°The next experiment with policing methods will be …
Aside from a few conversations with the beloved, and noticing that some commercial news station announced that Melbourne would be in lockdown for the duration, I can’t say that the upcoming anti-g20 protests have really figured on my radar. This has been more or less deliberate - by now, one can predict with some certainty that recycled events are a going to incline toward the awful: underwritten by nostalgia, dominated by sects seeking to cash in on such and individuals who yearn to have their ‘day in the representational sun’. Among other things. Not least that, given the absence of surprise, the anti-summit protests have become a laboratory of methods of control - hence the police lockdown of Melbourne, the corralling of protesters in Edinburgh, and so on. No amount of nostalgia and/or boredom, and certainly no cretinising/sacrificial activist injunction to ‘do something’ can persuade me that being a lab rat for such is a good thing. Experimentation has to proceed elsewhere.
I did, today, see part of the ‘debate’ around the ‘Stop the g20′ - despite the suggestions of someone that such debates should not be public because, um, right-wing journalists might read them. I suspect some militaristic notion of keeping morale up among the troops activists might be more the case - not to mention muting criticism of the various trotocracies.
Though I’m constantly surprised at the pervasive childishness. One must apparently smile while being critical. But it’s the request to “older crew” to be involved, and complaints about the behaviour of some of those who are - eg, “snarling from the sidelines” - that gives it away. What’s implicit here is that there is something those who see themselves as part of a “younger crew” want to prove, vis a vis some (often mythologised) past. And, when they don’t get patted on the head, they get upset. Bad parenting! Someone call Super Nanny.
By definition, the only way to begin to think of politics as experimentation - a laboratory for us rather than the police - is to assume that there is no precedent and no model for it. This is what distinguishes political laboratories from activist labouriousness.
Anyway, some keen types have set up StopStopG20 - Stop the stagemanagement of dissent. The full poster - which is hilarious - is here.
It seems to have been in either Ottawa or Quebec City that these things jumped the shark. What was, at the time, innovative tactics in Seattle quickly became stale and, worse, the police quickly got the upper hand. The Mexican border fence was, no doubt, inspired by the gawdawful piece of shit chainlink and cinder blocks in Quebec City. I like the word “lockdown,” though, in reference to these things: an extension of the prison to the entirety of the social space.
Craig [October 31, 2006 @ 4:56 pm]
Something on the recent history of the lockdown - some more here, obviously. Such innovations are perhaps to be expected in a country that was established as a penal colony …
s0metim3s [October 31, 2006 @ 5:26 pm]
Looking forward to reading those. Another innovation by the police: they offered a “protest” and “police-free” zone for the Ottawa G-Whatever meeting: they could gather in a national park… in Alberta and do whatever they wanted. That’s more than 3500 kilometers away. Some people actually took them up on the offer. Of course, the real innovation was getting CNN, CBC, etc to broadcast the “protests” live on TV: like the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. With commentary and “journalists” imbedded with units or - even worse - risking it out on the streets.
Craig [November 1, 2006 @ 2:43 am]
Heh. 3,500 kms is some buffer zone. This reminds me that the police ‘offered’ us a fenced-in, disused football field as the place to set up for the protest against the internment camp in Woomera - grimly ironic, really; though barely over 4kms away …
s0metim3s [November 1, 2006 @ 12:09 pm]
The NVDA workshops for stopg20 are being run by the Baptist Church! From here: “We have encouraged both G20 and Stop G20 participants to attend our bible studies about economics and workshops on nonviolent community safety and protest to explore the question of “What would Jesus do?” together.”
What was once a socialist recruitment drive has become, it appears, a Christian recruitment drive! Once you accept that summit protests are about recruiting, it really doesn’t matter what people are being recruited for, does it?
az [November 1, 2006 @ 1:20 pm]
Yeah, but there’s ‘recruitment’ and then there’s ‘organisation’ - and the difference looks remarkably like that between, well, the masses and their (wanna-be) leaders. Didn’t you try and subscribe to their email list Az, and were told you had to be vouched for personally? Does anyone really believe that this is a means to keep out possible spooks? Or will it encourage people to imagine that they can talk without being under surveillance, when more than likely they are? I can’t imagine what the benefits might be.
s0metim3s [November 1, 2006 @ 1:27 pm]
i dunno if you mean the jesus heads or the general lists.
they are
space outside people
g20melb
the one with lotsa trots
g20-organise
both on riseup.net
dr.woooo [November 2, 2006 @ 12:31 pm]
vaughan — i tried to join g20-organise for a lark (mostly curious) and got an email back saying i had to come to a meeting or be vouched for by someone. alternatively, i was invited to join the announcement list. huh? so i can get stopg20 spam, but i can’t look at how it’s being organised and make up my mind whether to be involved? i wasn’t so impressed, i have to say. it’s one thing to try to be aware of undercover cops and kick them out if you can; it’s another to monopolise the organisation of an event by effectively controlling who’s involved. not very horizontal or transparent of them.
(and that’s not to say i don’t see the point of clandestinity at times. but as far as i’ve heard, the ‘organisers’ aren’t planning any actions that would call for clandestine organising.)
az [November 2, 2006 @ 9:45 pm]
At this point it seems that only the kind of critical activity that does not reduce to re-decoration of the eternal return of the activist same has any chance of disrupting the smooth reproduction of anti-summit events as carnivals of repetition, maybe even helping to create the possibility of a thought not subordinated to deadening, moralising, often manipulative routine and self-sacrifice. The BEST things to have emerged from the anti-g20 types are texts that deploy or at least invoke a critique beyond anti-globalisation cliches, suggesting a critique of Leftist mediation or the dullest of representative politics, which then end in calls to recreate exactly those politics. Only critical activity that rejects the role of redecorating these politics is likely to lead to any meaningful self-reflection on the part of those participating in this anti-summit ritual. Thus whatever its considerable limits the stopstopg20 project seems like the most usefully playful intervention the anti-g20 simulation has so far produced. And I don’t think it counts as sneering from the sidelines: the stopstopg2 affinity group is right there in the thick of it, attending spokescouncils, 2 mins of infamy, engaging with everything in their sight. Sneering from playing field, right in the centre circle.
benjamin rosenzweig [November 2, 2006 @ 9:57 pm]
i resubbed to g20-organise list via riseup.net from a new account as my usual email was playing up last week. i had no request for a vouching. perhaps i didnt get one coz it is obvious it is me as its another dr.woooo. there are 90 people on it
???????????
insomnia sux
dr.woooo [November 3, 2006 @ 12:12 am]
Yeah and one of the main people to insist that names and faces be known is herself unkown and unvouched for. Gotta say though that targetting Trade Hall is pretty low, why not have go at parliment house? After all the ruling labour party are bigger sellouts than the Union movement ever have been…
As for this crap about abandoning older forms of protest and “experimentation” smacks of a true lack of understanding of the scientific paradigm, after all:
“Those that do not learn the mistakes of history are DOOOMED to repeat them”.
(:P)
as if anybody cares…
popefred [November 3, 2006 @ 10:41 am]
hi earlier post hasnt got thru, here is what people are saying re: vouching criteria!! bahhhh
Jonathan … to g20-organise
More options 8:15 am (4 hours ago)
The list has always been moderated for subscriptions according to a
decision we took back in January or so.
Anyone who comes to a meeting can have their address added to the list.
Alternatively you can be vouched for.
Jonathan
- Show quoted text -
v v wrote:
> hi, is this list now moderated when it comes to subsciptions. do you
> need to be vouched for ?
>
> see
>
> http://archive.blogsome.com/2006/10/31/g20-melbourne/
Reply Forward Invite Jonathan to Gmail
guss1973@ … to g20-organise
More options 9:32 am (3 hours ago)
As you are already on the list, there is no need to be vouched for. New subscribers are required to be vouched for by someone on the list, or come to a meeting. The idea behind this was not so much a secrecy thing, it was more about preventing anyone jumping on and sabotaging it.
As the bitter little person who wrote that blog has confirmed, there are people around who dislike “us”, and what take nasty, sarcastic pot shots at people who make the effort to try and get something done.
Amazing the way that people manage to convince themselves that it’s better to do nothing rather than something.
Reply Forward
Phoenix Rose to g20-organise
More options 9:41 am (3 hours ago)
And to answer the blog, since one of the comments directly criticises
a point I raised, the choice made here isn’t based on some
theoretical fear but a reality that occurred.
In 2001, Andrew Bolt joined the indymedia organising list. He then
collected all the e-mail addresses of all the people who posted to
that list and googled them. Then he contacted all our employers for
anyone who had employers and tried to get us sacked. One of those
people worked for Oxfam, there was other nastiness. Sure we could
simply insist everyone subscribe to this list with a fake e-mail
address but it was a lot easier to close the list except to people
who were vouched for.
Sorry if that pisses anyone off.
And sorry if people perceive my desire to keep working as contrary to
my anarcho-syndicalist ideals but meh.
phoenix
- Show quoted text -
On 03/11/2006, at 8:15 AM, Jonathan … wrote:
> The list has always been moderated for subscriptions according to a
> decision we took back in January or so.
>
> Anyone who comes to a meeting can have their address added to the
> list. Alternatively you can be vouched for.
>
> Jonathan
>
> v v wrote:
>> hi, is this list now moderated when it comes to subsciptions. do
>> you need to be vouched for ?
>> see
>> http://archive.blogsome.com/2006/10/31/g20-melbourne/
—
“If you think you’re too small to make a difference, try sleeping
with a mosquito” — Dalai Lama
Reply Forward Invite Phoenix to Gmail
Frederick Pope to g20-organise
More options 12:07 pm (43 minutes ago)
Who vouches for “Phoenix Rose”?
Who is this supposed Anarcho-syndicalist that has NEVER been in either the
ASF OR IWW?
Who consistantly opposed all attempts at developing an autonomous
methodology for the stopg20 group?
Who has sabotaged the original intents of the stopg20 group (now the G20
committee) more than any other individual?
Who caused many people to never come back to stop G20 meetings?
I suggest that if you are worried about sabotage or agents provocatuers,
look a bitcloser to home….
(:P)
Reply Forward Invite Frederick to Gmail
Your message has been sent.
v v to g20-organise
More options 12:55 pm (0 minutes ago)
fred with all respect mate, if you are going to point fingers at people and make such acussations, please have real proof. false allegations are more damaging.
dr.woooo [November 3, 2006 @ 11:57 am]
Hmmm … Look, the Andrew Bolt thing is a furphy: he did that because he wanted to sue Indymedia for having carried criticisms of him, and had no other means to discern who ran the site than the subscription list, but couldn’t establish legal liability through that anyway … Or that’s my vague recollection. So, aside from being irrelevant to this instance, if one were to draw a comparison, it would be that one does not imagine that what’s said on an email list is or can be secret.
Though, one of those responses makes it abundantly clear that it’s about keeping out people who don’t “like” “us” - ie., the distinction is not about politics, or the g20, but about maintaining some depoliticised identity, conducting debates as if one is in a schoolyard, and flattering and boosting “us” by imagining this “us” is under siege.
But really, folks, I’m not so much interested in the email list - even less in theologico-scientific dogma about History. (And doesn’t Trades Hall have that huge banner outside telling people to vote for the ALP?)
** The bigger issue is that ritualised protests become increasingly emptied of political content and increasingly the terrain of innovations in policing. ** All the above flows from this.
s0metim3s [November 3, 2006 @ 12:38 pm]
“the only kind of critical activity”? Only? Come on Ben, you really sure about that?
Grumpy Cat [November 3, 2006 @ 9:35 pm]
My thoughts at the time about Andrew Bolt’s encounter with Indymedia were a) that this stuff happens, and defending the right to be active or to work on projects like Indymedia is part of the territory of working on Indymedia; b) it was frankly amazing that no-one had imagined this might happen; and c) when things got scary and Bolt contacted peoples’ employers, the people involved immediately backed down and left Indymedia rather than fighting it, which is probably not the best response. I’m sure they had their reasons, but whatever. If Mr Bolt, or associated figures, wanted to get in on the email list, they would simply send some research minion along to a meeting, surely?
It’s quite bizarre that the G20 people who responded on the list (Jonathan, Phoenix) imagine that they are the only ones ‘doing anything’, and that anyone who’s critical is ’sitting back and doing nothing’. What megalomania. I do lots of what could be called ‘activism’, but my number one thing is, I don’t play with Trots or people who refuse to organise autonomously. That doesn’t make me an ‘armchair activist’, it makes me sane.
az [November 4, 2006 @ 12:33 pm]
I didn’t take it as megalomania, more as insecurity. If someone has to go on about how much they’re doing, how what they happen to be doing is the centre of the political universe, the only game in town and where it’s at, I seriously doubt that this is because they really believe they are doing anything of significance - but more likely they’re fighting back their own doubts and engaging in some fairly transparent boosterism.
Not to mention the whole set of assumptions about what is and is not political action … But I honestly don’t think most of those involved are interested in doing anything more than denying this might even be a question - rituals are more comforting.
s0metim3s [November 4, 2006 @ 3:52 pm]
Hmm. Okay, first up, I never asked for anyone’s faces or real names to be known. As popefred points out, that would be hypocritical of me. All I asked is that people joining the e-mail list be vouched for by someone already involved to avoid the Andrew Bolt situation.
Sorry if people feel that issue is a furphy. It was pretty traumatic to experience. I’m also sorry we were perceived as ‘not fighting it’. We initially approached legal services and discussed various approaches to fight against him. However, we were told we didn’t have enough evidence against him to take any further action and we’re not sure exactly what we could have done.
The situation was pretty distressing. I was extraordinarily depressed for four months after losing my job over it and we (the people affected) could have left politics altogether. Instead, we took a breather and have regrouped, some of us working on different projects, some of us still involved with indymedia.
However, the choices we’ve made to protect ourselves, which in some cases have involved choosing pseudonyms or requesting greater vigilance over electronic communications, shouldn’t be perceived as weakness. The hacker underground has known these things for years. We were naive and trusting. We’re not so much any more.
I’ve never said that people who aren’t involved in the list aren’t doing anything. Where did that come from? Jonathan may have made some comment about people doing things instead of attacking other activists and I think that’s a valid point.
Anyway, I’m now amused that I’ve now been attacked by both Andrew Bolt for being too anarchist and you guys for being too centralist. Viva liberdad!
Phoenix [November 4, 2006 @ 4:11 pm]
And… az? I’m a little surprised. You’re one of the people who knows me, knew me before. Not well, sure, but well enough that if we saw each other in the street, you’d say hi to me.
And I know you well enough to know you are absolutely “doing stuff” that I’d consider activism. I’ve never said my gig is the only gig in town nor pushed how much I’m doing.
Ask Tallace. I’m the one she always forgets the name of and calls “Vicky”.
Phoenix [November 4, 2006 @ 4:16 pm]
Perhaps giving re-assurances that someone is indeed an activist or recognised as such kind of misses the point …
s0metim3s [November 5, 2006 @ 11:05 pm]
Phoenix, I definitely don’t need assurance that what I do is activism: I couldn’t care less what it is. Perhaps it could have been read that way, but that wasn’t my intention. I was actually responding to Jonathan’s email. What’s important here is a) the tendency to isolate any kind of critique as ‘attack’ and b) the claiming of the moral high ground by ‘activists’ who accuse anyone who criticises them of ‘doing nothing’.
az [November 6, 2006 @ 12:10 pm]
some g20 discussions over here
dr.woooo [November 8, 2006 @ 11:45 am]
fwd from melbourne.indymedia.org
A Space Outside: What a let down…
dr.woooo [November 12, 2006 @ 11:55 am]
Ouch. Well, it weren’t me, but it doesn’t strike me as inaccurate. Though, I do have a fondness for fezzas …
s0metim3s [November 12, 2006 @ 12:34 pm]
These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.
Rosie [April 29, 2007 @ 2:12 am]