Deep Green Resistance Responds to Stratfor Intelligence Leaked byAnonymous that Reveals Spying on Occupy Movement and DGR

(View DGR press release.)

Internet group Anonymous has leaked information from October and November 2011 suggesting that private intelligence firm STRATFOR has been working with Texas law enforcement to infiltrate the Occupy movement and spy on the Deep Green Resistance movement.

In December 2011, Anonymous attacked the STRATFOR website, allegedly stealing 200 gigabytes of data and shutting the site down for weeks. This isn’t the first time Anonymous has gone after such corporations. In early 2011, Anonymous went after internet security firm HBGary, releasing private documents that included secret plans by HBGary and others to attack and discredit Wikileaks on behalf of big banks.

Photo Credit: Voice of Grey Hat

The information released by Anonymous is a partial “teaser” of the information taken from STRATFOR. It consists of emails in which STRATFOR employees discuss Occupy Austin, Deep Green Resistance Austin, and Deep Green Resistance in general. STRATFOR “Watch Officer” Marc Lanthemann writes about receiving information on Occupy Austin and DGR from a “Texas DPS agent.” The Texas Department of Public Safety is a statewide law enforcement agency that includes the Texas Rangers, Highway Patrol, and an Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division.

“Law enforcement sharing information about local activism with private intelligence firms should be a huge scandal,” writes Rachel Meeropol, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Privately funded surveillance and infiltration of activist groups is especially chilling, as time and again we see such corporations operate as if they are above the law and accountable to no one.”

In the emails, the staff discuss how a Texas DPS agent went undercover and tried to gather information from an Occupy Austin General assembly, as well as receiving information from what he calls "my Occupy people" about people they assumed were in Deep Green Resistance. Comments in the email suggest that the agent's surveillance of Occupy Austin was ongoing and continued past the incidents described. In addition, the Stratfor staff describe doing online research on DGR Austin and Deep Green Resistance more generally. They wrongly described the purpose of a DGR Austin public meeting on what radicalism means for Austin as “indoctrination”; they wrote about the book Deep Green Resistance, and they speculated about the relationship between DGR Austin and other groups.

If there is a silver lining here, it is that the emails we have do not paint a picture of a very competent organization. Between hasty generalizations, the STRATFOR staff get a number of important facts completely wrong. First of all, they confuse members of the DGR action group in Austin (which does exist) with another group they call the “Phoenix commune” (which may or may not exist).

They also allege a conflict between members of the DGR Austin group with Occupy Austin that doesn’t seem to have happened. It’s not clear if this is part of the strategy counterintelligence groups have used in the past to try to provoke conflict between different social movements—the FBI used this very effectively against groups like the Black Panther Party—or whether STRATFOR is simply relying on unreliable or incompetent sources.

Elsewhere STRATFOR displays a perception of radical environmentalism that falls somewhere between muddled and simply wrong. One agent suggests DGR is inspired by Nazism and philosopher Martin Heidegger, while another declares that DGR “is focused on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate outcome.” Both of these assertions are just plain false.

There is a long history of clandestine groups releasing secret information about the surveillance of social movements. In 1971, and underground group called the Citizen’s Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI field office and released thousands of pages of secret information, revealing that the FBI had attacked 1960s social movements with methods ranging from surveillance and infiltration to targeted assassinations. Though we have no contact with Anonymous, their leak of information about government and corporate tactics of repression is part of an important tradition.

For more information about Deep Green Resistance, visit http://deepgreenresistance.org.

The “teaser” can be viewed below and here. More leaked information from STRATFOR is presumably forthcoming.

Below is a photograph of STRATFOR employee Marc Lanthemann (from a social networking profile that is no longer online) so that activists can recognize him; we would suggest that you do not speak with him, allow him in to your home, give him access to meetings, or otherwise provide him or his organization with information.

###

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Episode #...something. Stratfor eats Cocks: lurking emails.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
YEAH!!!MAILS MAILS MAILS MAILS MAILS MAILS MAILS also cocks.

for oncoming #AntiSec Updates on Stratfor mails and other
candiez: @AnonymouSabu @AnonymousIRC

>STRATFOR MAILS TEASER #3.
>LULZ!

/*
awesomeness:
1. An unmeasurable amount of awesomenimity something can produce.

urbandictionary
*/

Well hope you all enjoyed that first teaser ---> http://pastebin.com/YwazdGRZ
and second one ---> http://pastebin.com/EFVXcq0f
>.<

So here we go...again with more srs shit now cause internets is srs business.

TITLE: STRATFOR TAKES ON OCCUPY WALLSTREET MOVEMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brian.genchur@stratfor.com

To: jacob.shapiro@stratfor.com
To: opcenter@stratfor.com
Subject: Re: Dispatch tomorrow?
Date: 2011-10-17 03:56:39

Content:
10-4

Brian
On Oct 16, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Jacob Shapiro
wrote:

i'm not sure about this -- let's talk in the morning

On 10/16/11 8:13 PM, Brian Genchur wrote:

I like this. Any additional thoughts?

Brian

On Oct 16, 2011, at 6:21 PM, scott stewart wrote:

I guess we could also take a more tactical slant. I've seen people talking
about how this "new movement" is a terrible threat to corporations, but in
reality, due to the history of anarchists, animal rights, anti-war and
anti-globalization protesters, companies are well prepared for such hippy
hijinks.

On 10/16/11 7:10 PM, "scott stewart" wrote:

Is it worth talking about how the occupy wallstreet people are really just
retreads from the anarchist movement in the late 1990's early 2000's? It
also showed a little bit in the code pink anti war movement in the mid
200s.

So it is not a completely new phenomenon, it is just an older phenomenon
that is once again regaining strength.

On 10/16/11 2:57 PM, "Brian Genchur" wrote:

Are there any ideas for a good Dispatch topic for tomorrow?

Will need a thesis and bullets sent to list before tomorrow. Thank you!

Brian Genchur
Sent from iPhone

--
Jacob Shapiro
STRATFOR
Director, Operations Center
cell: 404.234.9739
office: 512.279.9489
e-mail: jacob.shapiro@stratfor.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

> trick or t(h)reat!
> lol

neeeeeeeeeext.....

TITLE: STRATFOR INFILTRATES OCCUPY MOVEMENT
> deep penetration resistance
> LOL
> trollolol
> XD

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: stewart@stratfor.com
To: alpha@stratfor.com
List Name: mailto:alpha@stratfor.com
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO CODE

Date: 2011-11-17 14:01:00

Content:

It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....

From: Marc Lanthemann
Organization: STRATFOR
Reply-To: Alpha List
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
To: Alpha List
Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
CODE

Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

just a few nice quotes from their central website:

The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
systems.

What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
resistance movement, would you join it?

On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

WHOA.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Korena Zucha
Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
To: Alpha List
ReplyTo: Alpha List
Cc: Anya Alfano
Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
CODE

New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
agent.

There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

http://deepgreenresistance.org/

The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
hall, however, things were not "radical" enough for them since they do
not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on Nov.
4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
a group called the "Phoenix Commune" and intend to make their base out
there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
refer to them as "stupid, crazy motherfuckers", that bothers me, because
these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
open for anything they may plan for the complex.

Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
document called, "Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement" calling
Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
Americans.

http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
outcome.

--
Marc Lanthemann
Watch Officer
STRATFOR
+1 609-865-5782
www.stratfor.com

-------------------------------------------------------------

:o

#ROFLMAOAPMP

> eco-terror?
> whats its carbon footprint? its supposedly lower than usual terror, isnt it?
> is that like a low budget paranormal activity movie? :3

Press Release: Anonymous Hacked Documents Reveal Law Enforcement Spiedon Occupy and Shared Information with Private Intelligence Company,STRATFOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

View documents here.

View Deep Green Resistance response and picture of Stratfor employee.

Computer hackers known as Anonymous leaked information obtained by hacking into private intelligence firm Stratfor’s computer network. The documents – what Anonymous is calling a teaser – suggest that from at least October to November 2011 Stratfor worked with Texas law enforcement to infiltrate the Occupy movement and spy on the Deep Green Resistance movement. The document contains emails in which Stratfor employees discuss Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance. Stratfor “Watch Officer” Marc Lanthemann writes about receiving information on Occupy Austin and DGR from a “Texas DPS agent.” The Texas Department of Public Safety is a statewide law enforcement agency that includes an Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division.

Deep Green Resistance condemns the surveillance and infiltration of activist groups by law enforcement and private corporations and calls on activists and their allies to expose and protest this violation of all of our constitutional rights.

“Law enforcement sharing information about local activism with private intelligence firms should be a huge scandal,” writes Rachel Meeropol, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Privately funded surveillance and infiltration of activist groups is especially chilling, as time and again we see such corporations operate as if they are above the law and accountable to no one.”

In the emails, the staff discuss how a Texas DPS agent went undercover and tried to gather information from an Occupy Austin General assembly, as well as receiving information from what he calls "my Occupy people" about people they assumed were in Deep Green Resistance. Comments in the email suggest that the agent's surveillance of Occupy Austin was ongoing and continued past the incidents described. In addition, the Stratfor staff describe doing online research on DGR Austin and Deep Green Resistance more generally. They wrongly described the purpose of a DGR Austin public meeting on what radicalism means for Austin as “indoctrination”; they wrote about the book Deep Green Resistance, and they speculated about the relationship between DGR Austin and other groups.

Stratfor and law enforcement not only violated activists’ constitutional rights, they also were grossly incompetent. Their report is full of hasty generalizations and inaccuracies. They confuse members of the DGR action group in Austin (which does exist) with another group they call the “Phoenix commune” (which may or may not exist). And they allege a conflict between members of the DGR Austin group and Occupy Austin that doesn’t seem to have happened. It’s not clear if this is part of the strategy counterintelligence groups have used in the past to try to provoke conflict between different social movements—the FBI used this very effectively against groups like the Black Panther Party—or whether Stratfor is simply relying on unreliable or incompetent sources.

In addition, their claim that DGR is inspired by Nazism and philosopher Martin Heidegger is outrageous and obviously wrong. As is their claim that DGR “is focused on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate outcome.” It doesn’t require an agent to get simple facts correct. Both of these assertions are just plain false.

In December 2011, Anonymous attacked the Stratfor website, allegedly stealing 200 gigabytes of data and shutting the site down for weeks. Anonymous has gone after such corporations before, such as internet security firm HBGary. They released private documents that included secret plans by HBGary and others to attack and discredit Wikileaks on behalf of big banks.

There is a long history of clandestine groups releasing secret information about the surveillance of social movements. In 1971, and underground group called the Citizen’s Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI field office and released thousands of pages of secret information, revealing that the FBI had attacked 1960s social movements with methods ranging from surveillance and infiltration to targeted assassinations. Though we have no contact with Anonymous, their leak of information about government and corporate tactics of repression is part of an important tradition. More leaked information from Stratfor is presumably forthcoming.

Are You a 'Good White Person?'

Having been raised in a culture predicated on racism and vilification of the “other”, we have all internalized a racist perspective. Relationships across lines of difference often fall prey to power dynamics reinforced by this perspective. The proliferation of “good white people” has not made the situation any better. In fact, as argued in this blog post, they may have made it worse.

Excerpt:

If you’re a POC [person of color], you probably know at least one of these Good White People! If you’re white and reading my blog, maybe you are one; a well intentioned whitey. You’re ‘on my side’, right? You figured out racism is ‘bad’ so now you’ve joined the fight against racism! Maybe you work in a social enterprise, for a charity, with refugees, or Indigenous people, or in the multi-cultural arts. You’re proud of yourself for your many years of human rights work. You’ve claimed your anti-racist identity, you have friends and maybe even lovers who are people of colour, so how could you possibly be racist?

How could you NOT be racist? We have been raised in a white supremacy and we have all internalised racism. We are all racist.

I don’t have the emotional or political energy for friends and acquaintances who express that they are hurt and offended that I’ve inferred that they are racist by critiquing their behaviour or by simply withdrawing from their company. I know that it hurts to feel admonished or abandoned, but this is not comparable or relevant to the hurt and betrayal I feel by people who have tried to contextualise the racist behaviours I experience in terms of the person who has enacted racism’s ignorance, insecurities, or good intentions (which are factors in their behaviour, but don’t alter my experience of their behaviour as racism). This justification de-validates my experience, and though I remind myself that friends are well intentioned in trying to comfort me by convincing me that I needn’t feel bad because nobody meant any harm, they are silencing me as a person of colour, re-centering the experience around whiteness, and being complicit in white supremacy. In contrast, I emphasise how empowering it has been to share experiences of racism and have my anger and sense of alienation validated by others. This has been infinitely more ‘comforting’ than the friends who have had a ‘Don’t worry about it’ attitude. That’s their privilege not to worry about something that permeates all aspects of my daily, lived experience.

Excerpted from an article at harshbrowns.wordpress.com

Australian Agency Monitors Groups Online that Target Critical Energy Infrastructure

The more serious your actions are, the more they will target you. That is ok. Repression is never a reason to not do what is necessary. Repression is just one more reason to fight. When they increase repression, you escalate. Or regroup and get stronger. But you always come back, harder.


Re-posted from Earth First! Newswire

Excerpt:

A private intelligence company, the National Open Source Intelligence Centre, works under contract for the Australian Federal Police and the federal Attorney-General’s Department to monitor activist websites, blogs, Facebook and Twitter to provide warning and analysis of protest activity.

Details of its work have emerged as internal government documents reveal a push by the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, to increase surveillance of protest groups, including by specialist intelligence officers employed by the AFP.

 

Read whole article here.

The Fight is Heating Up Against Logging Company in British Columbia

Island Timberlands (I.T.), a logging company owned by Wall Street investment firm Brookfield Asset Managaement, has its sights set on Cortes Island in British Columbia. But they'll have to go through Zoe Blunt and a slew of local activists first. This is shaping up to be another epic battle between concerned activists and greedy corporate capitalists! Show your love!

Tete-a-tete between activists and I.T. representative during walk-through of condemned forest

Saturday morning’s walk and talk was set up as a casual getting-to-know-you thing. We met on a dirt road, an easement into I.T.’s private forests. The temperature was mild, the atmosphere was relaxed, and the residents were chatting and joking. Except poor Wayne, [I.T. representative] who seemed a little tense.

Twenty of us were standing around talking when Wayne freaked out. “You can’t film here!” he barked at a young man with a camera. Everyone turned to look.

“There are people who can’t be here today, seniors and disabled people, and I’m filming it for them,” the young man said. He looked Wayne right in the eye and held the camera steady.

Wayne got louder. “This is private land and I’m telling you, you can’t do that here,” he hollered.

“But you invited the public,” someone piped up. “Yep, public events can be filmed,” agreed another.

The younger man kept the camera’s little red eye aimed at Wayne. “I’m making a record for the people who can’t be here.”...

We all stood there looking at Wayne. He looked around at us, and there was a long awkward silence, which I broke.

“Of course you don’t want to be filmed today, because I.T. doesn’t want to be bound by anything you tell us. Because you guys want to be able change your minds and do something else if you want,” I said.

“Yes, that’s right,” he replied sharply.

So there you have it.

Read whole report at Zoe Blunt's blog.

Links Between the FBI and Political Prisoner Correspondence

The FBI is keeping a list and possibly investigating people who write eco-prisoners. This article is a must-read for all radical activists. Arm yourself with the knowledge that those in power will stop at nothing to continue business as usual, and then do everything in your power to stop them. We will not allow the FBI to stop us from writing those who have given so much for the Earth. Don't let them stop you either.

Reposted from North American Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network:

Excerpt

We are not sharing this information to raise alarm or spread fear. We have every intention of continuing to write political prisoners, and we urge others to do the same. That said, we hope to expose the FBI's politically motivated investigations and, unlike the FBI, we believe people have a right to know when they have been spied on. This kind of government intrusion could cause the “chilling effect” so often thrown about in conversations about 1st amendment activities. But when we give in to those fears, political prisoners are the ones who suffer. And this is exactly what the government wants. The state is constantly trying to expand its reach by gathering information about social movements and those who participate in them. Instead of letting this new information scare us into silence, we should use it to make informed decisions about how we support and prioritize political prisoners. This kind of repression has implications for more than just people involved in “activism.” Millions of people are incarcerated in this country. It is possible that the government uses similar tactics to investigate other communities that they actively repress. Writing our friends, family members and comrades should not be a justified excuse for investigation – no matter who our friends are.

Read whole article here.

Letters of Defiance, Justice From G20 Activist Upon Sentencing

On December 20th, 2011, Leah Henderson, one of the protesters accused of conspiracy after events at the G20 meeting in 2010, issued letters to the court and her community after being sentenced to 10 months in prison. Each day activists give up their freedom fighting for a just future. We encourage everyone to show their support. You can find out how to support those already sentenced in the G20 case here.

Banner hung in Montreal showing solidarity with G20 prisoners (Originally posted here)

Excerpt from Leah's statement to the court upon sentencing:

The laws that govern our societies are not laws of community, or laws of consensus, they are laws of oppression. Laws that underpay and overwork mothers. That deport the poor and those of colour. Laws that rob Indigenous Nations of their traditions, their land, their childhoods. Laws that blame the unemployed and rewards those that get rich on their backs.

I have been deeply and profoundly affected by this process, but have not been changed by it. I have been moved by the incredible support that I have received, far beyond what I could have imagined. It has been made more clear to me through this process that this vision for the future is part of a groundswell.

I want to say thank you to everyone that has supported me, thank you to my friends, my family and my lawyer.

I submit to your jails because today you hold many of the weapons, and many people under your spell. A day is coming when that will not be so.

A day is coming where the distorted mirror that hides the lies of capitalism and colonialism will shatter.

Read both letters from Leah Henderson.

Read letter from Deep Green Resistance in solidarity with G20 prisoners.

Occupy Seattle: Open Letter Regarding Non-violence vs. Diversity of Tactics Debate

Diversifying tactics does not mean that our movements have to polarize around the "violent/nonviolent" debate. This letter from a member of Decolonize/Occupy Seattle frames the debate well. It might give you some ideas for clarifying this debate at your local General Assembly.

Open Letter to Decolonize / Occupy Seattle

Originally published at Occupy Seattle

I am writing concerning the debate about nonviolence vs. diversity of tactics. I can’t be at GAs this week because I am visiting friends and speaking about the port shutdown to folks from Occupy Wall Street in NYC. Please share this with people on all sides of the debate; I wished to raise some of these points in the GA on Tuesday but was never called on (which is okay, a lot of other people had crucial things to say). For transparency’s sake, I wish to emphasize I am definitely part of the broad “radical” tendency of Decolonize/ Occupy Seattle, but I do not speak for all radicals. We have no representatives or leadership structure; in fact, we are a loose grouping of like-minded activists, not an organization. Here I wish to emphasize a particular radical perspective that I think has been unfortunately drowned out by the polarizing debate.

First of all, I want to emphasize that when radicals argue for a “diversity of tactics”, we are not arguing for “anything goes.” If someone advocated a stupid tactic that would put all of us in unnecessary danger than the radicals would surely oppose this. There are all sorts of stupid tactics. Some of them, like trying to explain to a police officer why he should support a militant direct action would be considered “nonviolent.” Others, like setting off a bomb near cops stationed inside the family-friendly “green zone” of a demonstration, would be considered “violent”. We’d try to stop both of these because both of these would surely lead to violence coming down on folks who have not chosen to participate in a violent action – the first by giving the police info that could lead to violent arrests of fellow activists, the second because it endangers protesters’ lives.

In contrast, “diversity of tactics” means we are are open to all sorts of smart tactics that would be considered nonviolent by the mainstream society, as well as others that are similarly smart, but get labeled as “violent” by the mainstream media. Basically, I think we should start the conversation with the question: which tactics are smart and which ones aren’t? We may find we have more agreement there then we’d expect, agreement that’s getting overlooked in this debate about violence vs. nonviolence.

Given that, I think we need a clear, non-polemical answer to this question: why is this debate happening right now? If folks think it is because liberals are trying to take over the GA they need to prove it. If folks think it is because radicals are trying to take over the GA then they need to prove it. If it is for a different reason, what is that reason? I think answering this question will help us move forward.

My hypothesis is that this is coming up right now because the movement is at a turning point. We no longer have the camp, which brought out its own clear social groupings that have been in motion together since the fall. Some of these groupings have been dumpies (downwardly mobile urban professionals who the economic crisis has dumped into the working class), homeless folks, unemployed folks, and low wage workers. We are asking now: what new strategies can continue to mobilize these social groupings together ? What strategies can reach out to new groupings that we haven’t yet reached? Which groups should we be trying to reach? Is it possible to reach all communities at once? If not, which communities should be prioritized?

It’s clear the movement still has vitality, but it does not yet have a new direction. Really, we should be debating about how to find that direction. There is no reason why that debate should rip us apart, especially since it is entirely possible that some of us might choose to focus on some communities, and other might choose to focus on others, and that’s okay because we’ve already established a principle of autonomy in the movement.

Instead of having these debates in a healthy way, a few folks from the liberal faction of Occupy Seattle decided to frame the debate in terms of violence vs. nonviolence. It think this is unfortunate. We are trying to name and debate about the “elephant in the room” which is how this movement can grow as it enters its second phase. A few of the liberals have found the elephant’s tail and they are shouting “I found the elephant! We need to be nonviolent!”.

However, beneath their overzealousness lies some serious political concerns that can’t easily be dismissed, and need to be addressed through healthy political debate. Their main argument, as far as I can tell, is that unless we adopt a policy of nonviolence, they won’t be able to reach out to the groups they want to reach out to (groups that will be turned off by anything that can be labeled violent). This is a serious point that deserves a serious political response.

To give folks the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume that not all of the folks who are for the nonviolence proposal are doing it simply to get funding from liberal groups. Some might be, but some of them are probably doing it simply because they want people from their communities to participate and may be getting strong criticisms from their communities for the actions that some of the radicals in Decolonize/ Occupy Seattle have done. This could be amplified as folks spend time with family over the holidays, and face pressure around the dinner table.

The main response from the radical faction, as far as I can tell, is equally serious: if we adopt a policy of nonviolence, then we wont be able to reach out to the groups we want to reach out to: groups that face systematic racist, sexist, capitalistic, and homophobic violence and will not participate if we are required to renounce our capacity for self-defense. Radicals also face pressure from our communities – life is getting increasingly harder, there is more and more drama going on as the economic crisis deepens, and people all around us are asking how we can come together to provide safety for each other as we struggle to get free. Just when we think Decolonize/Occupy could be a way to provide this safety, we are faced with a mandatory nonviolence proposal that will tie our hands and make it harder for us to do that.

I think if we could cut out a lot of the rhetorical fireworks and focus the discussion on these contending points, we might be able to reach a breakthrough. I do think some choices will need to be made about which community’s concerns we prioritize most, but this does mean that other communities need to be shut out of the movement and it does not mean we need to split.

For example, I think that this movement should be grounded in, and in solidarity with, the struggles of working class communities of color. Wall St. and the 1% get their profits by exploiting working class people of color more than they exploit working class white people. (Note, when I say working class I don’t just mean people who currently work, I also mean unemployed folks, and anyone who has been displaced, dispossessed, or separated from their land and the means of production by colonialism). I do think that this movement will not be relevant to working class communities of color if it relies on the police for safety. In a white supremacist society, people of color are far too likely to be attacked by police or by racist white people. For this reason, it is unfair and unrealistic to ask folks to check their capacity for self-defense at the door if they wish to join the movement. A mandatory nonviolence policy also puts at risk people of color who have been tirelessly building this movement from the beginning. That’s not right and we won’t let it happen.

However, I don’t think the radicals’ response to this demand has simply been “white people go home.” If you listen closely, folks are not saying white people have no role in the movement. Most radicals are simply saying the movement should not be white dominated and white people should not be telling people of color they can’t defend themselves.

Many of the radicals recognize that white people are not all the same, and that white women, queer, transgender, working class, and gender nonconforming folks are also much more likely to be attacked by police or by other violent, reactionary forces in society than white middle and upper class straight men are. We want to build alliances, and defending each other is part of that.

This piece by a few of the radicals argues that working class white people are actually facing less and less privilege under the system. The economic crisis has lead to even greater attacks on working class people of color, but it has also lead to attacks on working class white folks. It is in the interest of working class white folks to unite with working class people of color, and to be in solidarity with their struggles: http://blackorchidcollective.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/occupy-to-end-capitalism/. Not all radicals agree with this article, but it’s worth considering.

It’s important to emphasize that none of the radicals are advocating that Decolonize/ Occupy Seattle should take a position of guerilla warfare or armed revolutionary warfare right now. This is a straw-man argument that some liberals have raised to discredit us. Primarily, many radicals are concerned about our personal safety and our need to defend ourselves. People won’t join the movement if they know they will be needlessly unsafe within it.

At a broader level, many of us are part of this movement because we believe in taking responsibility for all aspects of our lives, including matters of security and accountability. We don’t believe in leaving these up to a racist, capitalist, sexist, and heterosexist police and judicial system. We wish to start building an alternative, rooted in the same principles of autonomy and direct democracy that animate the General Assembly. Many of us were central to attempts to provide safety in the camp. We are not saying we oppose this nonviolence proposal because we love violence. We are saying we oppose it because it limits our ability to take responsibility for ourselves and each other. In some respects, it actually means we’d have less freedom than we do outside of the movement, which seems backwards.

I am hearing from some white middle class folks that they can’t be associated with OS unless it takes a pledge of nonviolence because their own communities will see them as violent by association even if they don’t participate in violence themselves. They are saying that being in a movement that is labeled violent will hurt their organizing efforts more than it will hurt radicals if we are associated with a movement that is “nonviolent.” First of all, this is not accurate. In many of our communities, we will be seen as naive, whitewashed, bourgie, or not serious if we are associated with a movement that is known to require nonviolence for all of its participants. Worse, some reactionaries out there might think that they can take advantage of us more easily because the movement has required us to renounce our capacity for self-defense and we might be put at danger.

Given this, I don’t think the nonviolence proposal should be passed. At the same time, I don’t think that radicals should just dismiss liberals, including white middle class liberals, when they say that the defeat of this proposal will mean it’ll be harder for them to organize in their communities. I think that Occupy Seattle should work together to make it clear to the public that we are for a diversity of tactics, not mandatory self-defense or armed struggle. We should make it clear that folks who believe in nonviolence can still participate in the movement. We should also try to open up a dialogue about how organizers from white middle class backgrounds can go back to their communities and explain why Occupy Seattle has not passed a mandatory nonviolence resolution. This could be a great opportunity to educate and challenge folks, and to expand the movement.

At the same time, I think radicals should be careful not to catch people in the crossfire. (to be fair, most of us have been careful, but if the debate polarizes further this could become an issue). Not everyone who believes in nonviolence is white, and not everyone is a liberal. And some people who started out liberal have become radicals the past few months; others are somewhere in between. The vitality of the radicals so far is that we have not hardened into a rigid organization. We don’t have our own borders or leaders. We have many voices. We are open to new people joining; many of us are in fact new to organizing, and folks who are more experienced are working together for the first time. This is exceptional – it is not happening as much in other cities, and it is a major reason for the dynamism not only of Seattle’s radical scenes but of Decolonize/ Occupy Seattle as a whole. It is also a major reason for the sucess of the port shutdown. If we start to draw hard lines against everyone who belives in nonviolence then we will loose this vitality. If someone believes in nonviolence and they’re willing to shut down ports chanting “everything for everyone the revolution has begun”, then we should work together.

I’ve been doing research recently on the tactics police use when they try to infiltrate and destroy movements. One tactic they have used over and over again is to infiltrate liberal circles and label all radicals as violent extremists, or to suggest that radicals are police provocatuers to discredit them. Often, their goal is to join and encapsulate/ contain a movement within a limited and moderate set of goals. Another tactic they have used is to infiltrate radical circles in attempts to provoke an over-reaction against liberal nonviolence, and a premature split. They want radicals to become closed off, paranoid, and mistrustful so that our organizations and communities will no longer be accessible or attractive to new folks. I think Seattle’s radicals are too smart to fall for that. I hope Seattle’s liberals are as well. I have no evidence that there are police agents in Decolonize/ Occupy Seattle currently, but I do think that how we handle this debate will affect our long-term resiliency in the face of possible police interference.

One of the things that disappoints me about this debate is that there have been few folks who have made arguments from a principled, radical pacifist perspective. It seems most of the main arguments for the nonviolence proposal center around tactics, not principle. I worry that folks who believe in nonviolence on principle might be getting sidelined or silenced. I am not a pacifist today, but I first became an activist through Christian and interfaith organizing against the war in Iraq, and was deeply inspired by radical pacifists like Daniel Berrigan who burned a bunch of draft files with homemade napalm and went underground to evade the FBI because he thought that a violent, oppressive, racist state has no right to apprehend him and put him on trial. This goes a lot further than classic notions of civil disobedience where you’re supposed to turn yourself in to accept the legitimacy of the system minus the one law you are protesting because you think it’s unjust. In fact, I think Berrigan’s actions actually have a little more in common with some tactics used by anarchists, and I’m not sure, but I think he may have considered himself an anarchist pacifist.

Berrigan was working in solidarity with the Black Panthers and the Vietnamese resistance movements against colonialism. He wanted to build a nonviolent alternative to the armed solidarity work being done by groups like the Weather Underground. However, he didn’t distance himself from the Underground or from the Panthers or any other armed groups. He was not ashamed to be associated with the anti-war movement just because these groups were a part of it. Instead, he stayed in the movement and tried to create a nonviolent option for resistance through his own activity.

Instead of trying to impose mandatory nonviolence resolution, I encourage those who really believe in nonviolence to figure out ways to challenge the violence of the state, capitalism, patriarchy, rape culture, heterosexism, and white supremacy. We can work together on that. If you want to challenge it nonviolently, I respect that. But to be philosophically consistent, you shouldn’t collaborate with politicians, cops, and the system because the system is incredibly violent. Instead, you should think of ways to work with the radicals in Occupy Seattle to oppose the violence of this society. If you want to do that nonviolently, then organize yourselves to do it. I’m sure you will find support, even from those of us who may be labeled as “violent”. That’s what “diversity of tactics” is all about.

I’m not an anarchist, but I’ll end with a quote from an anarchist flyer that was distributed at the camp this fall. It is a reminder of why we are all here in the first place: “the greatest violence would be to return to normal.” After what we’ve all been through together we can’t just walk away from this movement without inflicting great violence on our own hearts, minds, and souls. Think about the level of of repression and denial that it will take to walk away and to go back to a “normal” life where you just put up with a future-less, dream-less reality full of endless work and economic anxiety. Trying to readjust to that just because you lost a debate in the GA is a recipe for misery. Doing that to yourself is way more violent then anything the radicals have done in this movement.

peace and solidarity,
participant in Decolonize/ Occupy Seattle

Women Take Legal Action Against UK Police Chiefs Over Emotional Abuse

"Working Together to Traumatize London" would be more appropriate

A standard tactic undercover cops use to get close to radical movements is through intimate relationships.

A quote from the women bringing this case:

"We believe our case highlights institutionalised sexism within the police. It is incredible that if the police want to search someone's house they are required to get the permission of a judge, yet if they want to send in an agent who may live and sleep with activists in their homes, this can happen without any apparent oversight!"

"We are bringing this case because we want to see an end to the sexual and psychological abuse of campaigners and others by undercover police officers. It is unacceptable that state agents can cultivate intimate and long lasting relationships with political activists in order to gain so called intelligence on those political movements."

Read the whole article.