No Indictment -- Ferguson Burns

I wasn't able to stay with the story of the announcement of the Non-Indictment of Brave Officer Wilson all day yesterday, but I did check in at night and saw some of McCulloch's droning presentation of the Non-Indictment to the assembled media -- of course Wilson wasn't indicted, he got married, how could they indict the man, good heavens -- and watched quite a bit of Bassem Masri's downright superb live video from Ferguson, mostly at the police station or very nearby.

What I saw was disappointing but not unexpected. In fact, I don't think anybody who's followed the story expected there to be an indictment of a police officer for killing some Negro in Missouri. It was never likely. I thought it was interesting that McCulloch's summary of the GJ findings tracked so closely, sometimes word for word, with things that had been in the media almost from the day Mike Brown was killed, things that could be considered exculpatory for the Brave Officer Wilson, whereas practically everything that could be considered indication of a crime by the Brave Officer was impugned in just the way it had been by various "experts" on the teevee. In other words, the failure to indict, the "no true bill" result of the GJ process could have been written by the FOX News crew -- or CNN for that matter -- to exonerate the Brave Officer, who just got married, so he couldn't be indicted anyway.

Oh, and don't forget all the celebrity news readers who already had private audience with the Brave Officer. I'll have to leave that to the side for the time being since I haven't been able to process it fully in the midst of everything else. Just remember that numerous celebrity news readers -- including Anderson ("Anderson!") Cooper -- have had private interviews with Darren Wilson well before the Grand Announcement yesterday. Almost as if they were in cahoots... Or something else has been going on...

When word reached the street outside the Ferguson PD, Bassem Masri's camera was on Leslie McSpadden, Mike Brown's mother, but my sound was down, so I did not hear what she said, but I saw her break down in heaving sobs after she said a few words to the crowd, and it was an incredibly moving moment. Her heart was broken the day her son was killed almost before her very eyes, and her sobs last night were the sobs of a mother wronged. She was devastated, and the sight of her tears was a powerful image I don't think I will soon forget.

Not that she or anyone in the crowd, let alone the police, expected an indictment. Of course they didn't. Police are so rarely held to trial for anything -- except sexual peccadilloes -- in this country that an indictment of Brave Officer Wilson would have signaled something profound, almost a sea-change in the way Americans of the darker and poorer persuasion are policed. The Powers That Be are clearly not ready for that.

Bassem continued to record and move among the crowd. From indications, he is really well-regarded by those who know him and know his work documenting the turmoil in Ferguson. He also seemed to be very concerned with the people of Ferguson. His interactions with those he was among -- whether he knew them or not -- were remarkable for their openness, kindness, consideration, and what appeared to be a deep love for their humanity. This is not the way he has been characterized by the mainstream media and the radical reactionaries who have cast him in the role of Demon. He is after all very outspoken, unafraid, and profane. He uses street language, and his whole persona is that of a gangsta or gangsta affiliate. But what he's tried to show, I think pretty effectively, is that the persona which is so strongly demonized by Authority in this country, is in fact representative a wide variety of people, most of whom are no different in essence than you or me.

This was the insight that happened to so many in Albuquerque when they came together to protest the constant police killings. As Dinah Vargas put it, the media demonized every one of the dead in a kind of ritual of victim blaming, and she went along with it -- until she got to know some of the survivors and heard the stories of those who had been killed. She found out that they were "just people." They weren't demons at all, and in many -- too many -- cases, they'd done nothing wrong or they'd done nothing to warrant a sentence of Death in the Streets. The media depiction and ritual demonizing of victims of police violence was simply wrong. It was in fact outrageous.

Bassem has been showing that those who are protesting police violence in Ferguson are "folks" and he's one of them. They're not demons, Mike Brown wasn't a demon, and the script that demonizes them is wrong.

As he traveled through the crowds, greeting and encouraging and sharing grief with them, he came upon the scene of a police car being vandalized. I still didn't have the sound on, so I didn't hear what he said about it, but what I could tell from what I saw was that a large-ish crowd had gathered around this police car which had been parked in the street and a few -- let's call them "hot heads" -- throwing bricks at it and kicking it while the crowd maintained a distance from the action and watched, some yelling, some silent. In other words, the vandalism was being done by no more than five or six people who were distinct from the crowd.

In the background, a formation of militarized police led by MRAPs could be seen advancing on the crowd, and many started to leave. Bassem stayed for a bit, then he, too left the scene. Soon clouds of teargas could be seen rising from the vicinity of the police car. Most people in crowd dispersed from that location and moved toward the police station a few blocks away.

Bassem was covering the tear gas barrage, and he and numerous others were caught in it. He was coughing and wretching along with everyone else, and when I turned the sound up, I heard him condemning the police for gassing people this way. People tried to get away from the tear gas but were trapped. Another formation of militarized police were coming down the opposite end of the street. Those who could get away somehow got away, but most seemed to stay put, and eventually the tear gas cleared. The formations of police paused.

Teargas was being shot into the residential areas beside the street on which the protests were taking place. Bassem was shocked. How could they do this? WHY? Barrage after barrage of teargas grenades were shot into residential areas for reasons no one could fathom. It made no sense at all. "No one is there!" Well, protesters weren't there, though maybe residents were.

Then a column of smoke could be seen rising behind the police lines, and people started back toward the police and the smoke to see what was burning. It was the police car that had been vandalized earlier. How it got on fire is a mystery because no one had used incendiaries in the vandalizing, and the car was inside the police perimeter when it caught on fire. My immediate thought was that the police set it on fire, either deliberately or accidentally when they fired tear gas at the people around the car.

At any rate, while the car burned there were numerous sounds like gunfire, often rapid-fire, and I thought that perhaps the police were firing at the crowd. There were reports of rubber bullets being fired. Bassem said that no, the apparent gunshots were ammunition going off inside the car from the heat of the fire, and he encouraged people to get away.

The police formations moved together, and as they did, more teargas was fired. Another police car, again behind the police lines, was on fire, so there were now two burning police cars, both of which contained ammunition which was exploding from the heat.

The militarized police formations assembled in front of what I call their "fort" -- the PD headquarters and the fire department. There was no sign whatsoever of any attempt to put out the fires burning just down the street.

No, instead, the militarized police formed a cordon around the police and fire department buildings -- their "fort" -- and gave hard and threatening looks at the crowd (a crowd that was still loud but quite small and completely non-violent, unless you consider trash-talk to be violence) and they displayed their armaments in threatening fashion. Network media did standup after standup in the midst of all this, which clued me that it was all a display staged for the media. The police did nothing except look threatening and protect their fort while the police cars burned, ammunition exploded and reports of other fires were coming in.

For some reason, Anderson ("Anderson!") Cooper was not there doing a standup, he was relatively far away in an undisclosed location doing a standup, no one else, certainly no police, in view.

Bassem started to call bullshit -- because the police were doing nothing about the fires. The fire department was right there, after all, and there wasn't a single fireman on scene, no fire trucks, nothing, and the police in their gear and MRAPs were doing nothing but threatening the crowd, a crowd that relatively small, had just been teargassed, and which was not threatening them. It was absurd. Given all the media celebrities doing standups in the vicinity, the absurdity was quite touching. Aww.

Bassem continued to cover this more and more surreal and absurd situation in front of the police department when suddenly it seemed he started running. This was startling to say the least, and it wasn't at all clear what was happening or why. The title of the UStream page Bassem used changed from his name to "I.I.OK." Very strange. He ran and ran and ran, and I heard someone say, "Are you OK," and the only part of the response I heard was "Some nigger..." and it didn't sound like Bassem. I thought maybe it was because he'd been running. After a few moments, it looked like he fell down and the livestream went down.

I was very concerned. What happened? I reported what I'd witnessed on a thread at FDL, and soon came word that Bassem was on Twitter now; his iPhone had been swiped out of his hand by someone he thought was a "police agitator" and he couldn't livestream any more. He would live Tweet from his backup phone, but that was all he could do. He was OK. He wasn't harmed and he wasn't arrested.

I shifted over to Rebelutionary_Z's livestream which was coming from the freeway in Shaw, a freeway which had been shut down in both directions by a large crowd. The police were ordering dispersal, and as I watched, they did disperse, more or less, and the freeway re-opened. Z said that it had been shut down successfully for between a half hour and an hour, and he was pretty jazzed by it. He went with the crowd to a safe house in a church and had something to drink before he went back outside and sat for a bit resting and catching his viewers up with what had been happening. Apparently he'd been asked to livestream something from Shaw but wasn't told what and was not supposed to tell where he was going exactly.

He was asked to livestream the freeway shutdown -- which he did. He said he was going to stay in Shaw to cover any other action there.

Meanwhile Bassem was tweeting pictures from W. Florissant Ave. in Ferguson where fires were burning. One after another, the chain and corporate merchants were being torched as Bassem watched, but it was not at all clear who was doing the torching. There appeared to be no one on the streets, not protesters and certainly not police -- they were all guarding their fort. All the blather from the governor about "protecting property" was bullshit. There was no one there. No one was protecting property in Ferguson, and there was no one on the streets, either, as one after another Ferguson's chain businesses went up in flames.

At this point, I decided that things were following a script, and I'd seen enough of this play.

I don't know how much of the vandalism and arson I saw was due to provocateurs, but Bassem is convinced that a "police agitator" stole his iPhone so he could not continue to livestream whatever was going on. I tend to agree. I suspect the police set the two police cars on fire themselves, whether deliberately or accidentally when they were firing teargas. They did nothing at all to put the fires out. Bassem reported that he thought he saw other fires near where teargas had been fired into the neighborhood, but he couldn't get to those places.

The pictures on his Twitter show businesses burning, but no crowds of protesters or any police or fire department personnel attempting to manage the situation, and Bassem's commentary excoriates the police and government for causing all of this. His fury is palpable.

I couldn't sleep, so I started this post about 3:30 this morning. It's now about 5:15. I haven't looked at "news" so I don't know how what happened is being reported by the Big Media. I'm sure it's filled with lies, however. I don't know whether there was a response to the arson and vandalism, or whether there was looting and "riot," but what I saw indicated that the crowds of protesters were not engaged in arson, vandalism or looting. They had another objective altogether which they stuck with through it all.

Now to check the "news." Pfft.

What On Earth Is the FBI Thinking?

Today marks the another Alternate Release Date for the Darren Wilson Non-Indictment from the St. Louis County Grand Jury. Other sources put the Alternate Date on Sunday or maybe the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, or maybe not till Christmas week, or... well, you get the picture.

Meanwhile, elaborate preparations and displays of force are under way to put down all the "riots" that will ensue. Everyone has bought a gun, it seems, and they've stockpiled food and water and have materials on hand to build barricades, the Apocalypse being nigh and all.

All of this was kind of ludicrous until the FBI leaked their assessment of the pre-festivities the other day. We can assume the leak came directly from the FBI and was intentional incitement to police rioting if not public riot.

The wording that I've read inadvertently indicates the FBI knows there are agents provocateur seeded among the protesters and they know just how those agents will behave; their leaked advisory could be read as a descriptive of what the agents provocateur are likely to do once the GJ decision not to indict Darren Wilson comes down.

In other words, it has little or nothing to do with the protesters and everything to do with inciting LEOs to react to the protests violently.

Unbelievable, or it would be if there hadn't been constant rumors of provocateurs and infiltrators from the beginning of the Ferguson protests. That combined with the failure of police to produce any evidence at all that they had been "firebombed" with Molotov cocktails or shot at by protesters -- despite their constant claims -- and the litany of lies coming out of the mouths of ostensibly responsible police supervisors (Belmar's woppers just the other day about "only teargassing criminals," for example, or not using "rubber bullets" beggared belief -- "You gonna believe me or your lying eyes?")  really tells us pretty much all we need to know about the expectations of violence and where they're coming from.

It's not the protesters.

It's the police themselves and their allied adjuncts like the resurgent KKK.

Insane.

But more and more people are seeing through the lies and the fabrications and the falsehoods and the provocations.

More and more people seem to see the situation for what it is. The police have been enabled by their sponsors to act as an army of occupation, and their wargames involve whatever mayhem and deception required to produce the desired result.

In this case, it seems the desired result is the provocation of "riots" -- or whatever mayhem can be stirred up and sustained -- so that the "riots" can be put down with displays of overwhelming force (with as little bloodshed as possible, no doubt) in pursuit of a higher objective: keeping the Rabble in fear and dread of what will happen to them if they so much as think of rising against their oppressors.

This has been the Israeli tactic applied to the Palestinians for decades.

Works well, right?

The Red and the Black

 

I was taken aback by the sight of what looked like pseudo-anarcho-syndicalist flags among the protesters in the Maidan in Kiev, because I could not fathom the idea that genuine anarco-syndicalists would align with the crypto-Nazis, fascists and ultra-nationalists who seemed to be the vanguard of the Ukrainian opposition. It didn't compute.

The Red and the Black flag, divided diagonally, has long been used by anarcho-syndicalists internationally; what I saw in the Kiev protests was a red and black flag divided horizontally, though. It was something I had never seen -- as such -- and I couldn't relate it to any rebel or anarchist faction I was aware of.

I was aware that Ukrainian anarchists were not aligned with either the Yanukovych government or the opposition in the Square; in fact, they were appalled and disgusted with both. So the red and black flags I saw among the demonstrators in Kiev did not compute. I didn't know what it was until today (h/t teri49 in comments for cluing me where to look).

Rather than an anarcho-syndicalist flag, the horizontally divided red and black flag seen in Kiev is one of the flags used by an outfit that goes by the acronym of "UNA-UNSO".

Let us explore...

I never learned Russian or the Cyrillic alphabet, but I've studied them informally for years, and every now and then, I can make out enough to read an understand some of it. It's sort of like magic, though, since if I try to read and understand it, I can't. I have to use a kind of averted vision.

Ukrainian is similar to Russian, but of course, not exactly the same. I would say they are mutually intelligible, but I have a more difficult time with Ukrainian because I'm not as familiar with it.

In trying to find out what this horizontally divided red and black flag was about, I came across this:

The white emblem with the sword in the center is an adaptation of the Ukrainian coat of arms.

Another image of the horizontally divided red and black I came across was this:

It includes the emblem seen on the previous image plus the words: "Pravyi Sektor" which roughly translated means: "Right Sector" which, according to the WikiMachine:

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a radical Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and opposition group,^[1] described as having far right^[2][3] or neofascist views.^{[1][4][5][6][7][8][9]} According to various reports, the organization has between 2,000 and 3,000 active members in Kiev, 5,000 in Ukraine overall, and is quickly growing.^[10][7] The group first emerged at the end of November 2013 at the Euromaidan protests in Kiev, as an alliance of far-right or extreme-right Ukrainian nationalist groups, as well as the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA-UNSO).^[11][12]

Huh. Who'd a thunk it?

So this flag is actually the "Right Sector" flag, not that of UNA-UNSO, though the two are related and interconnected. Got it. The "Right Sector" is an umbrella for numerous rightist/fascist/nationalist parties in Ukraine, wherea UNA-UNSO is one of those parties.

Yet Engdahl says UNA-UNSO isn't an actual Ukrainian political party at all, it's a front for NATO and Eurozone interests, a "Gladio" operation subverting Ukraine on behalf of... who?

I'm not prepared to get into these weeds at this time (please!), but the indications of foreign influence, subversion, and provocations -- including at least some of the violence -- during the recent Ukrainian uprisings and the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime are getting stronger.

The Nuland-Kagan-Rice-Pyatt axis is part of it; the Omidyar Network involvement in funding "New Citizen" and "Center UA" is part of it. The NED is part of it. The USAID is part of it. The internal rivalries between Ukrainian oligarchs is part of it. The incompetence and corruption of successive Ukrainian governments is part of it. The conflicting interests of Russia and Europe are part of it.

But as for the red and black flags I've been seeing in Kiev, they have nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism, they are instead the emblems of the "Right Sector" which the WikiMachine describes thus:

Right Sector is now considered the largest far-right group in Ukraine, and patrols Kiev with groups of young men armed with baseball bats or guns.^[24] One member of a patrol told the BBC that National Socialist views are popular in Right Sector, though not all in the group share them. Elaborating, he explained that the ideology entailed "a clean nation, not like under Hitler, but in our own way, a little bit like that."^[24]
Aleksander Muzychko, a Right Sector leader was videotaped physically assaulting a Ukrainian public prosecutor in his office, threatening to pull him to Maidan square with a rope.^[19]
Right Sector has promised to deal with Russian forces in Ukraine, and has called upon Chechen Doku Umarov, considered a terrorist by Russia, to help.^[13] According to historian Per Anders Rudling, the growth of the extreme right in Ukraine should be a concern for Europe, and has been used by Russia to legitimize their intervention in Crimea.^[9]

Whenever you hear somebody claiming that Putin=Hitler (or Stalin), remember this. Remember.

Disturbing Though Not Surprising

Been hearing and reading very brief dispatches about this all day, but only now have I been able to see the RT report that started it off:



There is no reason to assume anything about the report is inauthentic.

There is no reason to believe the snipers firing on the crowd and police in the Maidan in Kiev weren't what the speculation now suggest they were: snipers (mercs?) hired by the opposition as murderous provocateurs.

There is at this point no proof, however.

As far as I can recall the events of the day -- and they are a bit hazy as I only came upon reports after the fact -- the Yanukovych government's interior minister deployed armed internal security personnel for the first time on the date in question (February 19?) and authorized them to use deadly force. There were reports of dozens killed, upwards of 80 or 90, mostly demonstrators but some police as well. Many hundreds wounded. But something was odd about these reports. Something that reminded me...

Cairo, last year. When Muslim Brotherhood supporters rallied and protested against the coup which overthrew the Morsi government, snipers were deployed -- presumably by the government -- to dispatch the protesters by picking off individuals in the crowd one by one, shooting them in the head or heart, and terrifying the rest of the crowd. This happened day after day, and on some occasions, it seems that hundreds were killed.

The sniping in Kiev that day seemed an awful lot like what had happened in Cairo, and so it was natural to assume the Yanukovych government was behind it, but Yanukovych said no, he had never ordered any such thing. There were hints and suggestions that the snipers were not "government" snipers, but who they were, nobody could say. This leaked phone call turned up on Russia Today -- more than likely leaked by the Kremlin itself, though the story claims it came from Ukrainians loyal to Yanukovych -- and indications are that those European representatives who went to Kiev (for example, the Estonian foreign minister heard in this call) were made aware that something was not right about the news reports of government security personnel firing on the crowds, and they were told the snipers appeared to have been hired by "the coalition" -- ie: the anti-Yanukovych opposition.

It's pretty clear from the evidence -- as opposed to the propaganda -- that Ukrainian "ultra - nationalists," fascists and neo-Nazis were utilized as shock troops of a sort during the demonstrations in Kiev, committing acts of violence and sabotage on an ever growing scale, including firebombing police, destroying government buildings, and other acts that appeared to be intentional provocations. These acts were almost always blamed on the police in western media, and claims that the police were killing demonstrators were regularly made, but the police in Kiev were unarmed, at least officially, and how they were able to kill demonstrators was never entirely clear. It was simply asserted as fact in western media.

There was rarely any mention in the mainstream media of the violence committed by demonstrators in Kiev; but many alternative media carried shocking videos of mayhem against police and government buildings.

As the demonstrations became more intense, so did the violence until finally there was a kind of Day of Rage outburst which was met by sniper fire.

Come to find out now that the snipers may not have been government deployed forces at all.

I've been poring through the list of agencies and organizations that were under the umbrella of "New Citizen" -- a project of Center UA -- both funded by the Omidyar Network to the tune of over a million dollars (they got much more from USAID). It is a varied collection of opposition groups, but among them are some not nice people whose interests do not lie with the Ukrainian people. They represent, instead, an oligarchic dismantlement of Ukrainian society.

Would they, could they have made such a murderous and bloodthirsty move to overthrow the Yanukovych government?

Well, the golpistas had no trouble doing it in Cairo to secure the success of their coup.

None whatsoever.
----------------------------------------
The leaked call:

The Drumbeat

 
 "Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums" -- do not play if you don't want your head to explode.

Do you hear it?

The drumbeat? Not even subtle anymore, the drumbeat of war is pounding harder every day. We're on the precipice again (when aren't we?) Someone must be attacked and soon, for the sake of the election, for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the world.

There must be more war.

The Romney campaign is asserting the usual Neo-Con claptrap and warmongering. Over in Jerusalem, Netanyahu is getting restless again to go Nuke something in Iran -- or somewhere where men wear beards and women wear veils. Obama is clearly itchy, and Mrs. Clinton has not exactly been shy or retiring in the face of the perils of Muslim Extremists.

 I am surprised that the embassy attacks haven't been directly attributed to Iran by this point in the news cycle. Perhaps on Fox they have been, I wouldn't know. But such attacks cannot go unanswered in our carefully scripted election drama. There must be revenge, in blood. Preferably with the blood of the innocent and brown. Somewhere. Anywhere. No matter what the repercussions.

More and more reports are coming out that suggest the video that sparked the outrage that (apparently) led to the embassy attacks was a deliberate provocation and that the attack in Libya was planned well in advance, as if... 

Coincidence abounds.

We've been down this road so many times.

How long, O Lord...

LOS PROVOCADORES

One of the first lessons you learn in Movement and Resistance Theory is that the person who initiates violence or advocates it within the context of a generally nonviolent resistance movement is a provocateur and is probably a police plant or informant.

The tactic is ancient; it's a wonder that anybody falls for it any more. But they do.

Meanwhile, resistance movements evolve -- and so do counter-resistance activities by the State. The provocateurs may not be who or what you think they are any more, and they may not be the ones advocating the violent path of resistance.

After considering some of the things Mark Rudd had to say about his time as a radical (and violent) revolutionary in the late sixties and early seventies, I'm struck by something he's repeated many times: "I was doing the FBI's work for them." By which he means that by advocating bombings and sabotage (and carrying some of it out) and by engineering the destruction of the Students for Democratic Society (SDS) he believes he "killed" the anti-Vietnam War Movement in this country. I think he is wrong about that, but this is what he believes, I assume sincerely.

The key is that he believes that he was "doing the FBI's work for them." And what, exactly, would that be?

The provocateur traditionally seeks to instigate some kind of generally illegal and often violent action on the part of an individual activist or on the part of the activist group so as to discredit and delegitimize them or to provide probable cause for arrest or indictment.

In the process, the infiltrator or provocateur sows the seeds of discord, dissension, division, fear, uncertainty, and doubt which can have the effect (pleasing to the authorities) of disabling or destroying the resistance.

That's what Mark Rudd believes he did as an advocate and practitioner of violent resistance 40 years ago. It is approximately what an FBI infiltrator and provocateur would have done to the SDS and the Weathermen/Weather Underground if he didn't do it.

Note has been made from time to time that he got away with it, too. Not only were charges against him dropped when he emerged from hiding, but he has managed to live a fairly normal life as a college professor of mathematics (now retired) in New Mexico.

In other words, not only did he behave like an FBI infiltrator/provocateur as a leader of SDS and then the Weathermen, he ultimately got to live an almost charmed life as a college professor as if nothing had happened -- much as an FBI informant/infiltrator/provocateur might.

Interesting.

Nowadays of course he's done a 180 and has become a passionate advocate for the purest forms of pacifist nonviolence -- because, as he put it, violence destroys the Movement. He's become such a purist about nonviolence that he says anything that will be interpreted as "violent" by the police or the public is "violence" by definition, including wearing black or bandanas.

And not surprisingly, anyone who makes this kind of absurd claim about "violence" is likely to be challenged -- or even be dismissed as a crank.

But let's think about it some more. Mark Rudd was using the same sort of absolutist language in his advocacy of nonviolence as I frequently encounter: model the Movement after Gandhi and King, repudiate any kind of violence whatsoever, do not engage in anarchism or black bloc tactics, build the Movement by appealing to the middle class, do not confront authorities, do not curse or speak harshly to the police or other authorities, do not carry shields, do not wear black or bandanas... one could go on and on, it is almost a catechism among purist nonviolence advocates.

Resistance movements have evolved since Rudd was a fiery young revolutionary, and so have counter-resistance activities by authorities. What may have worked forty years ago doesn't work now, either for the resistance or the counter-resistance. Repeating the Gandhi and King methods (especially of mass rallies and marches) essentially doesn't work at all any more; the authorities simply do not care if the People are in the streets protesting something or other or if they are rallying to hear inspirational speakers. It doesn't make a bit of difference to the Powers That Be. So everytime I hear or read somebody saying "Do it like Gandhi," I want to gag. It doesn't work; we're beyond that.

But then when it comes to nonviolence, Gandhi and King (with a dollop of Gene Sharp) are the Only Ways permitted by advocates. There is no other acceptable model. When I listen to some of those who promote nonviolence, what they actually seem to be saying is "Don't have a Movement at all, because nothing you can do will be effective against the mighty power of the Empire. I've been there, I know, listen to me."

And the discussion around the topics of Diversity of Tactics (which Rudd and many other nonviolence advocates insist means "violence") has been filled with demonization, divisiveness, fearmongering, doubt-raising, much falsehood, and so on.

I've begun to wonder, just who are the Provocadores now, and what is their task? There are very few people who advocate conducting a violent resistance campaign as part of or in association with Occupy. Not even the demonized "Black Bloc Anarchists" are suggesting anything like the kinds of violent resistance Mark Rudd and the Weathermen were conducting back in the day. The idea is outrageous and bizarre.

But because nobody in their right minds is talking about bombings and sabotage or any other sort of armed insurrection in connection with Occupy, the advocates of nonviolence have been tightening down the definition of "violence" to include such absurdities as wearing black or bandanas or sassing authority. Anything that anyone might interpret as "violence" has to be cleansed from the Movement. Otherwise, the police will have justification for a violent response.

Who are the provocateurs now, and what are their tactics for discrediting and delegitimizing resistance movements?

Are we witness to the evolution of strategies and tactics?

What Happened in Oakland -- and the Problem of Progressive Politics

Above is a picture of Marine Veteran For Peace Scott Olsen, 24, standing next to Joshua Shepherd, another VfP member in full Navy uniform holding the VfP flag, at the demonstration Tuesday night in which he was severely wounded by -- some projectile -- that came from police lines during the brutal attempt to clear the crowd from the area around Frank Ogawa (aka Oscar Grant) Plaza in front of the Oakland City Hall. [Note: Edited to add name and link to video of Navy member of Veterans for Peace.]

"Some projectile" is the best anyone can come up with at this point because there is no clear evidence regarding what the projectile was, nor even is the source entirely clear. On the one hand, Scott fell severely wounded immediately after two or even three flashbang smoke grenades were hurled by police at the crowd and landed about 20 feet away from him. Other projectiles -- bean bags, "rubber bullets", possibly wooden blocks or dowels (which Oakland police have used before) -- were also being fired into the by then largely dispersed crowd.

What exactly hit and wounded Scott Olsen is at this point unknown. But something hit him hard enough in the head to fracture his skull and knock him unconscious and leave him in critical condition from which he has only recently emerged.

From the video evidence, it is clear that once Scott was down and people gathered to lend him aid, an officer -- who has been spotted but not identified -- then threw a flashbang grenade (and a smoke grenade?) directly at the group of people attempting to aid Olsen. It exploded in their midst, mere inches from Scott's body. This momentarily scattered those who were trying to help their wounded comrade, but they rushed back as soon as they saw it was relatively clear -- if not safe -- to do so. They were then able to carry Olsen away.

No one is yet sure what agency the officer(s) who threw the grenade(s) and who may also have fired the projectile that hit Scott came from. There are indistinct video images of the shoulder patches worn by the two most likely officers. All I can make out of them indicates that they are from a police agency in Alameda County; the closest match I've been able to find to their patches is that of the Oakland School Police. If it is correct, that would be quite a revelation.





The only other one that I've found that it might be is the California Highway Patrol.



From a distance the CHP patch appears to be a somewhat closer match, and I have seen CHP at the Capitol on occasion in riot get ups, so... may be. [See UPDATE below]

At this point, it doesn't matter who exactly wounded Scott; according to reports, hundreds of people were hit and wounded by police projectiles or suffered lingering consequences from tear gas inhalation on Tuesday. The incidents of police firing on the crowds went on from the very early morning when the Occupy Oakland village in front of City Hall was first raided to late into the night of the following day when the police and demonstrators finally called it quits for the night.

Who caused Scott's skull fracture may never be known for certain, any more than who caused any of the other wounds the demonstrators suffered.

What is of more critical interest at the present time is the fact that the raid and its aftermath were ordered by Oakland Mayor Jean Quan (who now wonders whether she did the right thing), was planned by Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana, and was implemented by Oakland Interim Police Chief Howard Jordan with the assistance and participation of law enforcement agencies from Alameda County and elsewhere in the Bay Area and Northern California.

There were over five hundred officers assembled in Oakland for the initial raid on the Occupy Oakland encampment at 4:30am on Tuesday. Many of them stayed throughout the day and long into the night as the demonstrations against the raid took place. They cordoned off the Plaza in front of City Hall and prevented public access. They intercepted crowds marching from the Oakland City Library to the area of the Plaza and ordered them to disperse. When they did not, the police fired tear gas and other projectiles at the demonstrators, and took several into custody. At some point during the afternoon, police officers were splashed with paint (much as has happened in other demonstrations around the world), and further rounds of tear gas were fired and further arrests were made, though so far as I know, not of anyone who actually splashed the paint on the officers, whoever it may have been.

The issue is the order for and the implementation of plans for violent clearance of the Occupy Oakland village, and the violent suppression of the protest thereof.

As I've pointed out in other fora, this is Oakland, California. Violent suppression of protest and dissent is a way of life there, as is the nearly constant activism of residents against the suppression. There have been many demonstrations and occasional riots which have been brutally put down by Oakland law enforcement with the support and assistance of many other Northern California police agencies. The situation has been especially tense in Oakland since the shooting of Oscar Grant by a BART cop on New Year's Day 2009.

In a very real sense, Oakland has been under some form of martial law for years. While the events of Tuesday are shocking to the conscience of anyone who has a conscience, they are not at all surprising to anyone who is aware of the nearly constant outrageous actions of the police there and the almost constant demonstrations against the outrages.

Jean Quan was elected mayor last year as a reform candidate. She has long been known as a "progressive" activist, and she won office against the wishes of the Democratic Party apparat.

She ordered this? What the fuckkity fuck?

Yes, yes she did. She ordered this, and she approved the action while she was in Washington, DC, lobbying principally on behalf of Oakland business interests.

Which may give you a clue as to why it was done the way it was done and when it was done in the first place. There are few accidental actions like this. They take long planning and coordination, and they must have a date certain and a time for implementation. They are not ad hoc at all.

Bluntly, it seems clear she was trying to make a show for the White House's benefit, much as Kevin Johnson is trying to do in Sacramento.

The point being that these mayors are trying to demonstrate just how to successfully thwart and suppress the Occupy Movement.

The 'baggers weren't nearly the threat to the Powers That Be that the Occupiers are -- for the simple reason that the 'baggers were co-opted from the get, and their program was essentially no different than that of the Overclass. So far, the Overclass has barely been able to penetrate, let alone co-opt, the Movement-becoming-Revolution, and so the issue for the 1% is to figure out how to suppress it without looking too much like Mubarak's thugs in Cairo.

It's apparently up to mayors all over the country to show how to do it, ratcheting up the pressure on the Occupiers, while experimenting with various tactics and techniques to find something that works.

Jean Quan was doing her part, but maybe now she's having some second thoughts about it, for she has come under withering criticism and has been forced to issue a statement is almost -- but not quite -- contrite regarding what happened. [See UPDATE for more information]

The police chief and the city administrator have also come in for their share of criticism -- including criticism of the fact that they blatantly lied straight out about the weapons and tactics they were using against the demonstrators.

Wednesday night, thousands of Occupy Oakland participants and their supporters returned to Frank Ogawa (Oscar Grant) Plaza, conducted their General Assembly on the steps of City Hall, decided to call for a General Strike on November 2, and then they danced.

They also tore down the fencing erected to keep them out of the Plaza itself, reestablished part of their campsite on the Plaza and several of the participants spent the night -- without being harrassed by the police. In fact, reports were that the police were nowhere to be seen near the Plaza by Wednesday night, and the City had ordered a temporary stand down.

Yes, well. What else could they do? Without looking like Mubarak's thugs that is...

By Thursday night, the Oakland General Assembly was attracting over 2000 participants, as union members arrived in solidarity and support.

The City now says they want to listen and negotiate (ah, the KJ approach).

But in my view, it's too late. They screwed up so badly with the raids and failed attempts at suppression that there's little chance of productive negotiation at this point.

They only have two options now: Yield or go to full on conquest and rout of the demonstrators. And the second option is not going to work over the long term. You can't kill a revolutionary idea.


-------------------------------UPDATE-----------------------------------------
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan's letter to Occupy Oakland regarding her absence from the GA last night: "Mayor Jean Quan's Statement to Occupy Oakland"

I did some additional research, and now there's little doubt in my mind that the officers fingered by Occupy Oakland as the ones responsible for wounding Scott Olsen and tossing at least one and possibly more flash/smoke grenades at those who came to help him were CHP officers. I've seen CHP officers in black riot gear at the Capitol here in Sacramento on occasion, but I didn't remember their exact uniform, and I can't find any pictures I may have taken of them. But I did find this picture of a line of CHP officers in riot gear at another protest in Oakland last year (the issue was the killing of Oscar Grant at a BART station.)



That's pretty much a match for the uniforms on the officers in the Tweet from Occupy Oakland.

Further, there is this extraordinary split screen video showing the events from above and simultaneously on the ground. While it's still impossible to say exactly what hit Scott Olsen, the number of grenades and tear gas canisters seen from above is astonishing. Police were also firing "rubber bullets" and other projectiles at the same time.



The demonstrators did not provoke this response by police. The application of overwhelming force by the police was planned all along. The upshot, however, was not.

This is a global movement, and everything that the authorities say and do to squelch it is closely monitored and made immediately -- and in this case very graphically -- visible around the world. The Oakland Debacle will probably not be the last violent assault on the Occupy Movement. And we can assume that "Lessons Learned" is being debated in the Halls of Power right now.

It didn't go well for Authority in Oakland. No, not much.

----------------------------------------------
Edited for clarity and to provide more information as it became available.
----------------------------------------------
Additional Bay Area LOE shoulder patches:


San Francisco County Sheriff's shoulder patch:



San Ramon police department:

Is Somebody Getting Very Rich From All The Tumult In The Streets, Too?

The Market Plunge on the news of the Standard and Poor's downgrade of US Government debt was of course obviously a short selling bonanza for those who were properly set up to profit from the Plunge. The notion of deliberate market manipulation to produce said Bonanza is hardly far-fetched. The Gods Who Walk Among Us wanted another injection of cash-dollars to momentarily sate their insatiable financial demands, and so they "manufactured" another Crisis Bubble, and we were once again on that E-Ticket Roller Coaster Ride with no way to get off.

The Crisis -- repeated over and over again -- is the New Bubble Economy, a game only played at the top.

Which of course brings me to a consideration of the tumult in the streets all over Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and from time to time the United States (in muted form), tumult that has devolved into civil war in more than one state experiencing street protests and battles between the People and Authority. Are these Crises, too, aspects of the New Bubble Economy? Is somebody getting rich off them?

I don't have an answer. I don't think this aspect of Tumult, Popular OUTRAGE!!!™, has been explored in the literature, and I doubt that anyone participating in the demonstrations, civil disturbances, riots, and civil wars that are wracking so much of the West and Middle East are counting the shekels involved, if they are counting much of anything at all -- apart from the dead and injured or the number of useless cell-phones they can cart away from the shops.

But the Money? Could there be Money, indeed handsome profits, involved in the uproars?

Why not?

Some of this tumult is similar to, if not modeled on, the protests and demonstrations, the riots and civil disturbances of the '60's, and while in those days it was all very horrifying to the Silent Majority, especially the riots in the Ghettos (it's hard to imagine just how much fear those riots inspired in the white suburbs), there were plenty of people making money off of them, off of the Student Movements that were underlying much of the tumult, and off of the security measures necessary to protect the White Women from the Rampaging Hippies and Negroes. Fear of Nuclear Annihilation was nothing compared to fear of Hippies and Negroes. Of course the drug dealers ("God Damn the Pusher Man!") were making out like bandits. Which some of them were.

Commercialization of the Movements of the Era was taken for granted and was criticized in lengthy screeds published in obscure periodicals like Ramparts and The Realist.

The Death of the Hippie was famously celebrated in the Haight in October, 1967, in part due to the hyper commercialization of the Summer of Love.

Of course one of the most famous activists of the era, Jerry Rubin, famously became a multi-level marketer and toured the country with Yippie co-founder Abbie Hoffman presenting a staged debate between "Yippie versus Yuppie."

But that kind of commercialization of a Movement -- which most of us at the time took for granted, even if it was criticized intellectually as more evidence of the oppression of the system -- is quite a different thing from the kind of money that is possibly being made from all the tumult in the streets these days.

From a cultural and political standpoint, what's going on now is on a different plane. Those raising a ruckus now are no longer motivated by their belief that they could make a better world. Instead, in Europe and America at any rate, they're trying to hold on to what little they have before it is taken away by a handful of hyper-rich and not very bright economic predators.

That's a key difference, in my view, and the transformation happened before our eyes in Seattle at the WTO conference in 1999. It seems so long ago now. Though I wasn't in Seattle for the WTO protests themselves, I was on the phone with people who were there while the action in the streets was taking place. They could recognize right away that there were provocateurs among the crowds who were trying to precipitate violence among the protestors and who were committing most, if not all, of the acts of vandalism that were used as the pretext for the excessive police crackdown on the protests. This was obvious to people who were there at the time, and it has been pointed out many times that many protest actions are peppered with undercover police and provocateurs as a matter of course. Exposing them has become a protest action sport.

The heavy-handed repression of the WTO protest in Seattle in 1999 became the model for such actions, and we see it repeated over and over again. Protestors get injured and sometimes die in these events. It has become an almost ritualized process, though, with heavily armed paramilitary police on one side, masked Black Bloc Anarchists (who may or may not be provocateurs) on the other, and the masses in between. The police and the Black Blocs are the ones who get the attention. What the protestors are agitated about is almost never discussed.

The repression, however, is. It is discussed and widely celebrated.

But are these events set up to make money for speculators?

The mind boggles at the thought.

I'm not going to get into it too much more because I don't have enough information, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.