Rich Wypipo

I've been poor most of my life, either dirt poor and sometimes literally starving, or on the margins of it, or living as if such poverty would be my fate tomorrow. And for the most part, one learns to cope, one learns to do without, and one discovers that there's not a lot of material things that one really needs in one's life to live well. Many of my poor friends over the years learned these lessons much better than I did and could not only live poor with style, they could live poor with utter grace and serenity, too.

They were some of the kindest and most generous people I ever knew.

Even now,  when (knock wood) I'm relatively well-off in retirement (in that Ms Ché and I have sufficient income to give a good deal of it away) we live simply, in an ancient and somewhat ramshackle pioneer adobe house in a tiny Central New Mexico ranching and farming community among people who are the salt of the earth, most of them not as well off as we are, with a very few ricos, mostly old ranching families from pioneer days, who share more qualities with the Rabble of the area than most of them do with their hot-headed peers in ranching and agriculture outside the region.

On the other hand, because of the kind of work I've done and the kind of life I've led, I've known a lot of urban rich people, rich Wypipo for the most part (a handful of blacks, browns and Asians thrown in to the mix), and I think I got to understand them reasonably well.

Trump is an aberration because he's so overt. But his perspective and behavior, and his many bizarre and largely false beliefs are not that different than those of many (most) members of his class. They are in my experience quite a despicable lot overall, the few and far between exceptions proving the rule.

They are selfish, greedy, cruel, self-obsessed, exploitative, aggressive, competitive with one another and typically they are wrong about everything or just about everything.

They live in a special bubble of their own creation, served by toadies and flatterers, deigning to part with their good will (and sometimes money) when and if they observe sufficient loyalty and obedience from their suppliants.

They are for the most part insecure as hell.

They loathe and fear the masses.

They want to be loved but believe they are hated. Often enough they're right about that.

Many spend their lives and much of their wealth in a futile quest for self-protection, obsessing on "security," with ever thicker walls, ever higher gates, ever more vicious dogs and guards to protect them from imagined (sometimes real) outlaws out there who were coming to take their stuff and rape their wives and daughters.

They believe sincerely that We the Rabble hate and envy them so much that if it weren't for their own layers of protection and it weren't for the government suppressing revolt, we'd all flood their mansions and offices and take everything they have.

As if what THEY have were the most important things in OUR lives.

They aren't. But don't tell them that. It might upset them even more.

"Generosity" among these people is almost entirely based on what they will get out of the deal -- how prominent their names will be, what sort of perks their beneficiaries deliver, and so on. New rich often see the notion of "generosity" as simply silly and have used it as a scaffold and opportunity for further exploitation of the despairing and downcast masses and the further enrichment of themselves.

They are ugly, ugly people, with no souls in my estimation.

There are exceptions, but they are often marginalized among their own peers. The "good ones" are laughed at by most of their class, called names behind their backs ("Saint" this or that) and otherwise mocked.

Trump is very open about these things whereas most of his class are socialized to obscure their natures -- at least in the company of people who are not like them.

What shocks me about the current situation is that so many people who should know better apparently don't recognize that Trump is what so many members of his class wish they were or could be. He's public about his crazy; no filters or shields. Right out there as a vicious, violent, cruel and despicable representative of his class -- yes, most of them in my experience are like Trump when you peel back the curtain -- who now has (almost) all the Power of the Great And Grand United States Government at his fingertips.

Oh my god in heaven, THINK of the possibilities! Gasp!

People who should know better think he's a one off. He isn't. They think his actions and success will somehow lead to a reaction from the Left, or something like it, that will result in some sort of Worker Paradise -- or at least something better than we have -- one day.

One. Fine. Day.

But first, destroy the Democrats. The Paradise will come once the Democrats are destroyed, the Clintoons  are hung from lampposts, and Trump succeeds in overthrowing the NeoLibCon paradigm. As if that were his intent or goal.

It's insanity.

Of course Trumpism and the apotheosis of his class can be defeated.

Start here:

Disobey card from Guerrilla Graphix, one of my favorite shops in Albuquerque

How the Fascists (Continue to) Win

This is the longest version I've so far seen of the military action in Mariupol, Ukraine on May 9, Victory Day, during which a number of residents were killed and wounded as troops-behaving-badly fired on outraged crowds -- "terrorists" all.

Other versions keep cropping up. And reports from elsewhere in the restive south and east of Ukraine tell very similar stories of gunfire and bloodshed by the so-called military of the so-called Kiev government.  Also, there have been extensive reports of shellings, bombardments and fire-bombings of numerous sites in the region under contention, leading to unconfirmed reports of hundreds dead and wounded.

Ultimately, it doesn't take a lot of killing to enforce control. Not that the so-called military of the so-called Kiev government has so far been able to accomplish that aim...

Note that in the video, there is no telling what the military objective of the so-called troops might be. They are simply rampaging on a holiday, and the crowd -- which is quite large and quite brave -- will have none of it. They taunt and denounce the so-called troops lustily. While I don't understand the language well enough to follow a conversation, I understand some of what they are saying:

Fa-schis-ti!

Nyet-nyet terrorista!

And so on. These people are angry that their celebration has been interrupted by some kind of violent chaos brought on by the so-called military of the so-called Kiev government, and they are remarkably fearless in letting the so-called troops know how they feel.

While they initially keep their distance from the so-called troops, first one woman and then another,  arms out and hands up, decide to break ranks from the crowd and approach the "troops" shouting denunciations along the way. Once these brave and indomitable women fearlessly push forward, men in the crowd do likewise and continue taunting and denouncing while the so-called "troops" attempt to establish a perimeter.  To what object, who knows.

Eventually, members of the crowd confront the so-called troops from very close range. Military vehicles are dashing about. One of the men who'd been taunting the so-called troops is shot, though the shooting itself isn't shown in this video, just the aftermath as he is crumpling into the street. Another video shows the shooting and the aftermath, as other members of the crowd attempt to tend his wounds. He was shot in the chest.

Other men are arguing with and taunting the so-called troops, and more are shot, first one man in casual clothes on the plaza across the street from the man who was first shot, then a man in a suit who crumples on the plaza while holding on to someone else, then another in front of a kiosk (that shooting isn't seen in this video).

The videographer gets closer and closer to the so-called troops, and as he does he sees a man in the crowd with a gun pointed toward the so-called troops, apparently firing, and he sees someone with what looks like a Molotov cocktail, and I distinctly hear the videographer say, "Provocateurs?" or the Russian equivalent of it.

Kiev-coup supporters have made much of the fact that there was someone with a gun in the crowd and that someone had what looked like a Molotov cocktail in the crowd as justification for calling the crowd "terrorists" and for shooting and killing people in the crowd.

Indeed, the so-called troops continue to fire into the crowd, and one man -- alleged to be the one with the gun, though I don't think it is him -- is seen after he is shot in the head in front of the coffee tent, blood gushing from his wound; another is shot in the leg beside the tent.

The so-called troops retreat while continuing to fire as the crowd advances, taunting and denouncing and tending to the wounded.

The utter fearlessness of the Mariupol residents in the face of gunfire from the so-called military of the Kiev coup-regime is remarkable, something I doubt we'd see under similar conditions in this country.

So far, at any rate, we haven't seen this sort of situation in the United States, where there is an actual military operation in the midst of a civilian population, but it could happen despite posse comitatus and other provisions against it.

If it did happen in this country, the military would win almost instantly. It's not at all clear that will be the upshot of the so-called operations being conducted in the south and east of Ukraine, in part because enough of the people are putting up enough of a largely unarmed resistance, and enough of the alleged military are reluctant or refuse to fire on civilians.

So the coup-regime and its sponsors have brought in militias and mercenaries to do their dirty work, or so they say. Young and bloodthirsty men are -- they say -- being recruited from among the soccer ultras, and most especially the Right Sektor (ie: Nazi) and Svoboda (ie: Fascist) partisans to go to the East and South and make mayhem, death, and destruction happen. Mercenaries are said to be coming from all sort of conflict regions to apply their special wet-work talents to controlling and eliminating resistance to the Kiev coup-regime in Ukraine.

According to reports they are cowards, but that doesn't prevent them from causing chaos and destruction, and that's what any good Fascist would want to see in order for their power to manifest and ultimately to succeed. What they do is make it impossible for stability and a status quo to be established unless it is under the authority and control of the coup-regime and its forces. By this means, a relative handful of killers and destroyers are able to overcome and control large and often resistant populations.

The tactics are right out of the Nazi playbook of yore. By preventing any routine or stability from occurring except as they will it under their own authority and control, resistance eventually dissipates. By committing essentially random acts of violence, killing and wounding more or less randomly, and by destroying property both randomly and using targeted destruction against designated "enemies" they are able to assert their power over a largely unarmed population that by and large is unwilling or unable to use the same tactics against them.

This is how they win despite their unpopularity and widespread resistance to them. These are the tactics that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan by the so-called coalition which attempted to conquer them, and whose legacy is still apparent despite withdrawal.

One thing that keeps being overlooked or forgotten is that much of Europe was ruled by Fascist and quasi-Fascist governments at the outbreak of World War II. It was not, by any means, a contest between "liberty" and its opposite despite how the war in Europe was being marketed. The Axis was Fascist, and so were nearly all the Allies -- with the notable exception of the Soviet Union, which initially was being destroyed and rent asunder by the Nazis.

What we see in Ukraine and elsewhere is a remarkable resurgence in Fascist and even Nazi fortunes as one after another formerly social democratic government succumbs to the power and authority of essentially Fascist interests, and those which resist integration into the System -- even if they are Fascist themselves -- are relentlessly destroyed.

I'd like to think that the Fascists will be defeated by the Resistance, but it really doesn't work that way, never has. Recall, the Fascist Franco won the Spanish Civil War, in part by being the most ruthless bastard and the last man standing. His Fascist regime endured for the rest of his life, as did many (MANY) similar Fascist regimes all over the world, though especially concentrated in Latin America.

Spain is essentially back in Fascist hands, as is much of Europe. Ukraine is following the same pattern.

The USA has its own version thereof.

Resistance does not thwart Fascism.

The question is, what does...?

Bill Gates on Charlie Rose

Last night I saw a few minutes of Bill Gates explaining to Charlie Rose how Good he and all the other 85 billionaires who own the world and everyone in it are. I had to click it off, it was so revolting. Ordinarily, I can at least stand to look at and even listen to Gates pontificate, but last night, he was in some sort of alternate universe, protecting his class at all costs ("You know, Warren and I are of the opinion that the rich could be taxed just a little more in this country without harming the economy....") and knowing he's full of shit.

Rose was trying to fluff him up with all this talk about the "expanding middle class" -- whereas he said nothing at all about the shrinking and vanishing middle class in this country and much of the rest of the world.

"Redistribution" got Gates's panties in a wad, so I said, "That's it," and turned it off.

Lessons of Impunity and Internalization of Perspectives

Last week, a report regarding police conduct at the November 9, 2011, rallies at the University of California at Berkeley was issued. It was the first of what will no doubt be a blizzard of studies about police conduct during their efforts to prevent or remove protest encampments on University grounds last fall.

The video above shows some of the actions of both police and protesters on the Sproul Plaza lawn that day; though I can't be sure of timing, the video description says that this particular confrontation occurred after the tents that had been briefly erected on the lawn were seized and removed by police, thus after the initial charge by police against protesters. It was apparently during the confrontation shown above that most of the injuries were sustained by protesters that day.

The report was prepared by

Jeff Young, Assistant Chief of Police UCLA Police Department

and so is an institutional-serving document that reflects both the culture of impunity with which the UCPD is imbued and the astonishment within the institution of the UCPD that civilians would question the behavior of the police or -- even worse -- not know the policies that they were properly implementing and enforcing.

If people were assaulted, arrested, or injured during the police actions November 9: too bad for them.

As I read the report, I was thinking back -- as I admit I often do! -- to the Free Speech Movement in late 1964 and early 1965 and how it was dealt with, and how there was nothing approaching this level of violence by the police, even though thousands of students actually occupied Sproul Hall (the UC Berkeley administration building) repeatedly during the FSM protests, and hundreds and hundreds of protesters were arrested. So far as I can recall, no one was beaten or sustained more than minor injuries (mostly from being dragged) during those police actions.

To refresh my memory, I watched "Berkeley in the Sixties," Mark Kitchell's 1990 documentary of those and other events in and near the Bay Area of California during the decade. (The link goes to part one of an eight part Spanish subtitled version on YouTube.) Indeed, so far as that documentary shows, there was no overt police violence during the FSM period though there were plenty of arbitrary impositions of police authority (most especially, the seizure of Mario Savio by police at the Greek Theatre while he tried to address the administration on behalf of the students). In fact, according to Jo Freeman's accounts, the Berkeley administration was directed by the Governor's Office to defuse the protest without violence.

My how times change.

As I watched the documentary -- the first time I've seen it in its entirety in many years -- I was somewhat startled to see so many things I remember or was part of during the era, even more startling to me was how much I have internalized the ideas and ideals of the era, and further, how much those ideas and ideals seem to be informing my perspectives about the current uprisings and rebellions under the Occupy rubric.

My. My. My.

I hadn't forgotten, I had internalized. And I got to thinking that something similar has happened to the police and their institutional culture in the intervening 40 or 50 years. I take for granted my point of view about rebellion, ideas and ideals, and of course I believe I'm "right" -- just as they do.

In 1964 and 65, the police didn't behave violently toward student protesters on campus. In fact, they were ordered not to. By 1966 and 67, police violence against protests would become commonplace in California, and in 1968 in Chicago, it became what was deemed a police riot. The term can only be properly understood in the context of the uprising and riots that were going on all over the United States and the world that year. 1968 was a transformative year on many levels. Nothing would be the same afterwards.

But back to the report and the impunity for police actions expressed therein.

From the outset, the thrust of the report is clear:

The specific purpose of this operational review is to determine if the
UC Berkeley Police Department followed its policies and procedures and generally accepted police and safety practices in dealing with the protests that occurred on the UC Berkeley campus on November 9, 2011. Other purposes that naturally flow this charge include determining:

1. lf the actions of the UC Berkeley Police Department provided an appropriate level of preparation and pre-event planning for the protest.

2. lf UC Berkeley Police Department command staff, including the Chief of Police,provided adequate leadership and command/control of the protest event.

3. If UC Berkeley campus administration provided adequate direction, guidance and the appropriate support of the indicated direction and guidance that they provided.

4. What actions of the protestors and crowd conditions contributed to the eventual outcomes of the event?

5. What recommendations for future consideration can be made?

According to institutional culture, events transpire in a vacuum, independent of all other events. Assessments are only made regarding the specifics of the moment according to established rules and policies as they are interpreted and enforced against perceived or real threats. Context, to the extent it is considered at all, is an abstraction. That UC Berkeley's history of protest is too widely known to be ignored, but that history does not directly inform today's realities and considerations. Instead, the events of 9/11 and the more recent Oakland actions -- including the police violence on October 25 and the vandalism by Oakland activists on November 2 -- will loom large.

From the outset, it is clear that the only issues under consideration will be whether the police responded properly according to their mission and policy as they understand it and as it was communicated to them by the campus administration. The implication is that to the extent they face accusations of wrongdoing, they are ultimately victims of policy choices they are not responsible for.

In other words, by the standards of this study, there is no way for the police to be in the wrong regarding their conduct so long as policies were followed.

And, of course, they were. Consequently, everyone can just sit down and shut up. The police were only following orders and doing their jobs. No one has any right to criticize them for their performance.

What was their all-important mission? What "job" was so important that they had to beat the crap out of and injure students to accomplish?

Interestingly, the report sidesteps that question and instead puts forth the following "Message" from the Chancellor:

In advance of the event, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau issued a "Message to Campus Community". In this message Chancellor Birgeneau warned students that camping would not be tolerated. Birgeneau's statement reminded "community members of some of the basic expectations for our campus." He specifically mentioned, "encampments or occupations of buildings are not allowed on our campus. This means that members of our community are free to meet, discuss, debate, and protest, but will not be allowed to set up tents or encampment structures." The chancellor stressed support for "our campus community in leading the collegiate movement in a way that is productive, dignified and consequential." Birgeneau also noted that "in these challenging times, we simply cannot afford to spend our precious resources and, in particular, student tuition on costly and avoidable expenses associated with violence or vandalism."

This statement is strikingly obtuse, in that it seems to be focusing everywhere except the interests of the students engaged in protest on campus, and it is remarkably similar to statements issued from the administration with regard to the People's Park in 1969. In other words, Birgeneau seems to be saying, "You can have your silly little protest if you must, but only on our terms, not on yours."

Note the matter of "costly and avoidable expenses associated with violence or vandalism" that are paid from student tuition. Nice touch.

While not explicitly stated, the all-important mission, indeed the obsession of the police on November 9, was preventing an encampment on the campus. When they were thwarted and tents were erected on the lawn in front of Sproul Hall, they became enraged and commenced their brutal actions against the protesters. For their part, protesters resisted for a time and then retreated.

The encampment was destroyed, a number of protesters were injured and arrested, and "order" was restored to the campus.

The police conduct was quickly intercast around the world and was met with widespread outrage and disgust. Captain Margo Bennett, UCB police spokesperson, and Chancellor Birgeneau both tried to justify the violence of the police toward the protesters by asserting that the protesters' behavior was "not nonviolence," which doesn't make any rational sense at all. At no time did any protester address the police violence with violence of their own. It simply did not happen.

In the report, however, the issue is not directly addressed. The statements about "not nonviolence" are not given. Instead, the report quotes definitional terms as understood by the police regarding matters of "resistance", to wit:

A word about terms such as "Passive Resistance" and "Non-Violent" "Passive Resistance" and Non-Violent" are controversial terms that mean different things to many different groups. The UC Berkeley Police Department "Crowd Management Policy" provides definitions for three
categories of demonstrator response to police orders:

1. Compliant - behavior consistent with submitting to lawful police orders without resistance.

2. Non-Compliant - non-violent opposition to the lawful directions of law enforcement during an arrest situation (sometimes referred to as "passive resistance").

3. Active Resistance - intentionally & unlawfully opposing the lawful order of a peace officer in a physical manner (i.e. tensed muscles, interlock arms/legs, pushing, kicking, etc.).

Viewed under these definitions, the actions of the crowd on November 9, 2011 were "active resistance."

Note, "passive resistance" is not defined further than "non-violent opposition" whereas "active resistance" is defined as essentially what the protesters did as a consequence of the violence of the police.

Also, not clearly mentioned in the report is that the police policy toward "active resistance" is to use force. Once the protesters engaged in any behavior the police regarded as "active resistance" then use of force was guaranteed. "Active resistance" in police parlance includes any action they so deem. Thus, for example, it is often noted that witnesses to aggressive arrests often hear police shouting "Stop resisting!" to fully controlled and compliant suspects. This is so that later when they are sued, the police can claim that the suspect was engaged in "active resistance" thus justifying the use of force against them.

It is acknowledged in the report that some of the protesters did not recognize that their behavior was considered "active resistance" by the police.

However, it was clear to me during my interviews of several protestors and witnesses said that they did not see protestors interlocking their arms and pushing back against the line of police officers as anything other than "passive resistance." This is a misconception held by many. In most cases, the police have a very different definition of passive resistance. Any action other than a protestor passively sitting or standing and going limp is usually considered more than passive resistance. For example, the UCLA Police Department Policy 300, "Use of Force" provides specific detailed definitions of active and passive resistance:

Actively Resisting - Evasive physical movements to defeat an officer's attempt at control, including bracing, tensing, pushing, linking arms or verbally signaling an intention to avoid or prevent being taken into or retained in custody.

Passive Resistance - Actions that do not prevent the officer's attempt to control a subject. For example, a subject who remains in a sitting, standing, limp or prone position with no physical contact (e.g., locked arms) with other individuals. A subject in handcuffs meets the definition of passive resistance if: (a) the subject is in a sitting, standing or prone position as directed by the officer and is not engaged in any motion reasonably likely to injure, resist or remove the handcuffs; or (b) the subject is walking accompanied by and following the directions of an officer.

A subject who, while sitting or standing, has locked arms with another subject is not engaged in passive resistance but is engaged in active resistance to obstruct. A subject who has previously engaged in passive resistance but who subsequently engages in behavior such as flailing, kicking, elbowing, head butting, biting, shoving, jerking, pulling away, twisting or other action that an officer interprets as a threat or actual act of active resistance is no longer considered to be engaging in passive resistance.

It should be easy to see that by these definitions, any action by a protester, suspect or arrestee that can be interpreted by an officer as a "threat" to act -- which means anything at all including complete compliance -- can be used as justification for police violence.

Anyone who has studied the issue of police brutality knows that's exactly what happens, too, with sometimes -- all too often -- deadly consequences. In almost every case, however, police brutality is considered "justified" because the officer perceived a "threat" of some sort. It's a matter of force protection that applies to the military as well. The perception of a potential "threat" is all it takes for the use of force against civilians, force which can be and too often is deadly.

That's essentially the definition of impunity. While the police conception of their impunity is based on their perception of a "threat" -- which means in practice that anything at all can be cited as justification for police brutality and murder and be accepted by Authority -- the culture of impunity goes far beyond the police and infuses the culture of power and authority at every level.

This has been made starkly clear to Americans and many people around the world during the ongoing -- and seemingly endless -- financial crisis, during which those who made the crisis and keep it going are not held to account in any way but are instead showered with ever more rewards while millions of Americans are forced out of their homes and into poverty year after year.

In the case of the University, the stark realization of the impunity of power and authority is slightly different in that students and their families are being assessed higher and higher fees and tuition, while their opportunities to complete their educations are becoming more and more restricted (as access to classes is further and further limited) while extensive construction projects and higher and higher salaries for top administrators and sports coaches are instituted. Students and their families are forced deeper and deeper into debt to pay for degrees that take longer and longer to get, and for which -- surprise! -- there is often no market after graduation.

What a scam.

(I honestly did not realize until recently just how dire this situation has become for many students and their families who really feel they've been taken advantage of by a system that is out of control and run by people who believe they deserve impunity for their actions.)

We will find this culture of impunity permeates the power and authority centers of our society. The police are typically the public face of that impunity, just as they are in the report under consideration here.

When critics of the Occupy movement say that confronting the police is somehow a distraction from what's really important, I often wonder what they must be thinking. The police are at the base of the culture of impunity; their impunity is emblematic of the whole structure of impunity. Confronting the police is a means of confronting the structure they are part of and serve. Duh.

To wrap this up (because today and tomorrow are travel days) I'll just add that those with power and in authority in American society have largely internalized their belief in their own impunity of action. They take it for granted that the way things are is the way they are supposed to be, and that they deserve to be granted this impunity because of who they are.

At one time, their positions of authority and power were matters of responsibility and service. No longer.

At the same time, as I was reminded of what used to be (while watching "Berkeley in the Sixties") I recognized how many of the beliefs and attitudes of that era I have internalized and take for granted now.

Desecrating Liberating the Wall Street Bull

This is a much longer video that explores the action on March 21 when perhaps a couple of hundred marchers in the Million Hoodie March split off to go to Wall Street.

What it shows is that the action was completely spontaneous: after completing the regular march they wanted to do more, so they went to Wall Street -- quite a distance from wherever they started from, whether Washington Square or Union Square or somewhere else, I couldn't tell from the video.

Apparently, there was only one cop that accompanied them. He could not stop them from doing what they wanted, of course. And what they wanted was to tear down the barricades, which they did, quickly and efficiently, tossing them into the street and throwing them chaotically about.

This appeared to be completely spontaneous, not a tactical part of a strategy at all. And that was part of its brilliance. The symbolic power of ripping down the police barricades is enormous.

But even more powerful was the mounting of the Bull by a number of demonstrators, one of whom appeared to ride it for a time. Others stood with raised fists and posed for pictures. The Bull and its protectors were powerless.

More police began to arrive, and after surrounding the Bull -- to protect it, of course -- and ordering the miscreants on top of it down (one of whom they targeted for arrest, but he was rescued by his comrades and escaped the police clutches) the crowd hurled insults. When more police arrived, the crowd began to disperse. As they did, the police were more concerned about re-erecting their precious barricades than anything else, and the crowd simply vanished. The sight of the police frantically trying to re-erect their barricade around the now-desecrated Bull was pathetic.

Later scenes show police behaving badly and assembling in huge numbers at Union Square -- mostly behind their barricades -- while, so far as the video shows, there are no demonstrators around (of course they are there just out of camera range.) The last scene of the police filing through parking area for their vehicles while in the distance the illuminated tents of the Occupy protesters head toward the park is priceless.

This Isn't A Joke. Srsly.

This sign has been showing up at the Nightly Union Square Eviction Theatre in New York, though the pic above dates from last October. I believe it was Dallas on the OWSHDTV livestream who dubbed the nightly show at Union Square "Eviction Theatre" -- and it's a good point. The whole effort, on both "sides" is now a Show. It's not entirely meaningless, but we know how each episode will end.

The closure of public access to any part of Union Square promptly at midnight each night for the past week is definitely fucked up and bullshit; last night, even the sidewalks around Union Square were forbidden, as police marched hither and thither inside the park while other units ostentatiously emplaced barricades and kept moving them to herd the crowd from place to place. It was a rainy night, so it wasn't a very large crowd, but it was boisterous as crowds tend to be in New York, and the police (at least some of them) appeared to be enjoying the Barricade Game while shoving the crowd this way and that and ultimately completely off the sidewalk and into the street. Haw. Haw. Suckers!

In New York, it has been almost unheard of for members of the OWS crowds to thwart the barricades. They are almost ritual lines -- like rope lines at a presidential appearance -- that you do not cross or mess with in any way. But last night, somewhat surprisingly, one section of barricade was overturned by members of the crowd, only to be re-emplaced by dutiful police. Members of the crowd also made and brought their own papier-mâché barricade to pose with and carry around. It was quite authentic looking.

There has been more and more clown policing at OWS events and at the nightly rituals of the Eviction Theatre. The crowds, mostly, love it, and it's clear that some of the police enjoy the spectacle of being mocked as well. They know (some of them) that what they're doing is fucked up and bullshit as well, so why not mock? Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was at an Occupy strategy conference yesterday, and it bothered me more than I realized at the time. It almost didn't occur at all. Even though it had been planned and scheduled since January, the host site organization decided to schedule something else at the same time, and the site was not available. They made an alternate site available, but then they didn't provide access to it for quite a while, so the effort got under way an hour and a half late. Then, we were informed just before the lunch break, that neither site would be available after lunch, and we would have to arrange for another time and place to continue. There was no time at all to discuss strategy or anything like it.

Fucked up and bullshit. But as someone said, only half-jokingly, "Why don't we just occupy this space?"

Indeed.

There are said to be 55,000 vacant buildings in the county. Any of them would probably do... Were it not raining, we might have continued our business outside. Maybe even in the street.

I think part of what bothered me about the collapsed conference yesterday is that I saw it as something "outside" the Occupy framework, put together by people who have long been involved with Occupy but who really want a different kind of activist organization. It's not so much hijacking as it is trying to push the movement (at least locally) onto another path -- something that's been going on from the beginning. I don't know that it can be, or even should be, avoided. Part of the Let It Be philosophy. If the Occupy framework is weak, it will yield. If it is strong, it won't.

If I had a little more information, I could probably point to what went wrong pretty easily and offer suggestions of how to correct it. But then, maybe the whole thing was ill-advised to begin with.

Occupy is its own template, something that is still resisted by many who have long been involved in Occupy affairs. One of the curiosities of the National Strategy Discussion I'm involved in is that there are so many others involved in it who are really trying to create another movement altogether, and some are making believe that this, the Occupy Movement, hasn't actually "started" yet.

One of the quirks that I've mentioned about the blogosphere is the notion that everything is just "starting," that there is no history of pretty much anything, it's all brand new, or it's still only a potential, not even real yet -- even if whatever it is (like Occupy) has been ongoing for months or years. And it is sort of how some people see Occupy as well; it's "just starting."

It's true in a sense -- in that Occupy is barely 6 months old -- but let's get real here. Tunisia and Egypt went through their Revolts/Revolutions in a matter of weeks. How long is this Occupy Revolution supposed to take, and when will it no longer be "just starting?" When it becomes like Mexico's PRI?

"Strategy" is proving to be a real bear for Occupy in some respects. There really isn't consensus on definition of terms on the one hand, nor is there really a consensus that there is a need for a more comprehensive and coherent strategy than is already in place. Nor is there even necessarily a broad based recognition that there IS a strategy (or strategies) in place.

One of the notions I'm wrestling with is the idea that the Occupy Movement doesn't have any sort of Grand Strategy and it needs to start over and adopt the Gene Sharp recipe for Revolution. Furthermore, the only way to become a successful Revolutionary undertaking is to study and adopt the Revolutionary philosophy and methods of past masters of the Art of Revolution, according to those who "know" these things.

I strongly disagree. While Occupy is "Teh Revolution" -- the one many of us have been waiting for -- it isn't like, and it definitely doesn't look like Revolutions of the past, and to me, it's important that it not be like them, that it not look like them, and that it never "institutionalize." As an organic, evolutionary non-violent resistance campaign, it can go on living and growing and developing as long as necessary, but as an institution, it becomes a fossil, an artefact.

If Occupy adopts the Gene Sharp recipe -- which there is no sign the organic whole will ever do -- I think the effort will be over, but I wonder what would happen if some of the local Occupys set out on a Sharp-path.

There is room, in other words, for almost anything... even, from time to time, shit that's fucked up and bullshit like yesterday's aborted strategy session... srsly.

This Is What A Police State Looks Like (Redux)

By now, it should be clear that the Authorities have been busy during the Occupy semi-hiatus over the winter. Oh yes. Oh. My. Yes.

The other day, the Oakland City Attorney sued one of the local Occupy activists for vandalism for acts he is alleged to have committed in Oakland on the night of General Strike Day, November 2. Cesar is one of the gentlest and most generous people I know. He says that on that night, he was not committing vandalism in Oakland at all. He was trying to protect himself from police munitions fire by "liberating" a piece of plywood covering a window to use as a shield. Cesar was arrested that night for vandalism and failure to disperse, but he has not been charged criminally. The video evidence the city says they will produce more than likely is ambiguous about what actually happened, but it's obvious the City of Oakland is using this case as a weapon to keep "outside agitators" out of Oakland. Message: if people from elsewhere show up in Oakland and something happens, the outsiders will be charged for damages. Sort of like the Hotel Tax, I guess.

Not content with merely charging outsiders for damages, the Alameda County District Attorney has filed criminal charges against a number of UC Berkeley students and one professor for their participation in the iconic protest demonstrations at Sproul Hall on November 9, 2011. It's worse than the Daily Cal reported above. Nancy O'Malley -- the now notorious Alameda County DA -- has charged a total of ten students who participated in the protest at Sproul Hall, some of them charged after the UCPD gained access to their records at the University medical center where they went for treatment of the injuries sustained when they were beaten by police. Only two or three of those charged by the DA were arrested that day. One of them was Celeste Langan who is seen dressed in purple, at the extreme left of the video at the beginning, "resisting" arrest.



http://youtu.be/kNHXuf6qJas

Cute. Her arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow, I believe. Should be quite a show.

These are links to raw footage of some of what was going on that day at UC Berkeley.

http://youtu.be/NSat-nRefXY (Langan is seen in this video, the second person thrown to the ground and trussed up by police at about 3:40; at the end of this video, she is shown being hoisted up and starts to be led away)

http://youtu.be/cEcqsLyX-vI (In this video, which shows nonsequential events, Langan appears at about 2:17 being led away. The determination of the students in the face of what was seen at that time to be outrageous police violence is impressive.)

http://youtu.be/SN7WOsvepUg (This video is sort of the Highlight Reel; early on a female likely Cal student is heard repeating "You're hurting him!" while a protester is being beaten nearby. She is then heard saying to someone "That's how we train them to fucking stop us. We pay for them to fucking hurt us." Which is absolutely true. The UC police and the Alameda County Deputies were actually training not far from this very site a month or so before -- I've read it was with Israeli trainers -- to conduct this kind of action. Celeste Langan is shown in complete shock being led away in flexicuffs at about 3:20.)

The picture used in the article about Israelification of Occupy suppression is of course of the UC Davis pepper spray incident that happened a week after the Cal police riot. After numerous delays, an official report on the incident was supposed to be released on March 6, but the UC Davis police officers union sued to prevent it and got a TRO which is currently in effect. They claim that release of the report will compromise the rights of officers who might be named therein. This matter is also supposed to be heard in court tomorrow.

The NYPD is notorious for spying on various suspect groups including Muslims and Occupy Wall Street, but now, according to In These Times, they've gone further than usual by arresting people for "thought crimes" or "pre-crimes." This practice was more-or-less institutionalized during the RNC convention in St. Paul in 2008 prior to which and during which dozens of arrests were made and property was seized of people who were suspected of making preparations to protest. There is apparently a grand jury empaneled in Chicago that has been trying to develop terrorism charges against some of those who were arrested in Minneapolis and St. Paul four years ago, but many of those subpoenaed have refused to cooperate.

This is a compilation video of some of what was going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul prior to and during the Republican convention.



Notice anything? The exact tactics have been used and are being used against Occupy. At the time, in 2008, what was going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul was seen as way over the top. The rallies and marches and protests during the convention were peaceful, even routine in the context, yet the police were on some kind of hair-trigger/steroid alert against the protesters constantly -- even before the convention, and they have stayed that way afterwards -- and they behaved with what was at that time shocking brutality and over kill. People were being kettled and arrested en masse -- whether or not they had anything to do with protesting -- hundreds were held for days, they were not allowed any sort of contact with the outside, nor did were they allowed medical attention for injuries or other conditions; people were arrested for doing nothing at all, but merely because they had been identified as "potential" protesters. Flash bangs and tear gas were liberally employed against nonviolent protests. Police brutality was commonplace. It was a war zone in which only one side -- the police -- was fighting. The protests were nonviolent. The police, however, employed what were at that time considered extreme levels of violence against them.

And it's going on in much the same way against Occupy.

What gives?

The political conventions are what's called National Special Security Events, during which, essentially, the Constitution is suspended. During National Special Security Events, a form of martial law can be and often is imposed; violent and otherwise unethical or illegal means are typically used to suppress protest. While I've written about National Special Security Events and the nature of policing during them, I'm not at all sure that many Americans actually understand what is going on.

More likely, they see the suppression and assume it is due to something the protesters have done, which is simply not the case. The suppression tactics and the "threat display" aspects of officials are policy during these events. The policy doesn't change based on what the protesters do or don't do. The policy is to suppress, to prevent, and to tightly control the public -- no matter what they do.

Since the October 25 assault on Occupy Oakland, it's looked more and more like the Occupy Movement has been categorized as something that requires NSSE-type suppression. The clue came much earlier, however, when fully armored up riot squads were deployed night after night against a handful of local protesters who were peacefully engaged in civil disobedience. Night after night after night, dozens of riot cops (sometimes up to 70 or 80), squad cars, paddy wagons and so forth were dispatched to round up ten or two or, on one occasion, one protester sitting on the sidewalk refusing to "disperse" at plaza "closing time." It was an absurd goon show that became a joke. But not a funny one. Eventually, even the police recognized how foolish they looked in their little riot get-ups and their ridiculously over produced arrest-theater, and scaled back their overkill, and when the hundreds of thousands of dollars it was costing was released, they stopped doing it altogether. The DA refused to prosecute, and in the end, all the charges against demonstrators were dropped, although there has been an attempt to assess "fees" against those who were arrested multiple times (typically around $300).

As someone pointed out, had the police used their discretion and not engaged in this nonsense to begin with, there wouldn't have been any costs to the city at all. Duh. But no. Civil disobedience must be suppressed. Violently in too many cases.

But even when there isn't police violence during Occupy suppression actions, the official intent is to intimidate and disable. For example:

Occupy Miami raided by SWAT teams (VIDEO) (h/t teri49 in comments)

Objectively, this is just insane. The official fear level about the Occupy movement -- and apparently any other civil disobedience -- has reached a fever pitch. The fact that people are so pissed off and no longer fear saying so seems to have hit a raw nerve among the ruling classes and their enforcers.

Bones are thrown to the masses from time to time, but it doesn't stop the protest and actions. Suppression doesn't stop it; in fact, action seems to be on an increasing curve as more and more activists pick up on the Occupy movement's strategies.

This is not going away, despite the institutionalization of the Police State -- which looks to be full-time and permanent now. The ruling class and its bought and paid for government and enforcers are in a pre-panic state. They do not know how to suppress it, and they don't know how to fully control it. But they don't want to actually listen the voices of the People and do the right thing, either. They still don't think they have to. After all, they have NDAA and HR 347.

We got nothin', right?

We'll see about that.

"We Can Chaa-aaange The World"

Editorial comment about the video above:

I witnessed some of the events documented in the video on television as they happened in 1968, and I've seen many retrospectives that focus on the Chicago Police Riot since then, but I have never seen anything that puts together the footage from the streets and the parks near the Democratic Convention site so comprehensively and comprehensibly. It's quite moving to see it in that fashion. It is extraordinarily evocative given what's been happening to suppress the Occupy Movement. It's not the same thing at all. Motivations are very different now, as are, I believe, the intentions of both the authorities and the demonstrators. It's a different world, people are not fighting the same battles for the same things, and I sincerely doubt that the outcome will be the same.

"Rearaaa-aange the World."

-- Chicago (We Can Change the World), 1971

After stumbling around for several days in total WTF? mode, I seem to be gaining some kind of clarity regarding intense assault on "the anarchists" (Black Bloc or no) that has been taking place throughout the Occupy firmament and in many of the corners of the intertubes as well.

It's about Chicago. Well, "Chicago" and "Tampa" and "Charlotte" as well. This year's three big National Special Security Events where the American and global rulership will be gathering for pageants, schmooze, and decisions about the Future Pain the rest of us will be enduring.

And it is about preserving something of the Occupy spirit in the aftermath.

After the J28 events in Oakland, I saw the pressure to expel "the anarchists" increase exponentially. People weren't just saying this, they were deeply passionate about it, fierce, angry, scared. "The anarchists" had to be tamed or be gone, no two ways about it.

And as I explored the issue of Nonviolence with people online and in some of the trenches, I found more and more rigidity of thought about it, to the point where even confrontation with or defiance of authority was being lumped into the "anarchist-bad, no-can-do" category. Cooperation with authority and an absolute commitment to total nonviolence, that went even beyond the Gandhian Principles, seemed to be required.

From my perspective, this was getting completely insane. WTF? No "movement" is possible with those kinds of absolutist requirements, pledges, vows, declarations, expulsions, purges and so on. It struck me as a national, coordinated effort to "kill the Occupy" by remaking it into just another NPO or lobbying front and be done with it once and for all.

And the kill switch was being flipped mostly from the inside. The pressure from the outside, of course, is always there, a fact of life, background noise that sometimes gets way in your face, and much worse, but the Occupy Movement in all its moving parts has been coping with that pretty well. The Occupy doesn't fit America's standard pattern of political advocacy/social service, and there has always been a strenuous effort from the outside to make it fit, whether through police aktions or, shall we say, civic "persuasion," or infiltration and take over by the more established political activist communities. That effort still goes on, the point being to neuter the Occupy as a change agent and make it into a version of every other ineffective NPO -- and possibly giving it A Seat at the Table. Yadda, yadda.

The neutering effort, in my view, has been relatively successful; in many cities Occupy has more or less been integrated into the fabric of city living, there is very little or no conflict with the Established Interests, and a good deal of productive -- primarily social service -- action is taking place. These Occupys are not hotbeds of change, they're hotbeds of service and innovation, at least that's my impression of them from a distance (Santa Fe and the Erie Canal cities of Upstate New York are the primary examples I'm speaking of, but there are plenty many more). They've either been transformed into or they always were community based volunteer service organizations, often run by people I call "Club Women" (though it's meant to be a gender neutral term) whose lives revolve around service to others. The Occupy provides them with a unique organizational and operational structure that eliminates a lot of the overhead of traditional service organizations and provides a means to engage in direct democracy at the same time. What's to object to, what could be better?

There were Occupys that formed temporarily then dissolved, either in dissension or -- hate to say it -- boredom; it just wasn't what people wanted or needed to do. The intensity of the Occupy framework for action isn't for everyone, and if it isn't clear what the action is for or targeting is vague or its off kilter then the whole thing can seem like a complete waste of time. If you don't feel like you're doing something productive and Occupy can't or won't function toward productive ends, that's -- to me -- a perfect reason not to do it.

There is no Requirement To Occupy.

I saw the Winter Hibernation period as a reassessment and shake out period -- hopefully leading to metamorphosis and re-emergence into something different than its initial period last year and even more "beautiful."

Well.

After what I have recently experienced, I am taken aback by what's taken place. It's not at all what I -- or perhaps anyone -- expected.

Occupy Oakland has been up and running all along, it never ceased or went into hibernation, though it did slow its public actions over the winter. Occupy Oakland became the Energy Center for the Movement as a whole after the now-legendary police assaults of October 25 that culminated with the severe wounding of Scott Olsen from police fire into the crowd.

Oakland's energy is not necessarily a good fit everywhere, nor are the methods and tactics employed in Oakland adaptable to every situation. Oakland is Oakland. The Oakland Model is vital, but I doubt it is the right one for widespread adoption. I don't see how it could work without the strength and history and commitment to overcome adversity of Oakland's people.

What happens in Oakland is an inspiration to others. The persistence, the militancy, the stunning bravery when under assault, the innovative tactics, all of these things about Occupy Oakland help to give courage to everyone fighting the good fighting the good fight against entrenched and sclerotic power. And it works.

That's the thing "they" don't want you to know.

And it's fascinating to me to piece together who constitutes "they" in the current effort to flip the kill switch on Occupy.

Nearly all of them are either inside the Movement or just outside it yammering away like Chris Hedges. Their antagonism toward "the anarchists" has taken on a distinctly nasty and threatening tone, dehumanizing and scapegoating, and violent rhetoric toward "the anarchists" has become the standard way of addressing the issue of Nonviolence as it relates to Occupy.

At one time there was a relatively rational debate about tactics going on. There was a general commitment to Nonviolence throughout the Occupy firmament, but with the proviso that Occupys were autonomous as were their working and affinity groups.

There was no Politburo, so there were no directives from the Politburo.

Each Occupy formulated its rules for itself.

So far as I know, there's never even been a suggestion of veering from the broadly defined Nonviolent path. If anybody has made such a suggestion, I'm sure they were shouted down and isolated or... expelled.

Occupy is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. It does not engage in, advocate or endorse armed struggle of any kind. It's simply always been out of the question. For good reason too, though this somewhat rambling installment is not about those reasons.

When I point out the inherent, indeed definitional, Nonviolent character of all of Occupy, including its more militant outposts like Oakland, and yes, including "the anarchists," and yes even including Black Bloc, I am often met with a barrage of what I think of as nonsensical rejoinders about a rock thrown here, a bottle thrown there, and a few broken windows in November, "What about those, ya crumb? That isn't VIOLENCE???"

Cue the Sturm und Drang and the rending of garments.

Yes, whatofit? In the overall picture, the minor vandalism and mischief that's taken place is nothing. So?

Let the screaming fits begin. As they have. Ohmigod. I've never experienced these levels of extreme ignorance combined with such extreme rigidity of thought and such extreme rhetorical violence before, and I didn't think I'd led a particularly sheltered life. I have certainly never experienced it within a so-called Nonviolence context, and not at all among people who profess to follow Nonviolent Ethics. It just doesn't happen. Vigorous disagreement and disapproval, certainly, but never in a disrespectful or overtly hostile manner.

Well, the masks have come off, although I will say that there never was a "mask" among Nonviolence believers and practitioners in the faith community. They are what they are, they have never deviated from the Path, nor have ever felt the need or had the desire to act in the manner that so of those DEMANDING strictest adherence to Nonviolence OR ELSE are doing.

Instead, they do what they have always done: they listen, they respect divergent points of view, and they use persuasion -- very effectively. Most understand the Big Picture, too: a broken window is not the End of the World. Really and truly, it isn't. Taking up a gun and instigating an armed insurrection could be, though.

That's the essence of my point of view. Not always my practicve, but we do what we can... Unfortunately proportion and perspective have been lost among the Nonviolence Purists who now appear to be in a titanic struggle with the Phantoms of their Fear: "the anarchists". Black Bloc, eeeeeee! Somebody threw a bottle, OMG, we're melting!!!!! Black Bloc! Anarchists! REDS!"

Because of the consistent violence of their rhetoric and their assaultive behavior toward any question or challenge to or deviation from their absolutist demands, I disbelieve their purported devotion to Nonviolence. If you sincerely believe in Nonviolence, you do not demand or stamp your foot or hold your breath until you turn blue, and you do not threaten others with calamity if you are not obeyed. That's the behavior of children and tyrants.

Have events conspired to infantilize key segments of the Movement?

Maybe.

"Chicago" looms large this year; the NATO/G8 summits take place there in May; the potential for evil is high. And then there's Tampa in August (RNC Convention) and Charlotte in September (DNC Convention). This is a very fraughtful year for tumult in the streets.

All three of these Confabs of the Rulership are National Special Security Events. We've had some experience with them in the not-so-distant past, in such cities as Pittsburgh, Denver, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Boiled down to the essence, what happens outside these events matters just as much as what happens inside if not more so. The Constitution and legal protections therein are effectively suspended in preparation for and for the duration of the Festivities and Events.

Bluntly put, during a National Special Security Event, you have no rights the authorities are bound to respect; you may or may not have "permissions" which can be arbitrarily revoked without notice. In fact, the random and arbitrary imposition of State Authority, often in an outrageous and brutal fashion, is one of the chief characteristics of these events.

People taking to the streets are bound to get hurt; mass arrests are all but guaranteed; intense surveillance is routine. Tactics employed by the authorities against protesters are intentionally disruptive and disabling.

People who are thinking ahead expect things to get really, really nasty. Potentially what no one alive has ever seen in this country. Occupy is expected to be in the center of it all. Occupy has become The People's Voice. The People are expected to speak up loud and clear through Occupy at Chicago, Tampa and Charlotte. And it is expected that there will be violence from the authorities.

Making clear that "Black Bloc anarchists" are not part of Occupy is likely seen as essential to mitigating the harm that the almost inevitable official violence will cause. Black Bloc cannot be prevented altogether; but clearly separating Black Bloc tactics from the Occupy Movement actions may be seen as helping to mitigate the effects of official violence.

That's my charitable read of the situation, putting as positive a face on it as I can. There's another way to look at it.

It goes back to Oakland's J28 festivities (yes, it was billed as a festival). What really took place was a series of skirmishs in The Revolution. This is really going on; this is not play acting or sport; it's the real goddamn thing, and Oakland is the center of it.

Much of it was very dramatic, such as The Battle of Oak Street and the Escape from the Park. I've written many times about Storming the Winter Palace as a metaphor, but this was the real thing. In the course of the events of J28, the legitimacy and authority of the civic government dissolved as did that of OPD. None of the stated objectives of the day's events were achieved, but something else was. Delegitimizing the Tsar's authority is an essential step in a Real Revolution.

OK. Now what? And did anyone really know that's what was up and that's what was going to happen? Did they really believe it was about taking possession of the Oakland Auditorium?

It was obvious to me as soon as the confrontation on Oak Street was in place that the building seizure was window dressing. Confronting illegitimate authority was the point, and that was astonishingly successful. Taking the building can wait until after the Revolution is consolidated.

Delegitimizing authority has to come first, and that took place in a manner we haven't seen in this country for many years.

Here's another video of the aftermath -- the Seizure of the Sound System:



This is a police force -- and a city government -- with no real legitimacy at all. Their "authority" is a sham.

This was the outcome, but it was not the intention of the anti-Revolutionists among Oakland's activists. Not everybody wants a Revolution; realistically, hardly anybody does most of the time. Most people don't want to delegitimize authority, either. What happened in Oakland was a victory for The Revolution but it was a betrayal of people of good will who have no intention of participating in Revolution.

That's the source of much of the internal struggle going on over Nonviolence and "the anarchists" and it is the source of much of the vehemence on the part of Nonviolence advocates as well. They never wanted a Revolution. They were never told this was a Revolution. They did not set out to confront, delegitimize and overthrow authority. "That isn't what Occupy is about!!"

Except that it always has been about that -- at least in part and to many of its most ardent participants.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Revolution!"

But that's what we've got, at least in some key cities, and Oakland is at the center of it all.

So I think it is fair to say that the anger and hostility toward "the anarchists" in the Occupy Movement is based on two factors:

1) fears that "the Black Bloc anarchists" will "ruin the brand" at the Global Rulership conferences by acting up and causing everyone else to suffer needlessly;

2) fears that The Revolution is really under way and it is succeeding -- at least in Oakland, where the model for more widespread Revolution is being worked out as we speak.

What of those who didn't sign up for a Revolution? Hmm?

In the comments to my post at dKos yesterday denouncing Hedges' bullshit denunciation of "the Black Bloc anarchists" a number of people commented that if there a Revolution going on, and it succeeds, what of basic infrastructure like water and sewers and trash collection?

This is for the Clean Up Working Group and the Water, Sewer, and Trash cadres organized into Affinity Groups to handle and present reports about at their Operational SpokesCouncils which will then send their Spokes to GA to make Proposals to be agendized, considered thoroughly and consensed on.

Obviously.