. If it's peaceful, you can follow them around. It's easy to do, the police do it all the time. That certainly would have been the better course.
I certainly made my opinion known to the chief of police, and I was a little bit surprised that I was only city supervisor that participated in a press conference condemning the police actions, on the steps of city hall. There was a public sentiment that was rather divided, some felt that protesters should have been arrested, and so I think there were some legislators who didn't want to get in the middle of something they didn't need to.
I felt differently, I felt that important to say, hey, that shouldn't have happened.
SF IMC: Had you been mayor, do you think you would have been able to do something to prevent...
Matt Gonzalez: Yes, the relationship is different. I would have got on the phone with the Chief of Police and say, hey, what the fuck are you doing? When you're the President of the Board of Supervisors, the department heads do not work for you. You don't pick up the phone and they interact with you.
If you don't like what's going on, you can bring it up in hearings, or budget process, but that's much after the fact. When you're the mayor, these folks are working directly beneath you, I would have been very active.
SF IMC: One recent development in the Mayoral race has been a somewhat bizarre turn of events regarding an email that was sent out announcing a protest against Al Gore, Gavin Newsom, and against the Democratic Party. It was supposed to have been sent by the Green Party, but now it is pretty clear that it was sent by Gavin Newsom's campaign. What are you thoughts on this kind of politics?
Matt Gonzalez: Well, I think the Newsom camp should be very embarrased by it. I think it shows the lack of integrity that they have, and a certain degree of desperation on their part.
But imagine, does this city really want a Mayor that's sitting around sending emailing purporting to be somebody else?
I think the whole thing is incredibly embarrasing.
SF IMC: Do you believe that they're engaged in other activity like this?
Matt Gonzalez: We've seen some pretty odd things. We've had some of their people snooping around the office, coming in trying to get information about what we're up to, and things like that.
Yeah, they're doing a lot of that kind of counter-intellegence type stuff. Maybe that always happens with a campaign, we certainly don't engage in it.
SF IMC: A lot of people have been very disappointed and disgusted regarding the integrity of Mayor Brown over the last eight years, and the interests that he has been serving while in office. If you're elected Mayor, what interests do you intend to be serving, and what will be your motivating factors?
Matt Gonzalez: I've been trying to do politics differently. One of the things I've done that I would certainly do as Mayor is not get into office and be thinking about four years later re-election. I would very much go into office feeling, okay, I've got four years, let's make the most of it.
That's not to say that getting re-elected is irrelevent or something like that, but if you're focused on that, then you often water down your ideas, or you're suseptable to influence that you shouldn't be, and it interferes with your ability to make the right decisions.
And that's what I want to be, I want to be somebody that makes the right decisions, and isn't thinking about my own political longeivity. I think as a result of that I'm more effective and more honest and true to the beliefs I hold.
SF IMC: Do you believe that this is why the Green Party is becoming a more viable political option in the United States?
Matt Gonzalez: I think it is in part. I think the Greens that have held office have tried to bring ethics to government, and decision-making that is based on the merits of a particular decision, rather than "Oh, I can't vote the way I want because then it's going to hurt me when I stand for election."
Even in this particular race I've been attacked for taking positions recently at the Board of Supervisors that were the right decisions, but don't play well in the public. Whether it be opposing some school charter ammendment that everybody thinks is the panacea, and I say "Gee, I like it, but where's the money to pay for all of this?"
You're not supposed to do that when you're running for office. You're supposed to do the opposite. You're supposed to pander to the public, and make promises, and tell them how much you're going to give them, without regard to the truth as to whether you can actually do those things.
I'm pleased that the electorate in San Francisco is very smart, and doesn't fool easily, and I think that's why I can get elected in this town.
SF IMC: If you get elected Mayor, in four years do you see the city of San Francisco?
Matt Gonzalez: I think you're going to have a very ethical government, You're going to see a government with a lot of green and environmental standards. You're going to see expansion of solar energy, tidal energy, you're going to have socially responsible investments, you're going to see things like porous concrete.
You're not going to see an administration that wants to scapegoat the poor, or only attack the outward manifestations of poverty. You're going to see an administration that wants to get at what's underneath those problems, that's why I supported something like raising the minimum wage.
If that's the only thing I ever accomplish in politics, then I will have had a good career in politics, because that really matters to the 50,000 employees making $14,000 a year. An opportunity to have a more livable life. And that's the kind of mayor that I want to be.
I want to be a mayor that's trying to invoke the working class ethics of the city, the diversity, the immigrant rights, the civil rights kind of tradition of the city.
And I want to have a relationship to the business community that is honest, firm, and that doesn't really allow them to set the agenda in policy, urban planning policy, and things like that.
It's a community that we have to have collaboration with, but they should not be running City Hall, they should not be running Room 200.
Matt Gonzalez: Well you know the board had passed a resolution opposing the war, and we're very mindful of the impacts that engaging in a war like this, not only the negative impacts on the people of Iraq and the humanitarian issues at stake, but it's a lot of money that's being mispent that should be spend on municipalities and building infrastructure in our own country. Instead we're sending a ton of soldiers to another place and that's very expensive, and just on that level there's a lot for us to weigh in on it.
I thought that the protesters could have focused their energy more on the Federal Building, as opposed to the local more city hall-type buildings. I thought that the protesters by and large behaved well. Those engaged in civil disobendience expected to be arrested, and that's fine.
The police overreacted one day, when they made arrests around McAllister and Gaugh Street when they made a decision to arrest peaceful marchers; and I think that was a terrible mistake. It cost the city probably two or three million dollars, and I think that it doesn't make sense.
When you're in a city like San Francisco, and you've got an extraordinary thing happening, you've got people participating in a peaceful demonstration, do you really want to invoke things like they're obstructing the sidewalk, or they don't have a permit to march?
I think the better course would have been, hey, let folks march. If it's peaceful, you can follow them around. It's easy to do, the police do it all the time. That certainly would have been the better course.
I certainly made my opinion known to the chief of police, and I was a little bit surprised that I was only city supervisor that participated in a press conference condemning the police actions, on the steps of city hall. There was a public sentiment that was rather divided, some felt that protesters should have been arrested, and so I think there were some legislators who didn't want to get in the middle of something they didn't need to.
I felt differently, I felt that important to say, hey, that shouldn't have happened.
SF IMC: Had you been mayor, do you think you would have been able to do something to prevent...
Matt Gonzalez: Yes, the relationship is different. I would have got on the phone with the Chief of Police and say, hey, what the fuck are you doing? When you're the President of the Board of Supervisors, the department heads do not work for you. You don't pick up the phone and they interact with you.
If you don't like what's going on, you can bring it up in hearings, or budget process, but that's much after the fact. When you're the mayor, these folks are working directly beneath you, I would have been very active.
SF IMC: One recent development in the Mayoral race has been a somewhat bizarre turn of events regarding an email that was sent out announcing a protest against Al Gore, Gavin Newsom, and against the Democratic Party. It was supposed to have been sent by the Green Party, but now it is pretty clear that it was sent by Gavin Newsom's campaign. What are you thoughts on this kind of politics?
Matt Gonzalez: Well, I think the Newsom camp should be very embarrased by it. I think it shows the lack of integrity that they have, and a certain degree of desperation on their part.
But imagine, does this city really want a Mayor that's sitting around sending emailing purporting to be somebody else?
I think the whole thing is incredibly embarrasing.
SF IMC: Do you believe that they're engaged in other activity like this?
Matt Gonzalez: We've seen some pretty odd things. We've had some of their people snooping around the office, coming in trying to get information about what we're up to, and things like that.
Yeah, they're doing a lot of that kind of counter-intellegence type stuff. Maybe that always happens with a campaign, we certainly don't engage in it.
SF IMC: A lot of people have been very disappointed and disgusted regarding the integrity of Mayor Brown over the last eight years, and the interests that he has been serving while in office. If you're elected Mayor, what interests do you intend to be serving, and what will be your motivating factors?
Matt Gonzalez: I've been trying to do politics differently. One of the things I've done that I would certainly do as Mayor is not get into office and be thinking about four years later re-election. I would very much go into office feeling, okay, I've got four years, let's make the most of it.
That's not to say that getting re-elected is irrelevent or something like that, but if you're focused on that, then you often water down your ideas, or you're suseptable to influence that you shouldn't be, and it interferes with your ability to make the right decisions.
And that's what I want to be, I want to be somebody that makes the right decisions, and isn't thinking about my own political longeivity. I think as a result of that I'm more effective and more honest and true to the beliefs I hold.
SF IMC: Do you believe that this is why the Green Party is becoming a more viable political option in the United States?
Matt Gonzalez: I think it is in part. I think the Greens that have held office have tried to bring ethics to government, and decision-making that is based on the merits of a particular decision, rather than "Oh, I can't vote the way I want because then it's going to hurt me when I stand for election."
Even in this particular race I've been attacked for taking positions recently at the Board of Supervisors that were the right decisions, but don't play well in the public. Whether it be opposing some school charter ammendment that everybody thinks is the panacea, and I say "Gee, I like it, but where's the money to pay for all of this?"
You're not supposed to do that when you're running for office. You're supposed to do the opposite. You're supposed to pander to the public, and make promises, and tell them how much you're going to give them, without regard to the truth as to whether you can actually do those things.
I'm pleased that the electorate in San Francisco is very smart, and doesn't fool easily, and I think that's why I can get elected in this town.
SF IMC: If you get elected Mayor, in four years do you see the city of San Francisco?
Matt Gonzalez: I think you're going to have a very ethical government, You're going to see a government with a lot of green and environmental standards. You're going to see expansion of solar energy, tidal energy, you're going to have socially responsible investments, you're going to see things like porous concrete.
You're not going to see an administration that wants to scapegoat the poor, or only attack the outward manifestations of poverty. You're going to see an administration that wants to get at what's underneath those problems, that's why I supported something like raising the minimum wage.
If that's the only thing I ever accomplish in politics, then I will have had a good career in politics, because that really matters to the 50,000 employees making $14,000 a year. An opportunity to have a more livable life. And that's the kind of mayor that I want to be.
I want to be a mayor that's trying to invoke the working class ethics of the city, the diversity, the immigrant rights, the civil rights kind of tradition of the city.
And I want to have a relationship to the business community that is honest, firm, and that doesn't really allow them to set the agenda in policy, urban planning policy, and things like that.
It's a community that we have to have collaboration with, but they should not be running City Hall, they should not be running Room 200.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
It is refereshing to hear the personal philosophy of an intelligent man who endeavors to change the template of government within the system. It is admirable of him to remember the poor and working class. Whether or not he wins, we all win with him in SF politics
What is the special virtue of porous concrete?
I've never heard of it before.
I've never heard of it before.
Hey 'Interested'- if you bag on someone's intelligence, at least spell 'intellect' correctly.
Vote for Matt damn it !!!
the concrete he is talking about is a kind of urbanite environmental creation that allows rain to filter through the concrete and hit the actual earth, filter through the earth and finally back into water tables.
this helps in several ways:
refilling water tables that are depleted due to substantial consumption as well as lack of refilling due to the typical unporous concrete.
also, instead of that rain water rushing through the streets, collecting trash, oils and other contaminants, then pouring into the gutter where it will go straight out into the ocean without any filters, it will simply soak into the ground where it lands and go back from where it came from, leaving all the human consumption residue where it should stay -- on land, in front of us to bear.
this helps in several ways:
refilling water tables that are depleted due to substantial consumption as well as lack of refilling due to the typical unporous concrete.
also, instead of that rain water rushing through the streets, collecting trash, oils and other contaminants, then pouring into the gutter where it will go straight out into the ocean without any filters, it will simply soak into the ground where it lands and go back from where it came from, leaving all the human consumption residue where it should stay -- on land, in front of us to bear.
My understanding is that SF Indy Media is a radical media project, not a venue for left-liberal electoral propaganda. This interview contained no difficult or probing questions. I now know that Gonzalez supports honest government, tame anti-war protests and porous concrete. Wow.
Personally, I think sf.indymedia's coverage of the Gonzalez campaign has been totally disappointing--no better than what I'd expect to find on alternet or some other such liberally forum. I've seen no anti-capitalist analysis of Gonzalez's program, nor a critique of the role elections play in bestowing capital's rule with an aura of popular participation. All I've seen is cheer-leading.
You could have AT LEAST asked the dear leader why he doesn't support vacancy control.......
Personally, I think sf.indymedia's coverage of the Gonzalez campaign has been totally disappointing--no better than what I'd expect to find on alternet or some other such liberally forum. I've seen no anti-capitalist analysis of Gonzalez's program, nor a critique of the role elections play in bestowing capital's rule with an aura of popular participation. All I've seen is cheer-leading.
You could have AT LEAST asked the dear leader why he doesn't support vacancy control.......
You expecting balance and fairness from Indy? They never claim to be that way and we don't expect them to be that way.
that is why they make absolutely no valid arguments pro or con. and that is why everyone largely ignores Indy.
that is why they make absolutely no valid arguments pro or con. and that is why everyone largely ignores Indy.
I think the complaint was that no hard questions were asked of Gonzales. Thats not a complaint about ballance.
What exactly is the official view of SF-IMC? It used to seem anarchist but now has taken a fairly strong stand for elections. There are people who think reformism is bad who have posted to this site but those views are not in the center column.
You can talk about how everyone loves you and its pointless for people to criticize you until you are blue in the face but at some point you risk alienating everyone who used to support you.
What exactly is the official view of SF-IMC? It used to seem anarchist but now has taken a fairly strong stand for elections. There are people who think reformism is bad who have posted to this site but those views are not in the center column.
You can talk about how everyone loves you and its pointless for people to criticize you until you are blue in the face but at some point you risk alienating everyone who used to support you.
More than anything I was expressing my frustration with the fact that so many radicals have forsaken critical thought as it relates to Gonzalez's campaign. Indymedia's coverage is reflective of the degree to which rads these days are on the defensive and ready to embrace left-liberal reformist efforts if they seem to stand a chance of winning. Personally, I think that revolutionaries who flack for Gonzalez and make absurd claims about what his election will mean are abdicating their responsibility as revolutionaries. I propose that we allow the liberals and green greens to wax poetic about this good-government "fiscal conservative" charmer--there certainly are enough of them out there ready to perform the task. Rads and revolutionaries that fail to critique the democratic charade only serve to lend it legitimacy. We should be taking this time to argue why Gonzalez will not markedly change life under capitalism--whatever his intentions might be--instead of fostering illusions in capital's political apparatus.
That armchair critics sit at home and attack everyone, but, from what I can tell, make no effort at either starting their own organization, helping out here, or offering sincerely constructive comments.
It's the symptom of this culture - money, image, class, and other societal crap has stolen people's sense of their own self worth. And what's left except to take something down? To take someone down? Somehow that emptiness needs to be filled. Even tearing someone down is something.
I was glad to see this article on here, to picture Matt giving this interview somehow.
How would Matt have answered if he had been asked "So Matt, anarchists who have posted on this site have asked if you'd hold back the cops while they destroyed the INS building. How 'bout it Matt? Would you do it?"
I think we can pretty much answer it on our own.
I thought this was the most detailed descriptions I've ever read about why he responded the way he did during the protests, what his viewpoint on it was. I knew he wanted more focus on the Federal Building. So I suppose you could have asked, "Well Matt, the Federal Building was pretty much covered by the first 2 or 3 thousand people, you know, so what should the other 7 or 8 thousand have done?" Or you could have asked, "Did you worry, Matt, that the thousands of people in front of City Hall might ever have turned in that direction? Toward City Hall? Was it scary, at all, to look out those windows and see thousands of people gathering, with no pre-determined plan of action?" Or you could ask, "So Matt, If the protestors had formally invited you to protest with them at the Federal Building - like Chris Daly protested to stop that parking garage - would you have done it? Do you think you might do it in the future, if things get worse?" And, "What did you think of the Civil Rights protests, and looking back, if you could have, would you have joined in? We know you've been arrested for court actions, but what about street actions?" And, "Do you agree that along with the Federal Government, we now have all sorts of immoral and unjust acts being committed by the corporations of SF? If so, don't we have a duty to also implicate them in the crimes they are committing, and not just the Feds?" And maybe finally, "By the way, what's *your* defintion of fascism?"
But right now, we have a race to win. We all know he isn't perfect, and neither are any of us. So why try to pick him apart on here? If you don't want to vote, then don't, and leave others alone until Dec 10th. Then you lay into everyone all you want. Or, click on one of the links for what you can do to help out. We're down to wire and now fuckhead Clinton is even going to join in to try to stop it.
And if you just don't feel the inspiration to help out, then picture Newsom winning on election night. Picture his smug face and his fucking grin, with Senator Warmonger Frankenstein by his side, Bill and Al on the other side . . . . someone raising Newsom's arm into the air like they do, just picture it. Just like Arnold, too. Really no different. Just like that. Imagine it. Then his wife would kiss him. The finale - the triumphant continuation of the Centrist Welfare-Eliminating Drug-Possession-Jailing NAFTA-Promoting Corporate-Whoring Patriot-Fearing Democraps.
Or maybe Gay Shame could crash his party . . .
It's the symptom of this culture - money, image, class, and other societal crap has stolen people's sense of their own self worth. And what's left except to take something down? To take someone down? Somehow that emptiness needs to be filled. Even tearing someone down is something.
I was glad to see this article on here, to picture Matt giving this interview somehow.
How would Matt have answered if he had been asked "So Matt, anarchists who have posted on this site have asked if you'd hold back the cops while they destroyed the INS building. How 'bout it Matt? Would you do it?"
I think we can pretty much answer it on our own.
I thought this was the most detailed descriptions I've ever read about why he responded the way he did during the protests, what his viewpoint on it was. I knew he wanted more focus on the Federal Building. So I suppose you could have asked, "Well Matt, the Federal Building was pretty much covered by the first 2 or 3 thousand people, you know, so what should the other 7 or 8 thousand have done?" Or you could have asked, "Did you worry, Matt, that the thousands of people in front of City Hall might ever have turned in that direction? Toward City Hall? Was it scary, at all, to look out those windows and see thousands of people gathering, with no pre-determined plan of action?" Or you could ask, "So Matt, If the protestors had formally invited you to protest with them at the Federal Building - like Chris Daly protested to stop that parking garage - would you have done it? Do you think you might do it in the future, if things get worse?" And, "What did you think of the Civil Rights protests, and looking back, if you could have, would you have joined in? We know you've been arrested for court actions, but what about street actions?" And, "Do you agree that along with the Federal Government, we now have all sorts of immoral and unjust acts being committed by the corporations of SF? If so, don't we have a duty to also implicate them in the crimes they are committing, and not just the Feds?" And maybe finally, "By the way, what's *your* defintion of fascism?"
But right now, we have a race to win. We all know he isn't perfect, and neither are any of us. So why try to pick him apart on here? If you don't want to vote, then don't, and leave others alone until Dec 10th. Then you lay into everyone all you want. Or, click on one of the links for what you can do to help out. We're down to wire and now fuckhead Clinton is even going to join in to try to stop it.
And if you just don't feel the inspiration to help out, then picture Newsom winning on election night. Picture his smug face and his fucking grin, with Senator Warmonger Frankenstein by his side, Bill and Al on the other side . . . . someone raising Newsom's arm into the air like they do, just picture it. Just like Arnold, too. Really no different. Just like that. Imagine it. Then his wife would kiss him. The finale - the triumphant continuation of the Centrist Welfare-Eliminating Drug-Possession-Jailing NAFTA-Promoting Corporate-Whoring Patriot-Fearing Democraps.
Or maybe Gay Shame could crash his party . . .
This city is so sad and quiet and dirty filled with unemployed people and homeless below the rich.
Matt is thinking about how to address these issues which scream out.
I support Matt.
Matt is thinking about how to address these issues which scream out.
I support Matt.
To the putative "Peter"-
Actually, I am a democrat who thinks that the city needs a real person in City Hall like Matt, not some political personality who is led around by the smell of money- like Gavin.
Only Matt will do for this radical democrat.
Actually, I am a democrat who thinks that the city needs a real person in City Hall like Matt, not some political personality who is led around by the smell of money- like Gavin.
Only Matt will do for this radical democrat.
if this isn't an endorsement of the sf-imc to gonzalez, then nothing is. sadly because nonprofits cannot make official endorsements, the sf-imc will deny this. the frontpage of the sf-imc is rather obvious, and it's worse than the chronicle.
vote for matt, but don't fall for the bullshit of the green party "influence" over the sf-imc.
vote for matt, but don't fall for the bullshit of the green party "influence" over the sf-imc.
decided to stop by sf-imc and was happy to see a selection of fresh audio to listen to and i'm very interested to hear this particular interview because i have only heard/seen a couple short sound bites of/by Matt in the past. i grew up in southern california near thousand oaks, spent about a year in santa barbara, and have been living in santa cruz for a few years... i don't have cable, by the way, so i get most of my news media from the internet (mostly from various IMCs) and from newspapers that other people buy and leave at cafes for other people to read...
i was a little surprised to see such a prominant display of Matt in the center column and quickly decided to check for comments about it...
so, i have not listened to the audio yet or read the transcripts, but i did read the comments word for word and was very interested in the exchanges.
i would love to see/hear the ideas put forth by aaron and Green come into being. Green's questions for Matt (or Kucinich...) are fantastic.
nessie's comments are fantastic. and i'm inspired by them. i'll check the link to that interview later...
even though i'm in santa cruz... i've got my ears and eyes on this electoral race. though, i totally hear where aaron is coming from... and nessie, for that matter...
the US looks pretty bleek when it comes to high government "leaders" these days (all days.....) and it would be so painful to experience bush steal the throan, hollywooders take california, and... but no, not sf. if they take sf... i say we take mt. tam ;)
i strongly support what nessie had to say about spendig time on projects like indymedia (hopefully sometime soon i'll check out bound together and the next book fair) and working within communication and education. that's where i want to spend most of my time.
much support to people everywhere that are working to make this place (earth, not just sf-imc....) a little or a lot better!
if i could vote in the race, i'd vote for Matt.
i'm throwing up a photo i took at fort benning two weeks ago at the soa demonstrations (keep poking around the imc network for lots more photos....)
make media!
http://www.indybay.org/publish.php
make trouble!
sincerely,
Bradley
i was a little surprised to see such a prominant display of Matt in the center column and quickly decided to check for comments about it...
so, i have not listened to the audio yet or read the transcripts, but i did read the comments word for word and was very interested in the exchanges.
i would love to see/hear the ideas put forth by aaron and Green come into being. Green's questions for Matt (or Kucinich...) are fantastic.
nessie's comments are fantastic. and i'm inspired by them. i'll check the link to that interview later...
even though i'm in santa cruz... i've got my ears and eyes on this electoral race. though, i totally hear where aaron is coming from... and nessie, for that matter...
the US looks pretty bleek when it comes to high government "leaders" these days (all days.....) and it would be so painful to experience bush steal the throan, hollywooders take california, and... but no, not sf. if they take sf... i say we take mt. tam ;)
i strongly support what nessie had to say about spendig time on projects like indymedia (hopefully sometime soon i'll check out bound together and the next book fair) and working within communication and education. that's where i want to spend most of my time.
much support to people everywhere that are working to make this place (earth, not just sf-imc....) a little or a lot better!
if i could vote in the race, i'd vote for Matt.
i'm throwing up a photo i took at fort benning two weeks ago at the soa demonstrations (keep poking around the imc network for lots more photos....)
make media!
http://www.indybay.org/publish.php
make trouble!
sincerely,
Bradley
For more information:
http://sc-imc
This is fucking pathetic. Why is SF Indymedia interviewing this politician-capitalist fool?
I alwys thought SF Indymedia was coming from a more anarchist position. I guess I was really wrong on that one.
Good thing this idiot politician supports "peaceful protesters" getting arrested, "like the should be".
What a bunch of crap.
I alwys thought SF Indymedia was coming from a more anarchist position. I guess I was really wrong on that one.
Good thing this idiot politician supports "peaceful protesters" getting arrested, "like the should be".
What a bunch of crap.
Are you kidding?
Do you understand what indymedia is? It is composed of hundreds or thousands of unaffiliated or 'independent' people out there who upload material that they wrote, or often, that they copied from somewhere else. There are (now) four or so editors left who write software and delete inappropriate stuff. In their statement of principles, they do say that they are a leftist site as opposed to a neutral site devoted to giving everyone an equal forum, but they don't have a specific party line yet, and they rarely generate the content of the site.
Do you understand what indymedia is? It is composed of hundreds or thousands of unaffiliated or 'independent' people out there who upload material that they wrote, or often, that they copied from somewhere else. There are (now) four or so editors left who write software and delete inappropriate stuff. In their statement of principles, they do say that they are a leftist site as opposed to a neutral site devoted to giving everyone an equal forum, but they don't have a specific party line yet, and they rarely generate the content of the site.
I'd like it if you could explain for me what the responsibilities are as they pertain to indymedia.
I know that as a non-anarchist I'm generally talked down to and treated badly by most, like I'm an idiot because I'm not an anarchist. How does that build a movement, to treat people like dirt if they don't know every detail, don't understand, or make mistakes?
I know that as a non-anarchist I'm generally talked down to and treated badly by most, like I'm an idiot because I'm not an anarchist. How does that build a movement, to treat people like dirt if they don't know every detail, don't understand, or make mistakes?
I'm not meaning to treat anyone like dirt. Sometimes I can be caustic but usually regret it after-the-fact.
Note that I never claimed to be an anarchist. It's funny because these days seemingly every militant liberal under the sun calls him or herself an anarchist, so I find myself--a communist first and foremost--counter-posing myself to "anarchists" and articulating views that are ultimately more anarchist than the views espoused by many who've adopted the moniker.
Let me be clear: I hope Gonzalez wins this election. If I lived in SF I'd take the time to give him my vote. But that's something quite different than going around treating him like a fucking deity and acting like his election is a stand-in for a powerful working class anti-capitalist movement. If he wins, Gonzalez will do capital's bidding. He will administer capitalism: he's already indicated that this fact doesn't rub him wrong--hence his constant refrain about being a "fiscal realist." Fiscal realism is a euphemism for: "I understand the game and will play by rules; if I have to cut library hours and extract concessionary contracts from gov't workers, I'll do it." This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class. Indeed, it explains why some sections of the SF elite SUPPORT his candidacy. There's a certain logic to having a hip populist preside when the system is in crisis and belief in the system is ebbing. Assuming Gonzalez wins, six months from now it'll be hard to resist saying "i told you so" to all those now expecting shit to really change.
Note that I never claimed to be an anarchist. It's funny because these days seemingly every militant liberal under the sun calls him or herself an anarchist, so I find myself--a communist first and foremost--counter-posing myself to "anarchists" and articulating views that are ultimately more anarchist than the views espoused by many who've adopted the moniker.
Let me be clear: I hope Gonzalez wins this election. If I lived in SF I'd take the time to give him my vote. But that's something quite different than going around treating him like a fucking deity and acting like his election is a stand-in for a powerful working class anti-capitalist movement. If he wins, Gonzalez will do capital's bidding. He will administer capitalism: he's already indicated that this fact doesn't rub him wrong--hence his constant refrain about being a "fiscal realist." Fiscal realism is a euphemism for: "I understand the game and will play by rules; if I have to cut library hours and extract concessionary contracts from gov't workers, I'll do it." This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class. Indeed, it explains why some sections of the SF elite SUPPORT his candidacy. There's a certain logic to having a hip populist preside when the system is in crisis and belief in the system is ebbing. Assuming Gonzalez wins, six months from now it'll be hard to resist saying "i told you so" to all those now expecting shit to really change.
Indymedia is a pan-leftist effort with anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian organizing and editorial direction. That does not mean that the home page is dominated by Long Haul sectarians. In fact, I would say that anarchists in general fail to actually do anything besides a few small, exclusive social scene things. Indymedia is more representative of anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, left communists, autonomists, and the like -- i.e. modern versions of the anti-capitalist left, not early 20th century relics. Unfortunately, the rich kid / punk / hippie scene of the East Bay can barely spell their name let alone come up with something like this, so they tag along, talking shit on anything that isn't prescribed to them by their social conventions.
> How does that build a movement, to treat people like dirt if they don't know every detail, don't understand, or make mistakes?
Indymedia is a vehicle for building more than one movement.
Anarchists and Greens share some goals. Others goals they do not share. Neither have any reason to trust the other. Some dislike each other, for a variety of reason, many valid. Others are close personal friends. Neither shared goals, political disagreements, mistrust, or personal friendships should determine how, or how well, Anarchists and Greens coordinate their efforts. This isn’t about how they feel about each other. This is about what they can accomplish together. Clearly, there are things which they cannot, for a variety of reasons, accomplish together. They should not, ideally, be allowed to get in the way of what can be accomplished together.
At this point in time, the most productive use of this website is not as a place for Anarchists and Greens where fight, either between each other or among themselves. This serves the agenda of only our mutual enemies. It is they, above all else, that unite Anarchists and Greens. Shared values come second.
Inherent to the anonymity afforded by the open publishing model is that not everyone here is who they claim to be, or have the best interests of both Anarchists and Greens at heart. Some have the best interests of neither at heart. Of those who do have the best interests of both at heart, many are deeply unclear as to what those interests actually are.
Let’s talk about that. What is in the best interests of both Anarchists and Greens? How best can they be met?
Indymedia is a vehicle for building more than one movement.
Anarchists and Greens share some goals. Others goals they do not share. Neither have any reason to trust the other. Some dislike each other, for a variety of reason, many valid. Others are close personal friends. Neither shared goals, political disagreements, mistrust, or personal friendships should determine how, or how well, Anarchists and Greens coordinate their efforts. This isn’t about how they feel about each other. This is about what they can accomplish together. Clearly, there are things which they cannot, for a variety of reasons, accomplish together. They should not, ideally, be allowed to get in the way of what can be accomplished together.
At this point in time, the most productive use of this website is not as a place for Anarchists and Greens where fight, either between each other or among themselves. This serves the agenda of only our mutual enemies. It is they, above all else, that unite Anarchists and Greens. Shared values come second.
Inherent to the anonymity afforded by the open publishing model is that not everyone here is who they claim to be, or have the best interests of both Anarchists and Greens at heart. Some have the best interests of neither at heart. Of those who do have the best interests of both at heart, many are deeply unclear as to what those interests actually are.
Let’s talk about that. What is in the best interests of both Anarchists and Greens? How best can they be met?
Although it's noble to make NO comprimise, I definitely disagree with some of these comments:
"The best we can hope for at an electoral campaign function is to go home hoarse and frustrated... But change the world!?! Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen. Change the world for the better? That *really* ain’t gonna happen."
Imagine this city after 4 years of Newsom. Imagine all the development, the wasted tax money in city hall, the give-aways to developers, investment firms, and so on. When we elect Gonzalez there will be a difference after 4 years and that difference will be _substantial_. Don't downplay it. Yeah, we won't change the world, but we'll change this city. And I live here, and I give a shit.
"This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class."
Seriously? Gore coming to town to endorse him doesn't show that he's a threat? Pelosi telling San Francisco to "get serious" doesn't show he's a threat? What would show he's a threat, if he got assasinated?
I hate to say it, but let's be realistic here. We're electing a mayor of San Francisco, not starting a revolution. As much as some of us might wish capitalism would crumble and the whole world will shift to a more peaceful, just, and equitable society, yes I'll admit, it won't happen on Tuesday December 9th.
HOWEVER, we can elect a mayor who is a tenant (like most if us), who has been evicted by OMI (like me, twice), who wants solar and tidal power, who runs art shows out of his office, who you can actually approach and he'll talk to you and listen, and who IS NOT FREAKIN' GAVIN NEWSOM!!! Like I said before, I actually live in SF, this stuff matters to me. If you want working people (and out of work people, and homeless people) to be able to live here, then you should care too! Remember all your friends that moved to Portland and Sac and elsewhere during Brown? It ain't gonna get better under Newsom.
Idealists, have some humility, get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for all the tenants and non-revolutionary poor and working folk. They'll appreciate it four years from now. And hopefully they'll appreciate it later on when you smash the state too. But for now, just vote.
"The best we can hope for at an electoral campaign function is to go home hoarse and frustrated... But change the world!?! Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen. Change the world for the better? That *really* ain’t gonna happen."
Imagine this city after 4 years of Newsom. Imagine all the development, the wasted tax money in city hall, the give-aways to developers, investment firms, and so on. When we elect Gonzalez there will be a difference after 4 years and that difference will be _substantial_. Don't downplay it. Yeah, we won't change the world, but we'll change this city. And I live here, and I give a shit.
"This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class."
Seriously? Gore coming to town to endorse him doesn't show that he's a threat? Pelosi telling San Francisco to "get serious" doesn't show he's a threat? What would show he's a threat, if he got assasinated?
I hate to say it, but let's be realistic here. We're electing a mayor of San Francisco, not starting a revolution. As much as some of us might wish capitalism would crumble and the whole world will shift to a more peaceful, just, and equitable society, yes I'll admit, it won't happen on Tuesday December 9th.
HOWEVER, we can elect a mayor who is a tenant (like most if us), who has been evicted by OMI (like me, twice), who wants solar and tidal power, who runs art shows out of his office, who you can actually approach and he'll talk to you and listen, and who IS NOT FREAKIN' GAVIN NEWSOM!!! Like I said before, I actually live in SF, this stuff matters to me. If you want working people (and out of work people, and homeless people) to be able to live here, then you should care too! Remember all your friends that moved to Portland and Sac and elsewhere during Brown? It ain't gonna get better under Newsom.
Idealists, have some humility, get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for all the tenants and non-revolutionary poor and working folk. They'll appreciate it four years from now. And hopefully they'll appreciate it later on when you smash the state too. But for now, just vote.
Although it's noble to make NO comprimise, I definitely disagree with some of these comments:
"The best we can hope for at an electoral campaign function is to go home hoarse and frustrated... But change the world!?! Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen. Change the world for the better? That *really* ain’t gonna happen."
Imagine this city after 4 years of Newsom. Imagine all the development, the wasted tax money in city hall, the give-aways to developers, investment firms, and so on. When we elect Gonzalez there will be a difference after 4 years and that difference will be _substantial_. Don't downplay it. Yeah, we won't change the world, but we'll change this city. And I live here, and I give a shit.
"This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class."
Seriously? Gore coming to town to endorse him doesn't show that he's a threat? Pelosi telling San Francisco to "get serious" doesn't show he's a threat? What would show he's a threat, if he got assasinated?
I hate to say it, but let's be realistic here. We're electing a mayor of San Francisco, not starting a revolution. As much as some of us might wish capitalism would crumble and the whole world will shift to a more peaceful, just, and equitable society, yes I'll admit, it won't happen on Tuesday December 9th.
HOWEVER, we can elect a mayor who is a tenant (like most if us), who has been evicted by OMI (like me, twice), who wants solar and tidal power, who runs art shows out of his office, who you can actually approach and he'll talk to you and listen, and who IS NOT FREAKIN' GAVIN NEWSOM!!! Like I said before, I actually live in SF, this stuff matters to me. If you want working people (and out of work people, and homeless people) to be able to live here, then you should care too! Remember all your friends that moved to Portland and Sac and elsewhere during Brown? It ain't gonna get better under Newsom.
Idealists, have some humility, get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for all the tenants and non-revolutionary poor and working folk. They'll appreciate it four years from now. And hopefully they'll appreciate it later on when you smash the state too. But for now, just vote.
"The best we can hope for at an electoral campaign function is to go home hoarse and frustrated... But change the world!?! Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen. Change the world for the better? That *really* ain’t gonna happen."
Imagine this city after 4 years of Newsom. Imagine all the development, the wasted tax money in city hall, the give-aways to developers, investment firms, and so on. When we elect Gonzalez there will be a difference after 4 years and that difference will be _substantial_. Don't downplay it. Yeah, we won't change the world, but we'll change this city. And I live here, and I give a shit.
"This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class."
Seriously? Gore coming to town to endorse him doesn't show that he's a threat? Pelosi telling San Francisco to "get serious" doesn't show he's a threat? What would show he's a threat, if he got assasinated?
I hate to say it, but let's be realistic here. We're electing a mayor of San Francisco, not starting a revolution. As much as some of us might wish capitalism would crumble and the whole world will shift to a more peaceful, just, and equitable society, yes I'll admit, it won't happen on Tuesday December 9th.
HOWEVER, we can elect a mayor who is a tenant (like most if us), who has been evicted by OMI (like me, twice), who wants solar and tidal power, who runs art shows out of his office, who you can actually approach and he'll talk to you and listen, and who IS NOT FREAKIN' GAVIN NEWSOM!!! Like I said before, I actually live in SF, this stuff matters to me. If you want working people (and out of work people, and homeless people) to be able to live here, then you should care too! Remember all your friends that moved to Portland and Sac and elsewhere during Brown? It ain't gonna get better under Newsom.
Idealists, have some humility, get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for all the tenants and non-revolutionary poor and working folk. They'll appreciate it four years from now. And hopefully they'll appreciate it later on when you smash the state too. But for now, just vote.
Although it's noble to make NO comprimise, I definitely disagree with some of these comments:
"The best we can hope for at an electoral campaign function is to go home hoarse and frustrated... But change the world!?! Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen. Change the world for the better? That *really* ain’t gonna happen."
Imagine this city after 4 years of Newsom. Imagine all the development, the wasted tax money in city hall, the give-aways to developers, investment firms, and so on. When we elect Gonzalez there will be a difference after 4 years and that difference will be _substantial_. Don't downplay it. Yeah, we won't change the world, but we'll change this city. And I live here, and I give a shit.
"This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class."
Seriously? Gore coming to town to endorse him doesn't show that he's a threat? Pelosi telling San Francisco to "get serious" doesn't show he's a threat? What would show he's a threat, if he got assasinated?
I hate to say it, but let's be realistic here. We're electing a mayor of San Francisco, not starting a revolution. As much as some of us might wish capitalism would crumble and the whole world will shift to a more peaceful, just, and equitable society, yes I'll admit, it won't happen on Tuesday December 9th.
HOWEVER, we can elect a mayor who is a tenant (like most if us), who has been evicted by OMI (like me, twice), who wants solar and tidal power, who runs art shows out of his office, who you can actually approach and he'll talk to you and listen, and who IS NOT FREAKIN' GAVIN NEWSOM!!! Like I said before, I actually live in SF, this stuff matters to me. If you want working people (and out of work people, and homeless people) to be able to live here, then you should care too! Remember all your friends that moved to Portland and Sac and elsewhere during Brown? It ain't gonna get better under Newsom.
Idealists, have some humility, get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for all the tenants and non-revolutionary poor and working folk. They'll appreciate it four years from now. And hopefully they'll appreciate it later on when you smash the state too. But for now, just vote.
"The best we can hope for at an electoral campaign function is to go home hoarse and frustrated... But change the world!?! Forget it. It ain’t gonna happen. Change the world for the better? That *really* ain’t gonna happen."
Imagine this city after 4 years of Newsom. Imagine all the development, the wasted tax money in city hall, the give-aways to developers, investment firms, and so on. When we elect Gonzalez there will be a difference after 4 years and that difference will be _substantial_. Don't downplay it. Yeah, we won't change the world, but we'll change this city. And I live here, and I give a shit.
"This is why Gonzalez-- despite all the plaudits he gets from "anarchists"--isn't seen as a threat by the San Francisco ruling class."
Seriously? Gore coming to town to endorse him doesn't show that he's a threat? Pelosi telling San Francisco to "get serious" doesn't show he's a threat? What would show he's a threat, if he got assasinated?
I hate to say it, but let's be realistic here. We're electing a mayor of San Francisco, not starting a revolution. As much as some of us might wish capitalism would crumble and the whole world will shift to a more peaceful, just, and equitable society, yes I'll admit, it won't happen on Tuesday December 9th.
HOWEVER, we can elect a mayor who is a tenant (like most if us), who has been evicted by OMI (like me, twice), who wants solar and tidal power, who runs art shows out of his office, who you can actually approach and he'll talk to you and listen, and who IS NOT FREAKIN' GAVIN NEWSOM!!! Like I said before, I actually live in SF, this stuff matters to me. If you want working people (and out of work people, and homeless people) to be able to live here, then you should care too! Remember all your friends that moved to Portland and Sac and elsewhere during Brown? It ain't gonna get better under Newsom.
Idealists, have some humility, get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for all the tenants and non-revolutionary poor and working folk. They'll appreciate it four years from now. And hopefully they'll appreciate it later on when you smash the state too. But for now, just vote.
For more information:
http://mattgonzalez.com
"Indymedia is a pan-leftist effort with anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian organizing and editorial direction. That does not mean that the home page is dominated by Long Haul sectarians. In fact, I would say that anarchists in general fail to actually do anything besides a few small, exclusive social scene things. Indymedia is more representative of anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, left communists, autonomists, and the like -- i.e. modern versions of the anti-capitalist left, not early 20th century relics. Unfortunately, the rich kid / punk / hippie scene of the East Bay can barely spell their name let alone come up with something like this, so they tag along, talking shit on anything that isn't prescribed to them by their social conventions."
-from the writing style it's pretty obvious this is from one of the people running this site.
So in response to green saying anarchists treat him like shit, I would have to say that certain anarchists treat everyone like shit.
-from the writing style it's pretty obvious this is from one of the people running this site.
So in response to green saying anarchists treat him like shit, I would have to say that certain anarchists treat everyone like shit.
The real power in this town is not elected. Police aren't elected. Bureaucrats aren't elected. Landlords aren’t elected. Bankers aren’t elected. Gangsters aren’t elected. Where these groups overlap, as we know they do, there lies the center of power. Not one of them is elected.
And Matt Gonzales won’t be elected, either. The election will be stolen from him by vote fraud. It’s traditional, and only to be expected. It’s a lot safer move by the powers that be than simply outright assassinating him. Whatever else they may be, fools they are not. They learned their lesson last time. The date was May 21, 1979. Vote fraud is far less risky. It’s also far more cost effective.
This election going to be a close one. It could easily hinge on the absentee ballots that have already been collected. How well are they guarded? By whom? Do you even know? And if you do, you trust these people, why?
And Matt Gonzales won’t be elected, either. The election will be stolen from him by vote fraud. It’s traditional, and only to be expected. It’s a lot safer move by the powers that be than simply outright assassinating him. Whatever else they may be, fools they are not. They learned their lesson last time. The date was May 21, 1979. Vote fraud is far less risky. It’s also far more cost effective.
This election going to be a close one. It could easily hinge on the absentee ballots that have already been collected. How well are they guarded? By whom? Do you even know? And if you do, you trust these people, why?
Good grief, the losers are already making excuses and PREDICTING voter fraud! Do you think they will scream and cry fraud if their candidate wins? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, only if he loses! Matt's anarchist supporters are paranoid and politicians of the highest order. They practice what they condemn when it is convenient for them. They slant and rant when they have no facts - just like MATT!. The definition of the reason why you should NOT vote for Matt.
"pan-leftist effort with anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian organizing and editorial direction. That does not mean that the home page is dominated by Long Haul sectarians.
as far as I know, the current set of editors hate the Long Haul, and never go there. Some content generators in the newswire do enter the Long Haul.
as far as I know, the current set of editors hate the Long Haul, and never go there. Some content generators in the newswire do enter the Long Haul.
The interview with Gonzalez is by the same person who wrote that comment. Why he hates "Long Haul sectarian's" is not 100% clear, especially when many groups meet at the Long Haul and most of them are pretty nonsectarian.
Ever notice the creeps on here who say "I know who wrote that comment" or "this is one of the people behind this site" or "I know who wrote that comment, its the same people who run the site" etc? Either a freeper creeper or someone like them, its unsettling one way or another. My advice is to ignore these "I know whats going on" type comments unless they provide something besides complete anonymous identity.
"Anarchists in the Bay Area are mostly rich sectarian brats
by discussion Sunday December 07, 2003 at 01:06 AM
Indymedia is a pan-leftist effort with anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian organizing and editorial direction. That does not mean that the home page is dominated by Long Haul sectarians. In fact, I would say that anarchists in general fail to actually do anything besides a few small, exclusive social scene things. Indymedia is more representative of anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, left communists, autonomists, and the like -- i.e. modern versions of the anti-capitalist left, not early 20th century relics. Unfortunately, the rich kid / punk / hippie scene of the East Bay can barely spell their name let alone come up with something like this, so they tag along, talking shit on anything that isn't prescribed to them by their social conventions."
Sure, most political groups are not as diverse as they should be. Which group that meets at the Long Haul ( http://www.thelonghaul.org/ ) is the attack directed at Food Not Bombs, Slingshot, East Bay Needle Exchange, the Anarchist Study Group, or the radical queer groups that hold events at the space? Is there a huge group of "communists, libertarian socialists, left communists, autonomists" who have been alienated by one of these groups? If so, perhaps some constuctive criticism rather than just name calling would be in order? Many people who work with groups that meet at the Long Haul contribute a lot of good content to this site, so it would be good to clear the air between the people running this site and a sizable community you seem to hold in contempt.
by discussion Sunday December 07, 2003 at 01:06 AM
Indymedia is a pan-leftist effort with anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian organizing and editorial direction. That does not mean that the home page is dominated by Long Haul sectarians. In fact, I would say that anarchists in general fail to actually do anything besides a few small, exclusive social scene things. Indymedia is more representative of anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, left communists, autonomists, and the like -- i.e. modern versions of the anti-capitalist left, not early 20th century relics. Unfortunately, the rich kid / punk / hippie scene of the East Bay can barely spell their name let alone come up with something like this, so they tag along, talking shit on anything that isn't prescribed to them by their social conventions."
Sure, most political groups are not as diverse as they should be. Which group that meets at the Long Haul ( http://www.thelonghaul.org/ ) is the attack directed at Food Not Bombs, Slingshot, East Bay Needle Exchange, the Anarchist Study Group, or the radical queer groups that hold events at the space? Is there a huge group of "communists, libertarian socialists, left communists, autonomists" who have been alienated by one of these groups? If so, perhaps some constuctive criticism rather than just name calling would be in order? Many people who work with groups that meet at the Long Haul contribute a lot of good content to this site, so it would be good to clear the air between the people running this site and a sizable community you seem to hold in contempt.
So its ok to bash a local anarchist community but its not ok to hold someone to task for doing so? Sure the post by "discussion" was semi-anonymous but he pretty much says hes working with Indymedia and goes on to descibe it as "anarchist-communist..." so I think most people who work with groups around here can figure out pretty quickly who that was. Why is it divisive to ask why someone posted that comment, but it's not divisive to post a comment saying that this site stands against a segment of the local anarchist community?
What, exactly, makes being divisive a bad thing, per se? Why should we fetishize unity at the expense of political coherence and basic security? Why should anyone in their right mind want to work with, or even be around, people who have a track record for disruption and are known to run at the mouth in front of our enemies about stuff that could get people in trouble? And what on earth makes you think that everyone who says they are an anarchist actually is an anarchist, let alone that anarchists are a single community, or even should be?
Be specific.
Be specific.
It seems like it would require a face to face discussion, but I've been wondering about that. While the long haul was a bit alienating when I first entered it, it was due to the particular people who happened to be there that day. but since then, I formed an impression of people there working as house cleaners to earn money to go to protests in Cancun and the like. The way I read that earlier comment was that the person is rejecting 'lifestylists', correct me if I'm wrong - people who pretend to be political but really focus all their energy on their hair and social scene. But if this is the argument, it follows that they are saying that they prefer working with a more substantive group of anarcho-communists and affiliates who actually make a difference and get things done rather than sitting around eating chunks of baked tofu and perfecting their dreadlocks. But.. so where and who are these people and groups? I don't expect you to actually discuss this here on the CATIC monitored website, but .. I'm interested in knowing which groups are the real movers who supercede the gnatty 'infoshop' people - is this Mission Yuppie Eradication or food not bombs or the people including myself who were with the black bloc at the INS building and victoria's secret? some of the people arrested at those antiescalation events have been photographed eating lentils at the long haul. the longhaul affinity group did manage to hold a number of major intersections on march 21 without any arrests and only a few incidents of battery by drivers, and got on the cover of slate or salon even. but.. are there other groups doing more, or are you saying that this represents the exceptional eastbay people while most of them are a bunch of rainbow gathering attendees, or ..
The person who posted that rant against the Long Haul really has problems with one or two people who he associates with the Long Haul. For some reason he frequently posts on here about "Long Haul types", which really just means the people he has personal conflicts with who used to hang out at the Long Haul. A few of his friends may agree with him, but he doesn't speak for most of Indymedia or even most anarchist-communists in the Bay Area. I would suggest that an editor hide the original antiLong Haul rant and all responses since it's off topic for a thread linked from an interview with Gonzalez.
The first time I went to eat with Food Not Bombs it felt like a nonpolitical scene full of a lot of punk kids and bohemians, but that was more reflective of the homeless near where they were serving than a reflection on Food Not Bombs.
When any group does community service its probably a good thing if a lot of the people showing up are nonpolitical. Not only does that mean that the service has extended beyond the bounds of the activist community, but it also helps to radicalize new people rather than having political types always interacting with people who agree with them.
Diversity in a movement is hard if the movement has a monoculture. If you have to eat a certain style of food, wear a certain style of clothes, know the details of certain political texts, or identify oneself with a specific political identity to be accepted, outsiders will feel alienated and the movement will never grow. There doesn't need to be unity between groups that disagree with each other but there does need to be respect between groups and respect for new people who may not yet identify with a group and are unlikely to become an activist if their first interactions mainly involve denunciations. How will anyone new ever become an anarchist, anarchist communist or even an anti-Capitalist if those groups are hostile to outsiders. Think of your own political evolution, did it happen all at once?
When any group does community service its probably a good thing if a lot of the people showing up are nonpolitical. Not only does that mean that the service has extended beyond the bounds of the activist community, but it also helps to radicalize new people rather than having political types always interacting with people who agree with them.
Diversity in a movement is hard if the movement has a monoculture. If you have to eat a certain style of food, wear a certain style of clothes, know the details of certain political texts, or identify oneself with a specific political identity to be accepted, outsiders will feel alienated and the movement will never grow. There doesn't need to be unity between groups that disagree with each other but there does need to be respect between groups and respect for new people who may not yet identify with a group and are unlikely to become an activist if their first interactions mainly involve denunciations. How will anyone new ever become an anarchist, anarchist communist or even an anti-Capitalist if those groups are hostile to outsiders. Think of your own political evolution, did it happen all at once?
The hubris of some people never ceases to amaze! For instance, the assertion that "The interview with Gonzalez is by the same person who wrote that comment." is just wrong. A false statement, not true, completely incorrect. And yet the person who wrote it rabidly maintains that their powers of telepathy (?) are more important than what really happened. Perhaps they heard a rumor and as we know, rumors supercede fact in this topsy-turvy world where insanity and psychotic behavior are more coherent than anything else.
And why do we have these insane, innuendo-filled discussions on this message board? Here's my prediction: months and months of rumors, building up a false reality to rationalize things that are going on, rationalize sides taken based on half understanding what is going on, etc ... who are the out-and-out cowards who would prefer to spend time arguing things that aren't even true or spreading rumors behind people's backs or making shit up that isn't true or believing whatever gossip they hear? When any of these people could clear the air by picking up a phone, sending an email, or whatever. What is the difference between a COINTELPRO agent who spreads false rumors and gossip and a disgruntled person who does the same thing? Where their paycheck comes from? Again, anyone who hears something third hand, then spreads it around as fact, is doing the police's job for them. And we should never feel bad or ashamed about pointing that out until they stop.
And why do we have these insane, innuendo-filled discussions on this message board? Here's my prediction: months and months of rumors, building up a false reality to rationalize things that are going on, rationalize sides taken based on half understanding what is going on, etc ... who are the out-and-out cowards who would prefer to spend time arguing things that aren't even true or spreading rumors behind people's backs or making shit up that isn't true or believing whatever gossip they hear? When any of these people could clear the air by picking up a phone, sending an email, or whatever. What is the difference between a COINTELPRO agent who spreads false rumors and gossip and a disgruntled person who does the same thing? Where their paycheck comes from? Again, anyone who hears something third hand, then spreads it around as fact, is doing the police's job for them. And we should never feel bad or ashamed about pointing that out until they stop.
I have always worked in groups where political affiliation, music preference, dietary preference, sexual preference is just like it is in most social groups -- none of people's business. These groups exist throughout the world, and throughout the Bay Area. But I have found that they don't exist in the North Oakland Collective House Gentrification scene. While there are exceptions, the demographic of this scene is middle-class to upper-middle-class (and in some cases, ruling class) dropouts who act like the social scenes they dropped out of act -- exclusive, run on gossip, etc. You just replace Banana Republic with the right thrift store. You replace Top 40 with Bottom 40. In some cases, you don't replace at all -- the behaviors of lower class people still offend you unless those people can be patronized or paternalized (i.e. cute homeless people). Well, you can go on and on and really it wouldn't matter if more people were able to stand up to the problems these folks create within political projects.
Wow, now rich computer programmers are accusing poor people of gentrification and people trash talking broad swaths of the activist community are accusing others of being divisive (and even COINTELPRO). How low are certain people willing to stoop.
whatever happened to the "letter to the progressive and radical community" thread? it seems to have up and disappeared.
Since it sounded like an Indymedia person who hated the Long Haul I just assumed that it was one of two people. Perhaps it wasn't and was posted to create divisions. Since the content of that post does suggest that it was posted by someone in the Indymedia collective I would suggest that the comment be hidden (along with all responses) if that is not true. Im just tired of all the divisivenes in the anarchist community these days and when someone bad mouthed "East Bay Anarchists" I responded, only adding to the divisiveness. When someone posts something like that what should the people being badmouthed do? Just ignore it?
I'm going to try to ignore these types of posts in the future but just letting someone trash talk your friends because you dont have the energy to engage in a flame war doesnt feel very good. Flame wars result in really counter productive things being said out of anger, so ignoring the thread and not letting the comments anger me more seems like the most productive thing I can do.
I'm going to try to ignore these types of posts in the future but just letting someone trash talk your friends because you dont have the energy to engage in a flame war doesnt feel very good. Flame wars result in really counter productive things being said out of anger, so ignoring the thread and not letting the comments anger me more seems like the most productive thing I can do.
>Just because you are not a bohemian, doesn’t mean you are not an anarchist. Anarchism is not just for bohemians.
>People who call themselves anarchists, and then set about alienating fellow workers, just because they drive cars, watch sports and/or eat meat, are working >against the anarchist cause."
-------------------------------------
respond:
And how!
But you know who does this even more? Liberals.
Listen to the Rush Limbaugh show and when he ticks through his news blurbs and thoughts of the day, count how many times he is focusing on the image of elitist liberals who do things just because they can think better of themselves. Liberal kids at fraternities and sororities always talk about 'white trash' and rednecks and view that class as the source of the racism problem, and they even dress up for halloween in mullets and southern clothes. And when they're not fighting over parking spots with their SUVs at antiunion Whole Foods or Berkeley Bowl to get their organic fair trade wheat free crackers (not to imply that you shouldn't get organic anyway), berkeley voters elect people like Shirley Dean who was this total business candidate who tried to use public money to build parking garages over Ohlone shellmounds to promote business at the pottery barn on 4th street, because she would pander to them with stuff like this mandate that the city would only buy economically just coffee (even though berkeley doesn't buy much coffee): http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1999/6/8_4.html
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=8044
But what I am saying here is that for any fraction of 'progressives' who are hypocritical and have no awareness of class, there are lots more liberals who only care about a couple non-class based social issues, and who end up in the same position as neoconservatives because they both favor interventions - liberals for humanitarian reasons, and hawks for enforcing our way of life on other nations. This is significant because all the people voting republican are not rich. How did nearly 50% of the people who voted for president choose bush - they weren't all rich - lots of them, such as my father lately, totally suck up this 'elitist liberals' idea, where the republicans easily succeed at being the populist party.
----------------------------------
"
>some of the people arrested at those antiescalation events have been photographed eating lentils at the long haul.
Indeed they have. Heck, I lentils myself sometimes. But we must learn to distinguish between showing up, and actually accomplishing something. Those antiescalation events were complete and total failures at their stated purpose. The failed to stop escalation. Bottom line: It didn’t work. I told you it wouldn’t work, but you didn’t believe me. OK, it was probably worth a try. Who knows, maybe i might have been wrong. It does happen sometimes. But in this case, I wasn’t wrong. I was dead right. The escalation went ahead anyhow. Protests cannot stop our rulers. It didn’t work. It’s not working, It wont work in the future.
--------------------------------------
I think the miami protests, and the SF antiwar protest were partly successful. The big neoliberalism conferences have been less successful lately and the 3rd world countries have been able to stand up for themselves more, even if it isn't a total win. And because other countries saw pictures of protesters here, they are less likely to attack us if we ever leave.
So what do you support? Electoral politics, as was the original topic of this newswire topic? If not protests, changing the world through changing yourself by perfecting your consumer choices and recycling and energy use habits - like liberals in Berkeley? Bombing chiron or unscrewing a powerpole with a large set of pliers like that guy in spokane?
>People who call themselves anarchists, and then set about alienating fellow workers, just because they drive cars, watch sports and/or eat meat, are working >against the anarchist cause."
-------------------------------------
respond:
And how!
But you know who does this even more? Liberals.
Listen to the Rush Limbaugh show and when he ticks through his news blurbs and thoughts of the day, count how many times he is focusing on the image of elitist liberals who do things just because they can think better of themselves. Liberal kids at fraternities and sororities always talk about 'white trash' and rednecks and view that class as the source of the racism problem, and they even dress up for halloween in mullets and southern clothes. And when they're not fighting over parking spots with their SUVs at antiunion Whole Foods or Berkeley Bowl to get their organic fair trade wheat free crackers (not to imply that you shouldn't get organic anyway), berkeley voters elect people like Shirley Dean who was this total business candidate who tried to use public money to build parking garages over Ohlone shellmounds to promote business at the pottery barn on 4th street, because she would pander to them with stuff like this mandate that the city would only buy economically just coffee (even though berkeley doesn't buy much coffee): http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1999/6/8_4.html
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=8044
But what I am saying here is that for any fraction of 'progressives' who are hypocritical and have no awareness of class, there are lots more liberals who only care about a couple non-class based social issues, and who end up in the same position as neoconservatives because they both favor interventions - liberals for humanitarian reasons, and hawks for enforcing our way of life on other nations. This is significant because all the people voting republican are not rich. How did nearly 50% of the people who voted for president choose bush - they weren't all rich - lots of them, such as my father lately, totally suck up this 'elitist liberals' idea, where the republicans easily succeed at being the populist party.
----------------------------------
"
>some of the people arrested at those antiescalation events have been photographed eating lentils at the long haul.
Indeed they have. Heck, I lentils myself sometimes. But we must learn to distinguish between showing up, and actually accomplishing something. Those antiescalation events were complete and total failures at their stated purpose. The failed to stop escalation. Bottom line: It didn’t work. I told you it wouldn’t work, but you didn’t believe me. OK, it was probably worth a try. Who knows, maybe i might have been wrong. It does happen sometimes. But in this case, I wasn’t wrong. I was dead right. The escalation went ahead anyhow. Protests cannot stop our rulers. It didn’t work. It’s not working, It wont work in the future.
--------------------------------------
I think the miami protests, and the SF antiwar protest were partly successful. The big neoliberalism conferences have been less successful lately and the 3rd world countries have been able to stand up for themselves more, even if it isn't a total win. And because other countries saw pictures of protesters here, they are less likely to attack us if we ever leave.
So what do you support? Electoral politics, as was the original topic of this newswire topic? If not protests, changing the world through changing yourself by perfecting your consumer choices and recycling and energy use habits - like liberals in Berkeley? Bombing chiron or unscrewing a powerpole with a large set of pliers like that guy in spokane?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panthers
(snip)
The (Black Panther) Party was targeted by the FBI's COINTELPRO program, which systematically attempted to disrupt their activities and dissolve the party. COINTELPRO achieved this through a combination of infiltration, public propaganda, and the exacerbation of interfactional rivalries, mostly through the mailing of anonymous or forged letters.
(snip)
The Party eventually fell apart due to rising legal costs and disputes resulting from COINTELPRO.
(snip)
* * *
http://mediafilter.org/MFF/S37/S37cointelpro.html
(snip)
Held was also involved in the COINTELPRO "black propaganda" campaign--complete with forged letters and documents--to foment a split between Panther leaders Pratt, Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver. Working out of the FBI's Los Angeles office at the time, he also oversaw the creation of the Secret Army Organization, a paramilitary group which terrorized student anti-war protestors, and was responsible for the 1972 assassination of San Diego State University economics professor Peter Bohmer.
(snip)
* * *
http://mediafilter.org/MFF/USDCO.PsyWar.html
(snip)
Harassment Through Psychological Warfare
(snip)
Forged Correspondence: Former employees have confirmed that the FBI has the capacity to produce state-of-the-art forgery. This capacity was used under COINTELPRO to create snitch jackets and bogus communications that exacerbated differences among activists and disrupted their work.
One such forgery intimidated civil rights worker Muhammed Kenyatta (Donald Jackson), causing him to abandon promising projects in Jackson, Mississippi. Kenyatta had foundation grants to form Black economic cooperatives and open a "Black and Proud School" for dropouts. He was also a student organizer at nearby Tougaloo College. In the winter of 1969, after an extended campaign of FBI and police harassment, Kenyatta received a letter, purportedly from the Tougaloo College Defense Committee, which "directed" that he cease his political activities immediately. If he did not "heed our diplomatic and well-thought-out warning," the committee would consider taking measures "which would have a more direct effect and which would not be as cordial as this note." Kenyatta and his wife left. Only years later did they learn it was not Tougaloo students, but FBI covert operators who had driven them out.
Later in 1969, FBI agents fabricated a letter to the mainly white organizers of a proposed Washington, D.C. anti-war rally demanding that they pay the local Black community a $20,000 "security bond." This attempted extortion was composed in the name of the local Black United Front (BUF) and signed with the forged signature of its leader. FBI informers inside the BUF then tried to get the group to back such a demand, and Bureau contacts in the media made sure the story received wide publicity.
The Senate Intelligence Committee uncovered a series of FBI letters sent to top Panther leaders throughout 1970 in the name of Connie Mathews, an intermediary between the Black Panther Party's national office and Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, in exile in Algeria. These exquisite forgeries were prepared on pilfered stationery in Panther vernacular expertly simulated by the FBI's Washington, D.C. laboratory. Each was forwarded to an FBI Legal Attache at a U.S. Embassy in a foreign country that Mathews was due to travel through and then posted at just the right time "in such a manner that it cannot be traced to the Bureau." The FBI enhanced the eerie authenticity of these fabrications by lacing them with esoteric personal tidbits culled from electronic surveillance of Panther homes and offices. Combined with other forgeries, anonymous letters and phone calls, and the covert intervention of FBI and police infiltrators, the Mathews correspondence succeeded in inflaming intra-party mistrust and rivalry until it erupted into the bitter public split that shattered the organization in the winter of 1971.
Anonymous Letters and Telephone Calls: During the 1960s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from the FBI. Some were unsigned, while others bore bogus names or purported to come from unidentified activists in phony or actual organizations.
Many of these bogus communications promoted racial divisions and fears, often by exploiting and exacerbating tensions between Jewish and Black activists. One such FBI-concocted letter went to SDS members who had joined Black students protesting New York University's discharge of a Black teacher in 1969. The supposed author, an unnamed "SDS member," urged whites to break ranks and abandon the Black students because of alleged anti-Semitic slurs by the fired teacher and his supporters.
Other anonymous letters and phone calls falsely accused movement leaders of collaboration with the authorities, corruption, or sexual affairs with other activists' mates. The letter on the next page was used to provoke "a lasting distrust" between a Black civil rights leader and his wife. Its FBI authors hoped that his "concern over what to do about it" would "detract from his time spent in the plots and plans of his organization." As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman active in civil rights and anti-war work filed for divorce soon after receiving the FBI-authored letter reproduced on page 50.
Still other anonymous FBI communications were designed to intimidate dissidents, disrupt coalitions, and provoke violence. Calls to Stokely Carmichael's mother warning of a fictitious Black Panther murder plot drove him to leave the country in September 1968. Similar anonymous FBI telephone threats to SNCC leader James Forman were instrumental in thwarting efforts to bring the two groups together.
The Chicago FBI made effective use of anonymous letters to sabotage the Panthers efforts to build alliances with previously apolitical Black street gangs. The most extensive of these operations involved the Black P. Stone Nation, or "Blackstone Rangers," a powerful confederation of several thousand local Black youth. Early in 1969, as FBI and police infiltrators in the Rangers spread rumors of an impending Panther attack, the Bureau sent Ranger chief Jeff Fort an incendiary note signed "a black brother you don't know." Fort's supposed friend warned that "The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there's supposed to be a hit out for you." Another FBI-concocted anonymous "black man" then informed Chicago Panther leader Fred Hampton of a Ranger plot "to get you out of the way." These fabrications squelched promising talks between the two groups and enabled Chicago Panther security chief William O'Neal, an FBI-paid provocateur, to instigate a series of armed confrontations from which the Panthers barely managed to escape without serious casualties.
(snip)
* * *
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1555703
Black propaganda has a long history.
by nessie Monday December 30, 2002 at 12:05 AM
It long predates Richard Held and COINTELPRO. Consider this incident from the Irish War of Independence:
"Early in 1920 a number of 'death notices' typed on Dail Eireann stationery were sent to men prominently identified with the struggle for independence. Our intelligence department was able to ascertain that these notices were typed in Dublin Castle, and was even able to pin-point the room in which they were typed and the machine with which the typing was done. The stationary had been seized on the premises of Dail Eireann, in Harcourt Street, at an earlier date."
-- from Limerick's Fighting Story edited by Colonel J. M. McCarthy, Anvil Books Ltd. Traiee, County Kerry, Republic of Ireland. p 22
(snip)
The (Black Panther) Party was targeted by the FBI's COINTELPRO program, which systematically attempted to disrupt their activities and dissolve the party. COINTELPRO achieved this through a combination of infiltration, public propaganda, and the exacerbation of interfactional rivalries, mostly through the mailing of anonymous or forged letters.
(snip)
The Party eventually fell apart due to rising legal costs and disputes resulting from COINTELPRO.
(snip)
* * *
http://mediafilter.org/MFF/S37/S37cointelpro.html
(snip)
Held was also involved in the COINTELPRO "black propaganda" campaign--complete with forged letters and documents--to foment a split between Panther leaders Pratt, Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver. Working out of the FBI's Los Angeles office at the time, he also oversaw the creation of the Secret Army Organization, a paramilitary group which terrorized student anti-war protestors, and was responsible for the 1972 assassination of San Diego State University economics professor Peter Bohmer.
(snip)
* * *
http://mediafilter.org/MFF/USDCO.PsyWar.html
(snip)
Harassment Through Psychological Warfare
(snip)
Forged Correspondence: Former employees have confirmed that the FBI has the capacity to produce state-of-the-art forgery. This capacity was used under COINTELPRO to create snitch jackets and bogus communications that exacerbated differences among activists and disrupted their work.
One such forgery intimidated civil rights worker Muhammed Kenyatta (Donald Jackson), causing him to abandon promising projects in Jackson, Mississippi. Kenyatta had foundation grants to form Black economic cooperatives and open a "Black and Proud School" for dropouts. He was also a student organizer at nearby Tougaloo College. In the winter of 1969, after an extended campaign of FBI and police harassment, Kenyatta received a letter, purportedly from the Tougaloo College Defense Committee, which "directed" that he cease his political activities immediately. If he did not "heed our diplomatic and well-thought-out warning," the committee would consider taking measures "which would have a more direct effect and which would not be as cordial as this note." Kenyatta and his wife left. Only years later did they learn it was not Tougaloo students, but FBI covert operators who had driven them out.
Later in 1969, FBI agents fabricated a letter to the mainly white organizers of a proposed Washington, D.C. anti-war rally demanding that they pay the local Black community a $20,000 "security bond." This attempted extortion was composed in the name of the local Black United Front (BUF) and signed with the forged signature of its leader. FBI informers inside the BUF then tried to get the group to back such a demand, and Bureau contacts in the media made sure the story received wide publicity.
The Senate Intelligence Committee uncovered a series of FBI letters sent to top Panther leaders throughout 1970 in the name of Connie Mathews, an intermediary between the Black Panther Party's national office and Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, in exile in Algeria. These exquisite forgeries were prepared on pilfered stationery in Panther vernacular expertly simulated by the FBI's Washington, D.C. laboratory. Each was forwarded to an FBI Legal Attache at a U.S. Embassy in a foreign country that Mathews was due to travel through and then posted at just the right time "in such a manner that it cannot be traced to the Bureau." The FBI enhanced the eerie authenticity of these fabrications by lacing them with esoteric personal tidbits culled from electronic surveillance of Panther homes and offices. Combined with other forgeries, anonymous letters and phone calls, and the covert intervention of FBI and police infiltrators, the Mathews correspondence succeeded in inflaming intra-party mistrust and rivalry until it erupted into the bitter public split that shattered the organization in the winter of 1971.
Anonymous Letters and Telephone Calls: During the 1960s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from the FBI. Some were unsigned, while others bore bogus names or purported to come from unidentified activists in phony or actual organizations.
Many of these bogus communications promoted racial divisions and fears, often by exploiting and exacerbating tensions between Jewish and Black activists. One such FBI-concocted letter went to SDS members who had joined Black students protesting New York University's discharge of a Black teacher in 1969. The supposed author, an unnamed "SDS member," urged whites to break ranks and abandon the Black students because of alleged anti-Semitic slurs by the fired teacher and his supporters.
Other anonymous letters and phone calls falsely accused movement leaders of collaboration with the authorities, corruption, or sexual affairs with other activists' mates. The letter on the next page was used to provoke "a lasting distrust" between a Black civil rights leader and his wife. Its FBI authors hoped that his "concern over what to do about it" would "detract from his time spent in the plots and plans of his organization." As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman active in civil rights and anti-war work filed for divorce soon after receiving the FBI-authored letter reproduced on page 50.
Still other anonymous FBI communications were designed to intimidate dissidents, disrupt coalitions, and provoke violence. Calls to Stokely Carmichael's mother warning of a fictitious Black Panther murder plot drove him to leave the country in September 1968. Similar anonymous FBI telephone threats to SNCC leader James Forman were instrumental in thwarting efforts to bring the two groups together.
The Chicago FBI made effective use of anonymous letters to sabotage the Panthers efforts to build alliances with previously apolitical Black street gangs. The most extensive of these operations involved the Black P. Stone Nation, or "Blackstone Rangers," a powerful confederation of several thousand local Black youth. Early in 1969, as FBI and police infiltrators in the Rangers spread rumors of an impending Panther attack, the Bureau sent Ranger chief Jeff Fort an incendiary note signed "a black brother you don't know." Fort's supposed friend warned that "The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there's supposed to be a hit out for you." Another FBI-concocted anonymous "black man" then informed Chicago Panther leader Fred Hampton of a Ranger plot "to get you out of the way." These fabrications squelched promising talks between the two groups and enabled Chicago Panther security chief William O'Neal, an FBI-paid provocateur, to instigate a series of armed confrontations from which the Panthers barely managed to escape without serious casualties.
(snip)
* * *
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1555703
Black propaganda has a long history.
by nessie Monday December 30, 2002 at 12:05 AM
It long predates Richard Held and COINTELPRO. Consider this incident from the Irish War of Independence:
"Early in 1920 a number of 'death notices' typed on Dail Eireann stationery were sent to men prominently identified with the struggle for independence. Our intelligence department was able to ascertain that these notices were typed in Dublin Castle, and was even able to pin-point the room in which they were typed and the machine with which the typing was done. The stationary had been seized on the premises of Dail Eireann, in Harcourt Street, at an earlier date."
-- from Limerick's Fighting Story edited by Colonel J. M. McCarthy, Anvil Books Ltd. Traiee, County Kerry, Republic of Ireland. p 22
a mass movement to do what - the answer movements in New York city last winter, and in San Francisco were awfully big - 200,000 + people in either location. They were standing in pens in 20F weather in New York. But you said protests don't work, and electoral politics don't work.
Was/is Richard Wallace Held in San Francisco? What is his address? That would be a great interview.
re: the panthers stuff- I've received a weird hand addressed envelope containing anti-racial mixing material in it. I dug through all the handwriting samples I have to try to match some of the unusually written numbers with someone, but I couldn't find anyone I know who had matching handwriting. It could have been a random undercover nazi that I met somewhere, but they still would have had to know me fairly well and know where I live.
Was/is Richard Wallace Held in San Francisco? What is his address? That would be a great interview.
re: the panthers stuff- I've received a weird hand addressed envelope containing anti-racial mixing material in it. I dug through all the handwriting samples I have to try to match some of the unusually written numbers with someone, but I couldn't find anyone I know who had matching handwriting. It could have been a random undercover nazi that I met somewhere, but they still would have had to know me fairly well and know where I live.
The bottom line? Those who are too filled with cowardice to actually say these things face-to-face shouldn't have a forum on this site. Again, if you are the kind of person who just repeats gossip that you've heard but you are too intellectually lazy to actually follow up and find out if its true, you should probably keep your mouth shut. In the meantime, I'll keep waiting for the email/phone call that will never come because self-constructed realities are a lot more comforting and easy than real reality.
I had work to do today so never got to pick up the thread again, but I appreciate the content. Even though it's a lot of negative stuff and some attacks, people are engaging each other from different groups on roughly the same side. How to take apart the aspect of treating people like dirt (Greens do it too - I experienced it last week in an ugly way).
When I was going to work today I was thinking about the comment from the guy from Santa Cruz - accepting of everyone. It's both disingenuous in a way, and necessary, unconditional acceptance. Who gets that these days? It's like a gift.
I was dissapointed to see the idiot Chron's article today about how the Greens aren't such extremists afterall - trying to make them palatable for the Dems. Who are the Greens? Depends who you talk to. So I'd guess that's the same for anarchists. Something we share in common. Each one of us within our groups is different and with our own views of what our group actually is. I know Greens who are sickened by all Dems, and I know Greens who are also Zionists and watered down Dems, compromise at all levels. Sad to see the party reduced to it's knees by it's own members. It happens to all of our groups. While the anarchists are compromising by working on Matt's campaign, the Greens are compromising in the 04 election. I come away with a sense of not knowing what we are sometimes.
As for the relevance of the protests, I agree. They didn't stop the war, they do a lot of useless stuff. The networking was pretty lame compared to the networking I'm getting out of the campaign. For me it was because the campaign is more focused. A lot of people interested in something less broad than 'peace' are running all over the city like crazy, honking at eachother, hanging out everywhere, doing the phones, eating at the HQ, making the buttons, making their cars into 'artcars' etc. It used to be I'd go in and not know most of the people. I still don't, but the people I know have increased to the point where I can hardly get out of there because I keep starting conversations with people about local issues, or run into someone I haven't seen in years, etc. People who have never in their lives been involved are getting in there.
One thing I think we got out of the protests is the sense of taking back the streets. We don't have a nuclear bomb to stop the moron cabal with, but we got to feel power in other, more symbolic ways. And I think that aspect is important. The INS window smashing was an example - symbolic in that it didn't take out the whole building, but it instilled an idea in people. A crack in the wall. The image and the feel of the protests is what has been instilled in people's heads. They know that some portion of the population will be out there, when stuff happens, and if they also decide to come out, it's okay. The image and the sense of it is something TIA can't look at or examine. It's in people's heads, like an invisible seed. It can be watered, when necessary.
The funny thing is that I spent most of my life believing that the tangible and hard science types of work have a level of meaning in the world that they really don't have a monopoly on, and it wasn't until all this insanity of the past several years that I've realized the real importance and necessity of symbolic acts, fiction, myth, etc. The 'best seller list' phenomenon has been interesting in this way - an upper middle class way of working around the right-wing media, book by book.
But yes, the absentee ballots. The weakest link, since it only has one source. Who's up for staying up all night at fucking Pier 29 to track who goes in and out? And what good will it do? Maybe someone dissapearing them will have to sweat. Willie had the ballots dissapear from sight around midnight the last time. But I think those were at City Hall. At one point, stuff will be transported via the meter maids, from what I can tell. Sad.
The e-votes will also be being uplinked over modems at sites around the city. But those will have a paper back-up . . . assuming they aren't lost. The ES&S history seems to be huge undervotes (or out and out code manipulation).
ANother potential problem is the media blitz attack on anyone who dissents and wants a recount. So far it looks like the campaign has been able to withstand the sleeze 'carpet bombs' but now will come the pressure to 'leave it alone' once the thing is 'declared'. And more vilifying and mythology of the Greens as sore losers if that's the case. The Dems have trotted in all the assholes from the past for Newscum, probably for a cost, why not bankroll a media blitz to try to seal a fake count? The situation has the probablility to explode in some completely unpredictable ways if a recount is called for, since the G campaign is the fusion of two parties, and many different groups. But chances are, this new creation - like a teenager - has nothing to lose. A media blitz will fail if a recount is called for.
And so far, the media is pretty toned down about it all. Maybe that will change when Clinton shows up. But they seem to want to keep things relatively quiet on the national level. There was a bizarre Telegraph article today, but that's only one of only a handful on the international level that I've seen.
When I was going to work today I was thinking about the comment from the guy from Santa Cruz - accepting of everyone. It's both disingenuous in a way, and necessary, unconditional acceptance. Who gets that these days? It's like a gift.
I was dissapointed to see the idiot Chron's article today about how the Greens aren't such extremists afterall - trying to make them palatable for the Dems. Who are the Greens? Depends who you talk to. So I'd guess that's the same for anarchists. Something we share in common. Each one of us within our groups is different and with our own views of what our group actually is. I know Greens who are sickened by all Dems, and I know Greens who are also Zionists and watered down Dems, compromise at all levels. Sad to see the party reduced to it's knees by it's own members. It happens to all of our groups. While the anarchists are compromising by working on Matt's campaign, the Greens are compromising in the 04 election. I come away with a sense of not knowing what we are sometimes.
As for the relevance of the protests, I agree. They didn't stop the war, they do a lot of useless stuff. The networking was pretty lame compared to the networking I'm getting out of the campaign. For me it was because the campaign is more focused. A lot of people interested in something less broad than 'peace' are running all over the city like crazy, honking at eachother, hanging out everywhere, doing the phones, eating at the HQ, making the buttons, making their cars into 'artcars' etc. It used to be I'd go in and not know most of the people. I still don't, but the people I know have increased to the point where I can hardly get out of there because I keep starting conversations with people about local issues, or run into someone I haven't seen in years, etc. People who have never in their lives been involved are getting in there.
One thing I think we got out of the protests is the sense of taking back the streets. We don't have a nuclear bomb to stop the moron cabal with, but we got to feel power in other, more symbolic ways. And I think that aspect is important. The INS window smashing was an example - symbolic in that it didn't take out the whole building, but it instilled an idea in people. A crack in the wall. The image and the feel of the protests is what has been instilled in people's heads. They know that some portion of the population will be out there, when stuff happens, and if they also decide to come out, it's okay. The image and the sense of it is something TIA can't look at or examine. It's in people's heads, like an invisible seed. It can be watered, when necessary.
The funny thing is that I spent most of my life believing that the tangible and hard science types of work have a level of meaning in the world that they really don't have a monopoly on, and it wasn't until all this insanity of the past several years that I've realized the real importance and necessity of symbolic acts, fiction, myth, etc. The 'best seller list' phenomenon has been interesting in this way - an upper middle class way of working around the right-wing media, book by book.
But yes, the absentee ballots. The weakest link, since it only has one source. Who's up for staying up all night at fucking Pier 29 to track who goes in and out? And what good will it do? Maybe someone dissapearing them will have to sweat. Willie had the ballots dissapear from sight around midnight the last time. But I think those were at City Hall. At one point, stuff will be transported via the meter maids, from what I can tell. Sad.
The e-votes will also be being uplinked over modems at sites around the city. But those will have a paper back-up . . . assuming they aren't lost. The ES&S history seems to be huge undervotes (or out and out code manipulation).
ANother potential problem is the media blitz attack on anyone who dissents and wants a recount. So far it looks like the campaign has been able to withstand the sleeze 'carpet bombs' but now will come the pressure to 'leave it alone' once the thing is 'declared'. And more vilifying and mythology of the Greens as sore losers if that's the case. The Dems have trotted in all the assholes from the past for Newscum, probably for a cost, why not bankroll a media blitz to try to seal a fake count? The situation has the probablility to explode in some completely unpredictable ways if a recount is called for, since the G campaign is the fusion of two parties, and many different groups. But chances are, this new creation - like a teenager - has nothing to lose. A media blitz will fail if a recount is called for.
And so far, the media is pretty toned down about it all. Maybe that will change when Clinton shows up. But they seem to want to keep things relatively quiet on the national level. There was a bizarre Telegraph article today, but that's only one of only a handful on the international level that I've seen.
whoa - I hadn't been thinking about the usual ballot fraud scenario at all yet. I don't live in that city either.
Does anyone have a plan for monitoring the elections and where the ballot boxes are going? Can you tell us more about what their plan is with the meter maids?
Does anyone have a plan for monitoring the elections and where the ballot boxes are going? Can you tell us more about what their plan is with the meter maids?
Everytime there is any argument among radicals everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling FBI and COINTELPRO.
Most of the time the disruption and conflicts have much simpler explanations.
Doesnt anyone every worry that by crying wolf we are making it just that much harder to deal with real cases of such disruption? The arguments near the end of this thread provide a great example of the danger in this. A lot of people know who posted the various attacks back and forth, most of us know those people are not cops, so we all start to just ignore the accusation that disruptive posts are by cops as background noise. If one of the editors really believes that post was black propaganda by an undercover cop trying to cause disruption it should be hidden and if the person who posted it wasnt a cop then they can ask him to unhide it.
Most of the time the disruption and conflicts have much simpler explanations.
Doesnt anyone every worry that by crying wolf we are making it just that much harder to deal with real cases of such disruption? The arguments near the end of this thread provide a great example of the danger in this. A lot of people know who posted the various attacks back and forth, most of us know those people are not cops, so we all start to just ignore the accusation that disruptive posts are by cops as background noise. If one of the editors really believes that post was black propaganda by an undercover cop trying to cause disruption it should be hidden and if the person who posted it wasnt a cop then they can ask him to unhide it.
Nope. Kind of like black bloc -- COINTELPRO is not a *group*, it is a *tactic*. When COINTELPRO actions are taken by people (whether or not they are confirmably a cop, whatever that ultimately means anyway, many unwitting participants in the 60s COINTELPRO never once received any money from the government), they MUST be called out on it and group process must take action against it. I'm not sure if anyone here has said that these *comments* are cointelpro, but they seem to be alluding to something else that apparently is a private conversation being held in public.
"COINTELPRO is not a *group*, it is a *tactic*."
"COINTELPRO is an acronym for the FBI's domestic "counterintelligence programs" to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. "
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
Ward Churchill's full book on COINTELPRO as an FBI program is online at that URL.
There is also a good audio interview with Ward Churchill about the FBI and COINTELPRO from last year here:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/126231.php
COINTELPRO was a very real FBI program, not just a bunch of right wingers trying to be disruptive or activists disagreeing on this or that personal conflict.
If you don't want an offline personal conflict to get online, I'd suggest you stop trash talking the Long Haul and East Bay Anarchists in your posts. How can you post something attacking people and then complain about a personal conflict being brought out in the open when they respond? Since you never go into details on why you hate "East Bay Anarchists" or "Long Haul types" it seems like your attack is solely intended to piss people off and get a response. If your intention in the post wasn't to get a response, what was it? Or, do you think its OK for you to trash talk others and its a violation of security culture when people respond? If it has something to do with something you don't want brought out on the web don't try to bring it up on the web.
"COINTELPRO is an acronym for the FBI's domestic "counterintelligence programs" to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. "
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
Ward Churchill's full book on COINTELPRO as an FBI program is online at that URL.
There is also a good audio interview with Ward Churchill about the FBI and COINTELPRO from last year here:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/126231.php
COINTELPRO was a very real FBI program, not just a bunch of right wingers trying to be disruptive or activists disagreeing on this or that personal conflict.
If you don't want an offline personal conflict to get online, I'd suggest you stop trash talking the Long Haul and East Bay Anarchists in your posts. How can you post something attacking people and then complain about a personal conflict being brought out in the open when they respond? Since you never go into details on why you hate "East Bay Anarchists" or "Long Haul types" it seems like your attack is solely intended to piss people off and get a response. If your intention in the post wasn't to get a response, what was it? Or, do you think its OK for you to trash talk others and its a violation of security culture when people respond? If it has something to do with something you don't want brought out on the web don't try to bring it up on the web.
Well, of course its a shame I have to point this out, but I will anyway. Yes, COINTELPRO *was* a formal government program, but as you point out it was officially discontinued long before cointelpro strategies were continuing to be used by the government, govt-funded right wing organizations, etc. By your definition, to say ANYTHING is cointelpro these days would be false because that program doesn't exist anymore. The most obvious example is the fake "black bloc" cells set up before the Quebec protests. While this was not COINTELPRO proper (i.e. it was Canadian law enforcement with international help, it was years after COINTELPRO was discontinued, etc), I think most people refer to it as cointelpro. Almost every security culture book or document or what have you now uses cointelpro as I have specified it -- a tactic used by whomever to disrupt activities on the left. It seems like such a waste of time to point this out.
As for talking about the anarchist social scene that predominates in the East Bay, I don't see how that is any different from the same anarchists talking badly about IAC, or RCP, or "liberals" or "football fans" or any other group. It is not cointelpro to talk about political factions and things you see wrong with them. Likewise, I do not think it is inherently wrong for people to argue about IAC/RCP, although many critiques fall short. As for more in-depth critiques, there are lots of places you can start. AK Press enthusiastically published Murray Bookchin's Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism which you can read online at http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/
I certainly do not think it is cointelpro for AK Press to publish this book, or for Murray Bookchin to have written it, or for me to give similar opinions. Given that, I also think there are serious security culture problems and I will refer to that whenever I want. If you want more detail, then by all means, get in touch. Or don't, but at least cut the whining. After all, someone else is the one on here suggesting that comments posted are the same person who wrote the article, obviously without knowing what's going on.
As for talking about the anarchist social scene that predominates in the East Bay, I don't see how that is any different from the same anarchists talking badly about IAC, or RCP, or "liberals" or "football fans" or any other group. It is not cointelpro to talk about political factions and things you see wrong with them. Likewise, I do not think it is inherently wrong for people to argue about IAC/RCP, although many critiques fall short. As for more in-depth critiques, there are lots of places you can start. AK Press enthusiastically published Murray Bookchin's Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism which you can read online at http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/
I certainly do not think it is cointelpro for AK Press to publish this book, or for Murray Bookchin to have written it, or for me to give similar opinions. Given that, I also think there are serious security culture problems and I will refer to that whenever I want. If you want more detail, then by all means, get in touch. Or don't, but at least cut the whining. After all, someone else is the one on here suggesting that comments posted are the same person who wrote the article, obviously without knowing what's going on.
That's what they *told* us. More likely, they just changed the name.
Just to clarify things for the SF-IMC people who don't know that I haven't been posting to this thread, I just now read a bunch of posts and was really upset to see that you couldn't even figure out that I wasn't even reading the thread.
The reasons why I haven't been reading this thread: I'm not rich like you native san franciscans and east bay computer programmers, so I don't have a computer that works, and I spend some of my time doing positive things for my community and the world, since I don't need all this negativity.
Also, I spent a few hours at the Long Haul this weekend, but I didn't see any lentils there.
Pretty soon I can stop reading this site altogether and just read sfbay.indymedia.org
Signed,
the domestic worker who borrowed a ton of money to go to Cancun
The reasons why I haven't been reading this thread: I'm not rich like you native san franciscans and east bay computer programmers, so I don't have a computer that works, and I spend some of my time doing positive things for my community and the world, since I don't need all this negativity.
Also, I spent a few hours at the Long Haul this weekend, but I didn't see any lentils there.
Pretty soon I can stop reading this site altogether and just read sfbay.indymedia.org
Signed,
the domestic worker who borrowed a ton of money to go to Cancun
Vote a straight Lesser Evil Party slate. We're your only hope.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1004885.htm
Dwarf rumour squashed
Officials in the central Iranian town of Khomein, where Islamic Republic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was born, have been forced to publicly quell a bizarre rumour apparently aimed at bringing down property prices.
According to a report in the Jomhuri Eslami newspaper, rumours have been flying for around a month, even among local officials, that a group of 14 male dwarfs were living in the town's old citadel.
The dwarfs were also rumoured to only eat macaroni and speak only at the time of Azan (call to prayer).
Under local folklore, dwarfs are seen as akin to spirits and should therefore be shunned.
"This rumour was probably started by those who wanted to decrease the price of the land around the citadel," an official in the Khomein governor's office was quoted as saying by the paper.
The paper said local officials and police had all denied the rumour.
Dwarf rumour squashed
Officials in the central Iranian town of Khomein, where Islamic Republic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was born, have been forced to publicly quell a bizarre rumour apparently aimed at bringing down property prices.
According to a report in the Jomhuri Eslami newspaper, rumours have been flying for around a month, even among local officials, that a group of 14 male dwarfs were living in the town's old citadel.
The dwarfs were also rumoured to only eat macaroni and speak only at the time of Azan (call to prayer).
Under local folklore, dwarfs are seen as akin to spirits and should therefore be shunned.
"This rumour was probably started by those who wanted to decrease the price of the land around the citadel," an official in the Khomein governor's office was quoted as saying by the paper.
The paper said local officials and police had all denied the rumour.
No one is talking about you. The world does not revolve around you.
neener, neener, neener
blah, blah, blah
blah, blah, blah
just to let you all know, half of the 'editors' of this site no longer have access to it. our editorial accounts were taken away from us last week.
so.. we will be launching a new indymedia site soon. the url will be sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org
please be on the look out! i think it will be a refreshing place to be on the web, especially after reading this thread.
so.. we will be launching a new indymedia site soon. the url will be sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org
please be on the look out! i think it will be a refreshing place to be on the web, especially after reading this thread.
>half of the 'editors' of this site no longer have access to it. our editorial accounts were taken away from us last week.
What happened to precipitate this action?
>so.. we will be launching a new indymedia site soon. the url will be sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org
Was this decision undertaken before or after your editorial accounts were taken away?
What happened to precipitate this action?
>so.. we will be launching a new indymedia site soon. the url will be sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org
Was this decision undertaken before or after your editorial accounts were taken away?
And speaking of blackouts, check out this article from the December issue of the South African edition of Popular Mechanics:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=115&art_id=iol107060922145B423&set_id=1
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=115&art_id=iol107060922145B423&set_id=1
">half of the 'editors' of this site no longer have access to it. our editorial accounts were taken away from us last week.
What happened to precipitate this action? "
The split was decided a while ago. As part of the agreement of the split we are not supposed to talk about the conflict that lead to it, or badmouth the other collective. But of course, as part of the agreement of the split, editorial access to sf.indymedia wasn't supposed to be taken away until the website split and there was a link from the sf.indymedia site to the sfbay.indymedia site (all of the posts and center column stories will be duplicated between sites). Hopefully the sfbay site is up and running at http://indybay.org and http://sfbay.indymedia.org later this week with a link from the center column of this site.
What happened to precipitate this action? "
The split was decided a while ago. As part of the agreement of the split we are not supposed to talk about the conflict that lead to it, or badmouth the other collective. But of course, as part of the agreement of the split, editorial access to sf.indymedia wasn't supposed to be taken away until the website split and there was a link from the sf.indymedia site to the sfbay.indymedia site (all of the posts and center column stories will be duplicated between sites). Hopefully the sfbay site is up and running at http://indybay.org and http://sfbay.indymedia.org later this week with a link from the center column of this site.
You can vote early but how do you vote often when everyone suppose to get only 1 vote per election?
meter maids, or parking officers, will be transporting the memory packs from precinct polling places to 'uplink sites' around the city. At these 8 sites, the data is sent by modem to the central computer at city hall.
Gee, potential for fraud here? Of course not!
Sheriff's deputies will get the paper ballots and take them to Pier 29.
Gee, potential for fraud here? Of course not!
Sheriff's deputies will get the paper ballots and take them to Pier 29.
> as part of the agreement of the split, editorial access to sf.indymedia wasn't supposed to be taken away until the website split and there was a link
So why did it happen then?
So why did it happen then?
Nessie wrote: "If you think you can do a better job, you interview him. Post it here. I, personally, will put it into the center column. In the meantime, if you’re not doing the work, don’t complain about how it gets done."
I am very sorry. But Indymedia is all about complaining what others do and don't. It is one of the few media projects were readers are not just consumer but also can say what kind of questions were good, which kind of questions were not good and what kind of questions were missing. Critique is always good, from what side whatever.
I am very sorry. But Indymedia is all about complaining what others do and don't. It is one of the few media projects were readers are not just consumer but also can say what kind of questions were good, which kind of questions were not good and what kind of questions were missing. Critique is always good, from what side whatever.
Ask the Brown/Burton Machine.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network