top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Don't Believe the Hype: About the Assaults on the "Assaulters"
by Anon
Sunday Sep 19th, 2010 4:07 PM
About the recent assaults by "radical feminists"
Circumstances compel us to speak about the physical and rhetorical attacks by "feminists" on the "assaulters" Jacob Onto in New York City and Jan Dichter in Santa Cruz. We see that these actions have had a detrimental effect on anti-authoritarian thought and activity in the milieu, and we have the strongest suspicions that this was exactly what was intended. These attacks were not, except in a rhetorical and emotional sense, about patriarchy or rape, but about authoritarian leftist elements taking control of the radical student movements which emerged in those areas. Our reasoning is as follows.

First we observe the extremely vague yet implacable language with which the targeted individuals have been condemned. We are not here to defend these men's characters or discuss the incidents about which they were allegedly accused. Absence of evidence is not absence of evidence. We do find it telling that we can only say "allegedly accused" because the accusations have not been made public or even specified outside of an extremely narrow circle, and are supported only by the argumentum ad baculum ("might makes right") and argumentum ad populum ("a bunch of other people live this is true, so it must be"). We find it telling that anarchists and leftists have colluded in the creation of juridical structures which are notably more authoritarian than even the U.S. criminal justice system, in which the accused has the right to be informed of charges and to speak to them and to one's accuser(s). These men both attempted to engage in dialogue with the people who attacked them, dialogue that was refused because their opponents wielded charges that were formulated specifically to be inherently not answerable.

Using the appropriately cop-like language of "assault," "perpetrator," etc., authoritarian feminists also avail themselves of doublespeak about "community" and "accountability." What can these words possibly mean when the situation they describe is that of masked vigilantes beating their political opponents and denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as rape apologists? Judge, jury and executors of sentence were embodied in gangs of masked individuals who gloat about their ability to extract confessions under torture, and to impose silence on their targets as well as anyone else, male or female, who showed sympathy with them or criticized their actions. They pretend to speak for a consensus among "radical women" while we know for a fact this isn't so. With respect to any who consider themselves "survivors" of these men and their presumed right to privacy, it's far from presumed how that right trumps a community's right to understand what is going on or why when violence within the radical "community" leaves someone hospitalized (Onto) or permanently withdrawn from radical activity (Dichter). These are very serious incidents, the fact that they may have been carried out on false pretenses is as serious as rape, and as we are explaining, it looks to us like this is the case. Accountability cannot be a one-way street or else it becomes a synonym for punitive and policing power. Why should some "perpetrators" of "assaults" be held accountable, and others not? Can we truly speak of "community" if we cannot answer this question?

We observe the withdrawal of many anti-authoritarians from participation in the radical student milieus in the Bay Area, New York and elsewhere. Again, we cannot believe this is an accident. Both Dichter and Onto were strong anti-authoritarian voices during the student mobilizations of the past year and a half. Both maintained well-read blogs which relentlessly criticized the efforts of authoritarian leftists to recuperate the momentum of these events. For instance, Dichter's posts on the Kerr Hall occupation at UCSC criticized the actions during those events of one Olivia R., an authoritarian leftist student organizer and union employee, who was later one of the key instigators of and participants in the assault on him. It is also interesting to note that the attacks transpired after the polarizing events of March 4 in New York and May 1 in Santa Cruz, respectively, which left the authoritarian left with serious axes to grind regarding anarchist actions that had marred "their" protest events (for instance, immediately after the May Day riot the same Olivia spoke of holding participants and planners of the event "accountable").

Both Onto and Dichter critiqued identity politics, legitimized unions and activist and organizationalist approaches - politics which proclaim solidarities on the basis of gender, race and other identities assigned by the capitalist mode of production, and attempt to legitimize representation on such lines - all of which have been heavily promoted by authoritarian leftist elements in the student movement (as well as every social movement in the past 50 years). As many anarchists made common cause with leftist agendas (or embraced authoritarian politics explicitly), they became increasingly isolated as opponents of frontism; they made the unpopular critiques that only anarchists can make, insisting on uncompromisingly anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian principles, and for that (whatever else the case may be with them), all partisans of the anti-authoritarian cause owe them thanks and support. It seems to us that this is the main reason that they and their friends suffered violence and alienation from the milieu.

While we have found that we are not alone in our suspicion and discomfort regarding these political lynchings and smear campaigns, almost no one, including ourselves, is willing to put ourselves on the record publicly against them. We and many of our anti-authoritarian comrades and friends find ourselves no longer able to participate comfortably in what remains of a now effectively crippled radical student movement, simply because we don't want to be the next targeted under this or whatever other excuse - the fruits of recuperation through terrorism.

We don't deny that rape and sexism are deeply serious issues which permeate our social system as well as the movements within it. We fail to see how these incidents have made anyone safer from sexual assault - they have only made authoritarian leftist activists safer from anarchist subversion of their flocks. We respect the strong emotions that people have about this subject but we point out that emotionally charged subjects are always the most useful for manipulating people, and that authoritarian leftists are nothing if not manipulative. The way in which these actions were carried out has indicated anything but a sincere and healthy engagement with issues of sex, consent, rape and patriarchy and has encouraged a blinding and silencing polarization by vastly over-simplifying the issues at stake. The attacks have only reinforced the identity politics activist's culture of self-righteous emotional manipulation in which any serious discussion of sex, consent, etc., disappears under the snub "that guy's fucked up" (and its corresponding subtext, "if you disagree with me then you are no better than a rapist yourself!").

Nor have we set ourselves the task, in this essay, of proposing an alternative mechanism of accountability or resolution in these kinds of situations. We posit that the task of the anarchist is, if not less about proposing alternatives, then at least equally to question the alternatives proposed by the traditional Left and our other historic enemies - spectacular proposals for the alternative management of a society still embedded in the gears of capital.

But in case it still needs to be said, these suspicions are not meant as a slight to anyone who feels they have suffered or been violated at these men's hands; we are merely pointing to the extraordinary shady aspects of these attacks and asking the unpopular questions that only anarchists can ask. We further affirm that authoritarianism is the most serious and fundamental issue of all, without which anti-capitalist struggle becomes a backdoor for totalitarianism, and we find these incidents and their fallout to be a very illustrative case in point. We are not relativists or apologists of any kind; we are anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists, and like Dichter and Onto, we refuse to let these principles take a back seat to any other, or choose our political stances by what is popular at the moment. The inevitable consequence of doing so is the disastrous authoritarian recuperation that we have seen unfolding.

Anarchists and some "ultra-left" or "left-communists" believe that social movements can lead towards a total transformation of social relationships through the spread, escalation and interconnection of self-organized struggles during crises in the capitalist system. Authoritarian leftists see in such movements only potential followers to recruit and organize into the Party. There is no dirty trick too low for them in pursuing this aim. Remember Spain. Remember 1968. Remember March 4. Remember every dead revolution. Ask who stands to benefit rather than trusting in groupthink and the claims of professional manipulators. Don't believe the hype.

In solidarity with Jacob Onto, Jan Dichter and all anti-authoritarians everywhere.

- some friends of Fredy.
Add Your Comments

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by (a)
Sunday Sep 19th, 2010 4:02 PM
Ignoring the insinuation that these attacks on 'assaulters' were part of a political campaign to push anarchists out of the student movement, these events in themselves were extremely troublesome. Sexual assault is something to be taken seriously, but these in no way resembled accountability to a community and it was a disgusting joke to play them off as a community response. They were nothing short of a disturbing display of a few peoples' deep-seated authoritarianism, which has no place in a project of liberation or against patriarchy.
by queer (@)
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 11:35 AM
shut the fuck up rape apologist.

long time anarchist fag here is so fucking happy those assholes got beat down.
by Whoever posted this sickens me
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 1:58 PM
I hope whoever posted this is aware that Jan, the "anti-authoritarian leftist" who was unfairly accused by "authoritarian feminists", screamed out for someone to call cops to protect him the moment of his confrontation by those who had been victims of his sexual violence. But more importantly this tired polemic pertaining to an incident with ultimately inconsequential figures deserves no place whatsoever in a public news forum and whoever posted this is only contributing to the fraying of left solidarities they criticize in their "defense" of perpetrators of sexual violence. I hope I never accidentally run into or speak to the person that wrote this again. I would love for the author(s) to come forward so I never actually do.
by Ed
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 6:40 PM
Perhaps if thats how you feel you shouldn't have posted an anonymous communique gloating of the incident on a public news forum.
Perhaps the people who took it upon themselves to assault this individual should come forward?
You seem to have first hand knowledge so I assume you were involved?
by Droll entertainment
Monday Sep 20th, 2010 9:06 PM
It's hilarious to watch your two sides battle to see who can spew out the jargonistic, self-aggrandized propoganda statements more quickly.

You deserve each other......
by anon
Tuesday Sep 21st, 2010 5:10 PM
I think the author of this post has his (or possibly her -- but I doubt it) head screwed on approximately right about these issues in the abstract, though I disagree with the analysis in this particular case. I agree, in broad strokes, with much of what's said or suggested here, and I think that these questions are extremely important for us all to deal with, whether in New York or in California or in between. I accept the point that baseball-bat justice is authoritarian in nature; is there a form of effective, swift, punitive response to violence and aggression that is not authoritative? I'm honestly not sure. I also agree that it's impossible for uninvolved persons to suss out the proportionality of responses like these without knowing the particulars of what the accused have done; of what is being responded to. How to preserve victims' rights and safety and anonymity while being sure that there's enough concrete substance at the bottom of the accusations to ensure that the hollowest offense isn't met with violent response, that the unscrupulous don't use vague language in order to sic a posse on someone for a personal beef, or that well-meaning people don't hop on a vigilante bandwagon without being damn sure of what they're doing and why? It's really hard. The Santa Cruz scene that was growing and knitting itself together recently is very, very fractured right now, and this does in part have to do with personal beefs between people, with deep disagreements about how to handle gender politics, and absolutely with some internal authoritarian tendencies. But I think that the writer of this post overestimates the evil calculating genius of some of the authoritarians when s/he suggests that the Onto and Maus confrontations might have been a controlled effort to weed out certain political voices or tendencies from the scene. For one thing, I don't see the authoritarians here as operating with that kind of rational coordination. By way of contrast, we in Santa Cruz recently watched one of these named authoritarians, the aforementioned Olivia R., attempt to assemble and mobilize a political campaign against someone she had just broken up with and nursed some hurt personal/romantic feelings toward; she made a concerted effort in that case to use vague language to suggest that this ex-boyfriend needed to be made forcibly "accountable" for some fuzzy, ill-defined gender crimes for her personal satisfaction. Thankfully, this attempt failed to prompt the kind of angry and violent coalition that did emerge to respond to Onto and to Maus, aka Jan Dichter. Many of us watched Olivia's effort with our breath held, hoping that those she was stirring up would see through it, and many of us certainly worried about the capacity of vague and unsubstantiated trigger words to cause someone real harm. That still worries me -- and many of us -- very much. But the Maus situation does not, because I believe it to have been objectively different. While I had no involvement with the confrontation that occurred, I have had some personal experience with Maus, and I know what he did to some women of my acquaintance. For this reason, in this particular case, I do not question or regret what happened to him; I do not second-guess the decisions made by his confronters; I did not find him a useful or valuable member of any "scene" or "movement" here and do not miss him. But I also know that I am able to feel this way about it because I happen to know what the substance behind those accusations was, and that he did real, fucked-up things to people. For anyone not privy to that information, I understand where this discomfort is coming from. And having watched other, extremely unscrupulous attempts to exploit vague language and sentiment, I can't blame anyone for their skepticism. Where do we go from here? I don't know. It's a big complicated mess -- not because of what happened to Maus, to which I say huzzah and good riddance, but because we as a set of linked communities haven't figured out how to deal with these high-stakes and extremely difficult questions.
by Willis
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 9:06 AM
This post is so vague. For a news site, don't you want your reader to understand what the heck you are talking about?
by outside of a circle
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 2:50 PM
Thank you to the posters who put this up for everyone to see. As someone who fully supports anarchist organizing activities but is nominally involved within the local circles, it is very disturbing to read about this vigilante-type justice being meted out for many of the reasons already described.

i'm just speaking from the perspective of someone on the outside, but these kind of actions only damage any amount of trust, respect or credibility folks like me have for/with folks on the inside. It actually makes me glad i'm not more involved within these circles and don't feel any pressure to tow any line.

security culture has its limitations and these aforementioned incidents are a perfect example. I can't approach any (a) acquaintances and ask what the fuck's going on, and because of this, I don't feel entirely comfortable interacting with other (a) acquaintances who I perceive as being involved. Resentment and suspicions only fester in this type of environment. And the more these type of incidents take place, the smaller the circles get, the movement fractures like so many before it - and the state just watches and laughs as our relationships (the only really meaningful thing we build together) implode. it's sickening, really.

solutions? not for me to say, but i would remind folks here that truly anti-authoritarian cultures have quickly become inwardly violent once they've been infected with the mentality of the state. The Shawnee and Cherokee nations are examples of this. Then again, remember that the Apache scouts who worked for the U.S. in tracking down fellow "fugitive" Indians, were not physically harmed by fellow Apaches once they found themselves inside federal prisons. They were simply ostracized for their betrayal of their own people - a fate much worse than any beating.
by Hunter
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 9:19 PM
Fool-proof ways sexual assault can be prevented.

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.
2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!
3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!
4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.
5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!
6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.
7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.
8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.
9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!
10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.
11. And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are committing a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.
by ...
Wednesday Sep 22nd, 2010 9:35 PM
are exactly why its probably a good thing that these beatdowns happened. as you can see, there are already plenty of people who will come to the defense of a alleged rapist without any knowledge of the situation, dragging in all their wack misogyny and shit, espousing solidarity with the dudes, talking about how feminism has ruined anarchism, while applying all sorts of statist concepts like "due process" and evidentiary hearings and bla bla bla. seriously, the comments sections in response to this shit read like the fucking sfgate website.

you know, I wonder what would happen if instead of sexual violence, JO and JD had allegedly assaulted the victims on the basis of their race. i mean shit, where were all the JO and JD apologists at when BANA got their beatdown? where were the demands for "due process" then? BANA hasn't even been accused of actual violence, just racism.

and just for the record, i'm a hetero type-a unapologetic dude. tough shit for the misogynists, there are many of us who are quite happy to see the ladies stepping up, and standing up for each other. remember, direct action gets the goods and whining and complaining is par for the course when we are getting results, so the people who did this should not be discouraged by the furor unleashed in the anonymous comments sections...
by (a)migo
Thursday Sep 23rd, 2010 10:04 AM
Dear friends, please read these words with an open heart, but there's a very thin line between folks who participate in a subculture's inwardly directed violence and gang-mentality. Gangbangers tend to settle internal matters much in the same way these incidents were dealt with, and as the original posters have correctly pointed out, it only serves to silence the ability of individuals to speak openly and freely. You know as well as I do that the "community" in which you act is much bigger than you imagine and your actions have far-reaching effects - Case in point, certain people are banned from the Bike Church, entiendes?

You may be uncontrollable and dangerous to the capitalists, but you are also becoming a danger to yourself and the people around you.
by (A)
Friday Sep 24th, 2010 6:41 AM
First, let it be clear that I am an anti-authoritarian, and as such I'm an neither interested in establishing myself in the upper-ranks of a deeply intrenched power hierarchy within the Santa Cruz anarchist community, and further, as such am I neither a supporter of any actions ever used to establish or reenforce systems of hierarchical power, including sexual molestation, assault, or rape, or building and supporting prejudices against people based on their sex or gender, their race or ethnicity. The actions revolving around the accusations against Maus, the assault on Maus, and the Internet aftermath are truly tragic, at best, and at worst, they further disempower and repeatedly exploit the woman that he supposedly (and we will assume all accusations are correct) assaulted.

Who is Maus? Maus is an anti-authoritarian to seeks to establish non-hierarchical relationships between people and who has been actively working to establishing non-hierarchical systems of organization. His anti-authoritarianism makes him both a rarely in Santa Cruz, and it also makes him a bit of an outcast. Maus has been the recipient of shit talking ever since he arrived in Santa Cruz, not because of anything that he has ever done, but because he is unpopular. From simply being called a bro to being accused of being a nark, Maus has been attacked verbally because of his sex and gender and because of his political ideologies. This is something that needs to be understood to be able to understand the context of his assault in the street, the motivations behind it, the intentions of those that perpetrated it, and the implications it has for the future.

Being part of the anarchist community in Santa Cruz, I can say that not only is there a clear hierarchical system of power, but also that certain members of the community routinely exploit any opportunity to both reinforce those oppressive and domineering systems of power, and they routinely exploit any opportunity to further establishing themselves at the tip of that power structure. They are power hungry and they are explicitly not interested in anarchist ideals or in building an anarchist community, if we are to interpret anarchy as the removal of hierarchical systems of government and the establishment of an egalitarian society. Criticism them and they'll invoke the same arguments used by the US and Israel, the same augments embodied by the fascists.

This type of behavior became disgustingly obvious during the UCSC tree sit, where it became obscenely clear that certain members and certain factions of the anarchists community are not anarchists at all, but are rather people deeply interested, invested, and involved in usurping power for their own benefit. What we have is not an active dissolvement of hierarchical systems of power, but a reestablishing of those systems through a transfer a power. A corporate buy-out. An American style coup d'état . In this way, it became possible only to distinguish between the police and the anarchists by the style of the uniforms they wore.

The real tragedy here is that once again (if the accusations against Maus are factual, which we will assume they are) is that the woman assaulted has had her voice taken away once more. First by Maus, now by the people who claim to be avenging her (protectionism is patriarchy, regardless of what is between the legs of those patriarchs). What has transpired began long before she ever arrived in the scene, in fact it began long before Maus did either, and that is the continual grapple for power by certain community members, resulting here in this case with the physical assault on an outspoken and unpopular anti-authoritarian and the repeated exploitation (first by Maus, then by those claiming justice for her) of the woman in a ploy to gather power for those that are power hungry.

We can observe these same power politics at work in Santa Cruz in other accused sexual assaults. Certain men within the Santa Cruz anarchist community who are actively part of that power hierarchy have been repeatedly accused of sexual assaults. For some of those men, these accusations are on going, and known from city to city. Yet those people have not been singled out, assaulted in the streets, and smeared across the Internet. Instead, they are invited to community discussions about how to handle sexual assaults within the community. Why the preferential treatment for these men?

Two main reasons: firstly, because they hold power within the established power hierarchy, and secondly, and more importantly, because this is not about sexual assault. It is about personal interests in personal power.

We see further proof of the unfortunate exploitation of Maus' sexual assault by those trying only to reinforce their position of dominate power through the language used to attack any criticism of their action. Any person offering a critique of the assault on Maus is instantly accused of being a rapist sympathizer. This is not dialog; this is not communication. Instead, it is the tactics used by those that seek only to reinforce and gather more power, while knowing their own fallacy. It is the tactics used by the US and by Israel when people try and criticize their violence. Terrorist. Anti-Zionist. If critiquing the actions of the people in power of the community you are part of would deem you a rapist sympathizer, who in their right might would offer a critique? Unfortunately, this is what has been happening, and I'm increasingly loosing respect for the few people within the scene that I still have respect for, those people who are so afraid of being called a sympathizer that they are publicly supporting the fascists who attacked Maus in the streets and are smearing his across the Internet.

If nothing else we must offer ourselves to critique, for it is the engine of our own personal growth. It is a system of self-reflection, a system to balance power, and a system of community responsibility of personal actions. Being answerable to a community keeps people acting in ways that benefit the community. So what happens when people verbally attack those offering a critique of their actions? And what can we learn of the intentions behind people who verbally attack anyone trying to critique their actions?

There are more instances which point fingers in the direction not of Maus but of the people who attacked him and support that attack, which will not be delineated here. Instead, I will close saying that not everyone is blind to the sickening obsession with power and the violence required to maintain and grow the power discussed here. In fact, these types of actions legitimize the true tragedy here, the person that Maus assaulted. Violence and obsession with power are the symptoms of the same sickness which rapes and assaults, which molests our children and which lynched blacks in the South, and gassed Jews in WWII. It is a sickness we must no longer be blind to, regardless of the color of its skin or the clothes it wear. Power which feeds on power and subjugation.
by Huner
Friday Sep 24th, 2010 10:26 AM
The way this is written, despite your call for dialogue, limns Maus as such an anti-authoritarian that his very assault of a woman is readable as an act of revolution. That reading, whatever your desire, makes your argument appear to be Fucked Up.
by powertripper
Friday Sep 24th, 2010 12:16 PM
anarchism is not a political philosophy if it is only about abolishing power. as emma goldman once said, "if i cant have community empowerment i don't want to be part of your revolution". ha! so libertarian anarchists: fuck off. and libertarian anarchist rapists can fuck off with a few bruises.
by Hunter
Friday Sep 24th, 2010 12:40 PM
I am interested in what the critics think SHOULD have happened to Maus? Because all of the verbiage seems to say that what SHOULD have happened is that women he assaulted should have rolled over before his superior anti-authoritarianism, and they should have all been grateful he picked them to assault. That's the idea I get from all his apologists. And so I ask them: what is the "proper" (and properly feminine, I think) response to being assaulted by an asshole? How could these women have avoided the disapprobation and cries of authoritarianism? Because I would argue that assaulting women is pretty fucking authoritarian, and prove the Maus is, in fact, a tool of oppression. And a tool in general.
by no apologist
Friday Sep 24th, 2010 2:19 PM
you shouldn't judge the lack of satisfactory answers to your inherently loaded questions as condoning or respecting the actions taken against the alleged assaulter. furthermore, the absence of satisfactory alternative actions to take does not mean the actions already taken are therefore justified.

as the original posters have stated, totalitarianism has many faces. perhaps ya'll should look closely in the mirror.


by Hunter
Friday Sep 24th, 2010 6:26 PM
I'm totalitarian because I don't instantaneously bow down to your allegedly superior argumentation. Wow. That is HAWT.
You are so lost.

You can spin it anyway you want, but there is NO way beatdowns are justified in any way, shape or form.

They may indulge personal frustration, feel justified because you know you're right and they're wrong...whatever. But no. Never. Never is vigilante justice justified.

You can't ever maintain that it is if you want to turn around and maintain that the same levied against you is unjustified. Bias is a two-way street, and a dangerous one to be merging onto. I say no.
by stop
Tuesday Sep 28th, 2010 1:14 AM
yes, your concept of political struggle is blindfolded "justice". neutrality and fairness. the golden rule. as sophisticated as the second grade, you don't take sides and you would never do anything to anyone that you would not have done to yourself. translation: you don't matter. just pat yourself on the back and take your place on the scrapheap of irrelevance (its a crowded place).
by a squirrel
Tuesday Sep 28th, 2010 10:05 AM
to the folks who participated in and or justify beating an alleged rapist down - There are certainly instances where vigilante justice may be excusable (The French going after Nazi collaborators after WWII for example), but it is always ugly, and it is rarely a black and white issue.

Judging by the thread of thoughtful and principled arguments made here, what happened to Maus was clearly not condoned by everyone and has indeed polarized the radical community. As many of you know, this wasn't the first time a beat down happened in SC to someone under very dubious circumstances.

The danger here is two-fold - one, you're undermining security culture by making potential enemies who have little incentive to not snitch now; and if you're thinking "well, snitches get stitches," you're coming dangerously close to embodying the same logic of coercive authority; two - you've intimidated and scared people around you into not speaking openly and honestly about what happened. The fact that this had to be posted anonymously online, for the pigs and state to see, is a testament to that.

Lastly, while direct action often does "get the goods", it works best against institutional forms of authority and corporate property, that is to say, when it goes up the hierarchy, against those with power. Jumping someone like a bunch of gangbangers sets a precedent for more internal policing mechanisms and anyone familiar with revolutionary history knows where this can lead - Stalinists murdering Trotsky, Jacobins, etc.

meditate on that por favor.
It is interesting also to point out that the group of people seeking to directly benefit through securing their position at the top of the authoritarian power hierarchy in Santa Cruz by the exploitation of the sexual assault perpetrated by Maus and the indirectly related physical assault and smear campaign of Maus are also the same people who supported the physical assault of two people late at night in their own home.

In this case, a group of men gathered and assaulted one female sex and one male sex housemate, because (and this is unclear) they were unhappy with the house not being perceived as being open to use by the "community" and because of a supposed threat by the women to call county health officials while someone was being involuntarily imprisoned in the house during a psychotic episode. At 10:30 pm, the house members were punched in the face, and the women pepper sprayed by a male assaulter (this is especially atrocious, where a women is attracted by a man using the one readily available weapon women have to defend themselves against men). Names are being withheld here because this is not a smear campaign, and no one should be exposed to the Feds who are reading this. We must abolish all threats of violence--community sponsored and state sponsored.

Very similar to the case of Maus, these two house members were increasingly unpopular within the "anarchist" community, though widely popular among their own groups of friends. They are great people, true anarchist who do not want a change in the power guard, but rather the end of power all together.

The group of men who perpetrated this assault were quickly defended by the same group of people attacking Maus (some of these men, too being accused of numerous sexual assaults). Only a brief group discussion (not including any of the house members where the attack took place, or anyone else from the community that was rightly disgusted with what they did) took place, and afterward people were told that they were not "that bad: of people, and that they should "be forgiven".

This example is brought up to shine more light on the skewed actions (and the obvious intentions) by the power hungry few who are destroying the anarchist scene in Santa Cruz. They are explicitly not anarchists, only power obsessed violent authoritarians, who fell into the anarchist scene because they saw an exploitable opportunity to increase their social capital, not because they have a deep desire to alleviate oppression and build systems of self governance which allow all humans, and the world, to flourish.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 202.00 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.

IMC Network