Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
stickdog99 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:02 am wrote:
I taught both online and in a classroom most every week (until very recently). Trust me that online teaching is one giant step closer to automated "teaching". Have you ever done either?
dada » 06 Jun 2020 13:54 wrote:(Sorry, Jack. See, this is what happens when you post articles from globalresearch. Let that be a lesson to you!)stickdog99 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:02 am wrote:
I taught both online and in a classroom most every week (until very recently). Trust me that online teaching is one giant step closer to automated "teaching". Have you ever done either?
No, I'm not a teacher. Like I just said, I don't like schools, and hate kids. Why, then, would I possibly do that to myself?
I don't expect things to change very much either way, society's gears grind along way too slowly for that. Maybe there will come a time when kids don't have to go to school to get an education. I'm all for it. Be less traffic every morning and afternoon.
And I bet the kids are secretly happy every time they don't have to go. Little brats. Not all of them, of course. There's always a Hermione that actually likes it. But the Hermiones will excel no matter what the structure.
dada » Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:54 am wrote:No, I'm not a teacher. Like I just said, I don't like schools, and hate kids.
JackRiddler » Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:36 am wrote:
Was anyone here talking about cults, by the way?
Note: The video of the Buffalo incident in the following story gives a wider angle and goes on for much longer than the one that's been most widely diseminated.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/05/buffalo-e ... y-of-cops/nypost.com
Buffalo Emergency Response Team quits in solidarity of cops
By Lia Eustachewich
The entire Buffalo police Emergency Response Team has resigned following the suspension of two officers who were caught on video shoving a 75-year-old protester to the pavement, according to reports Friday.
A total of 57 officers resigned from the emergency team in solidarity with the two suspended cops, who pushed Martin Gugino, causing him to stumble backward and crack his head on the ground, WGRZ reported.
“Fifty-seven resigned in disgust because of the treatment of two of their members, who were simply executing orders,” said John Evans, president of the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association.
The special squad was created in 2016 and is deployed for mass protests or riots, the network reported.
The officers who resigned are still employed, just no longer part of the Emergency Response Team, according to WIVB.
Gugino, an activist who is well known in Buffalo, was listed in serious but stable condition.
The shocking video shows blood gushing from his head after he fell.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo said earlier Friday that the city should pursue terminating the two officers, who were suspended immediately by Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown.
Solidarity!
JackRiddler » Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:38 am wrote:Elvis » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:09 pm wrote:Someone made the observation that the police are just well-equipped counter-protesters.
That is exactly what they are and what I've always said. (They are also the substitute "masses" or "real Americans" given that too many of the real ones still don't conform to spec; it's one reason why there are more shows about them than about anything else in "real life.")
[almost] Every protest I've ever seen comes with its own ridiculously well-paid group of professional anti-protesters. There they have been, right in front of you, after all your years of paranoid speculation (or false parallels to US activities in other countries), and their paymaster isn't Soros, it's your own town government, often with your approval.
These professional anti-protesters also happen to be
a. a gang and a cult with rituals and uniforms and an officially sanctioned self-heroizing ethos [...]
and
b. extremely violent and prone to riot and mayhem.
The contexts for the present uprising are legion. They are found in the political economy and society, in the racist reality, and in the C19 lockdown-prompted crisis. In regard to the main proximate cause, however, every explanation is confusionism and distraction and disinfo, except for the obvious, the one that the protesters themselves tell you every minute:
Police forces engaged in constant generalized and specific brutalizations of communities based on race and class for many years. This was a matter of policy, training, professional culture, group "solidarity," the psychology of those likeliest to recruit themselves, and a kind of social mission (to suppress the perceived insubordination or threat of democracy to the republic, to provide a kind of exemplary terror against populations considered especially threatening). Some of this brutalization was excess, most of it was systemic and in conformity with policies such as the "war on drugs," "broken windows," zero-tolerance, nudge-based cooptation psychology, etc.
During this time the police were the only municipal and state public services that saw stable and increased budgeting. All other social services were cut. Cops were sent in to act as security forces in the schools. The "schools-to-prison pipeline" became a well-known phrase. Millions of people became the objects of an ever-expanding carceral state, even decades after crime rates plunged to historic lows, and private for-profit involvement in this industry mushroomed. During this time, they were increasingly militarized. Many exemplary incidents of excess and terror were recorded on video, and sparked justified but localized outbreaks of rage, until finally, as has happened in many other eras (choose your metaphor) the final straw breaks the camel's back, the dam bursts, the bucket overflows, the water boils.
Even then, the first night of protests was peaceful, and most protests begin peacefully, until the cops initiate their usual, predictable, ultra-violent, humiliating, and arbitrary forms of crowd control, mostly in the ways they have been trained to do, and with a measure of additional excessive force, whether that's enthusiasic or neurotically driven. Then, at least this time, at least for a number of days, things slipped out of their control.
.
I teach college students and grad students. And higher education is getting hollowed out as we speak.
JackRiddler » Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:44 pm wrote:dada » Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:54 am wrote:No, I'm not a teacher. Like I just said, I don't like schools, and hate kids.
Can't say your views on remote "teaching" aren't consistent with that.
liminalOyster » Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:51 pm wrote:Edit: Sorry - is this now not actually a thread about the uprising? Bonus: I also teach college students and think online teaching is 1 step towards AI and etc.
Trump Threatens Protests with Troops, But Police Have Already Been Militarized — With Deadly Results
STORYJUNE 05, 2020
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/6/5/s ... transcript
GUESTS
Stuart Schrader
associate director of the Program in Racism, Immigration, and Citizenship at Johns Hopkins University.
LINKS
Stuart Schrader on Twitter
"Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing"
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520295 ... ut-borders
The American Civil Liberties Union and Black Lives Matter announced Thursday they are suing President Trump and Attorney General William Barr for authorizing an “unprovoked and frankly criminal attack” on protesters at Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., where the National Guard and officers dressed in riot gear fired tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbangs to disperse peaceful protesters on Monday so Trump could have a photo op with a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. We look at the increasing militarization of the police with Stuart Schrader, author of “Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing.”
Transcript
AMY GOODMAN: As we take this larger, turning from Chris’s story to look at the militarization of the police force, the American Civil Liberties Union and Black Lives Matter announced Thursday they’re suing President Trump and Attorney General William Barr for authorizing a, quote, “unprovoked and frankly criminal attack” on protesters, that in Lafeyette Park in Washington, D.C., where the National Guard and officers dressed in riot gear fired tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbangs to disperse peaceful protesters on Monday so Trump could have his photo taken with a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. The bishop there criticized him, said it was completely inappropriate that they should use their church, that Trump should use their church as a backdrop. The lawsuit alleges the Trump administration violated protesters’ constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
For more, we’re going to Baltimore, Maryland, to speak with Stuart Schrader, associate director of the Program in Racism, Immigration, and Citizenship at Johns Hopkins University, author of the book Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you talk, Stuart, about this militarization of police?
STUART SCHRADER: Yeah. I think what we’re seeing right now with the protests is a convergence of what I would consider three trends. The first is a long-term trend of police being trained to treat political protest and agitation as almost tantamount to a revolutionary situation, and therefore understanding their job of controlling protest as basically defending the republic. This has a long history. I cover it in my book. It goes back throughout the 20th century. I think we can apply the term “counterinsurgency” to this, meaning that we’re seeing a combination of social and political power being used to control political protest, in addition to police power, even in the absence of a real insurgency or a real revolutionary situation. This is a long-standing trend.
Another trend is what most of us would refer to as the militarization of policing. That means the use of military-style body armor and helmets, military-style trucks that are heavily armored, and, of course, the scary-looking military-style weaponry. Now, this type of material being in the hands of police increased after September 11th, 2001. But in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton in 1997, Congress approved a program to transfer a lot of surplus material from the U.S. military into the hands of police. So this has been happening for quite a long time.
Now, I think that it’s important to note that we’re seeing this material on our screens in the context of protests. But it’s also been used quite widely in what we would consider ordinary policing situations — serving warrants and other types of routine activity.
And beyond that, I think it’s also important to note that, of course, George Floyd was not killed by a mine-resistant truck. George Floyd was killed by a police officer, in ordinary gear, who basically turned his body into a lethal weapon. So, I think that when we talk about the militarization of policing, we have to also ask ourselves if getting rid of it, which is, I think, on the table in a new way right now — we need to ask ourselves if getting rid of it is going to be enough.
And then the third trend that I would point to is, within the military, within the intellectuals and theorists of military strategy, there has been a turn toward urban space, turn toward cities. The idea here is that the U.S. military in coming decades is going to have to use its tactics in urban space, in the built environment of cities. This is a very sophisticated and detailed theoretical discourse that military strategists have developed, and it also entails a bunch of new tactics. And we’re starting to see —
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Stuart, before we wrap — and we just have 30 seconds — this use of tear gas, use of pepper spray, in a time of COVID, of a pandemic that affects the respiratory system?
STUART SCHRADER: Yeah, it’s very dangerous. Tear gas is a misnomer. It does not just make people cry. It makes them cough and gag. It’s very harmful to the respiratory system, and it’s making people cough and potentially spread the virus, even if they may not know that they’re infected. It’s really scary. And a lot of people are getting tear-gassed and are also getting arrested and then held in small, confined spaces in jails and detention centers. And the risk of the spread of COVID is intense.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you so much, Stuart Schrader, for being with us, author of Badges Without Borders: How Global Counterinsurgency Transformed American Policing.
Police departments across New Jersey received thousands of military hand-me-downs -- including 13 heavily-armored vehicles -- over the past two years valued at nearly $40 million.
Despite concerns about militarizing local departments, in the second half of last year alone, 13 mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, or MRAPs, were shipped to a dozen municipal police departments and a sheriff's office, data obtained by NJ Advance Media shows.
Norman Schwarzkopf, Senior
The New Jersey State Police was founded in 1921 by Colonel Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr., who served in both world wars and was father to General Norman Schwarzkopf of Gulf War fame. While General Shalikashvili, the outgoing US Chief of Staff, is proud of his Wafen SS father, the Schwarzkopfs emmigrated to the US long before the rise of Nazism, are not known to have voiced Nazi leanings, and were a respected part of the substantial German-American community in New Jersey.
However, an important segment of the New Jersey Germans were pro-Nazi before the war and also gave safe haven to Nazis after the war. As we will see, these Nazis also included Eastern Europeans and Russians, such as the elite and largely White Russian SS VorKommando Moskau, which organized the killings of Jews and Slavs in Nazi occupied Eastern Europe and Russia. Many members of the VorKommando Moskau were resettled in New Jersey by the US Government, shepherded by such stellar figures as Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, who considered these people to be stalwart anti-communist warriors and outstanding Republican vote getters. [3]
JUNE 5, 2020
Who Will You Believe, de Blasio or Your Lying Eyes?
By Sarah Jones
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06 ... -eyes.html
Bill de Blasio didn’t have a good morning, and that’s fair, because neither did I or anyone else in his city. When he showed up as usual for Brian Lehrer’s weekly “Ask The Mayor” segment, the venerable WNYC host asked him some thrilling questions. “I think there is one dominant topic for you this week,” Lehrer said. “It seems, from a lot of reporting, that the city has a problem of the protests against too much police violence being met with too much police violence, or heavy-handed police tactics. Do you accept the premise?”
“No,” the mayor said. People are deeply hurt, he added. There’s anger. There’s pain. There are problems in policing we all have to fix. But minus a few unfortunate incidents, he continued, “the police have shown a lot of restraint.” Citing reality, Lehrer pushed back. Here’s all the reporting, he told the mayor. But the mayor dug in. No, no, no. Not happening, not here.Angus Johnston
@studentactivism
· Jun 5, 2020
Replying to @studentactivism
Lehrer reads from this NYT story about police violence against protesters, then plays audio interview with Rolando Sanchez, a Bronx protester who was assaulted by cops.
Angus Johnston
@studentactivism
De Blasio: "Brian, look, respectfully, you could talk about one piece of the equation and leave out everything else. But that's not fair to New Yorkers." Blames police violence on "systematic violence" by protesters.
11:14 AM - Jun 5, 2020
De Blasio’s New York, where the cops are good apples and looters and protesters are one and the same, is more than a fantasy. It’s a lie. The real topography of this city is shaped by police violence. You can walk its streets and point out the primary features of note. Here’s where the police killed Eric Garner. Here’s where they killed Sean Bell, Anthony Baez, Ramarley Graham, Patrick Dorismond. Here is where Amadou Diallo’s old building is; the police murdered him in front of it. Here’s where they raped Anna Chambers in custody. In the week since protests over George Floyd’s killing began, the police have added indelible new landmarks to our map. The mayor pretends not to see them.
Maybe he needs an itinerary. Load him into one of those double-decker tourist buses, let him sit up top, and haul him around. The cops broke a protester’s arm here. On this street they shoved a young woman to the ground so hard she had a seizure. Or take him to the Strand. Great bookstore. A cop pulled a gun on unarmed protesters in front of it. Drive him to the corner of St. Marks and Flatbush. There, he can see the spot where the NYPD drove an SUV into a crowd. Escort him over the Manhattan Bridge. The other night, the police trapped thousands of people on it for hours.
He can come to my neighborhood if he wants. I’ll show him around. A week ago I walked out of my apartment and up Tompkins Avenue and found myself in a protest. You can do that now, in New York. Walk to Walgreens, there’s a protest. Walk up Eastern Parkway, protest. The mayor gets driven places so perhaps he doesn’t see them. The protests are peaceful, and so was the local crowd last Friday. People had gathered in front of the 79th Precinct to be heard. They succeeded, for a while. Then, for no reason I could ascertain, the police flooded toward us from across the street. In front of them they held their batons, cross-body, ready to push. They pushed and shoved and hit even when we all tried to comply. After the pushing started a protester threw a water bottle at a cop’s head, which seemed like a natural response to being threatened, and the cops got even angrier with those batons. Some of them were restrained but some of them enjoyed it and you could see it on their faces.
The next night, a Saturday, I went out again. The mayor was not present and did not see anything. But here’s what I saw. For the second night in a row, the police turned a calm demonstration into dangerous mayhem. They charged a crowd in the streets near the Barclays Center. I don’t know why. Once again there was no provocation that I witnessed. They rushed protesters down the street, spraying mace, wielding batons. I saw people on the ground. I heard my fiancé, who had come to march, scream my name from the sidewalk and that frightened me, because he’s a former Marine and doesn’t easily startle. He reached out and tried to pull me toward him. I’d turned my back to the cops, thinking I’d outrun them and the mace and the sticks. I had come to stand on a curb out of their way. But a cop approached from behind, baton raised, ready to push me down or shove me even further down the street. Not far from where we stood, the police had just arrested HuffPost reporter Chris Mathias.
I have since acquired a press badge. The item feels like a good-luck charm, its protective qualities a comforting fiction. The police don’t care about the First Amendment, which protects protesters and reporters alike. Neither does de Blasio, who with his curfews intends to remove a peaceful protest movement from his streets. The impulse to restrict speech, to restrict movement and assembly, is antidemocratic to the core. So too are de Blasio’s lies. In an ideological sense he may have no choice but to pretend. The alternative is to concede that he, a good liberal who thought he could be president, fosters violent authoritarianism at home.
But here’s the truth, which will be the truth whether or not de Blasio admits it to Brian Lehrer. The police have arrested legal observers and journalists and peaceful protesters. They’ve beaten people savagely, almost killed a few with a car, and terrorized entire neighborhoods. They have incited violence where none flourished, and a few opportunistic looters don’t substantively bolster the police commissioner’s version of events. The police are brutalizing people, the way they always have, except now it’s even harder for the comfortable among us to ignore. It’s all on video, night after night. We see it. We won’t forget it. We don’t live in de Blasio’s New York.
In Buffalo, police said a 75-year-old-man—who was walking alone doing nothing when he was pushed over by a cop, hit his head on cement, started bleeding from his ears, and was ignored by a group of a dozen officers—“tripped and fell.”
In Manhattan, the New York Police Department said that an essential delivery worker who was arrested for the crime of doing his job after curfew could have been lying about his job.
In DC, Park Police said that an Australian media crew that was sitting down and filming a protest when they were bashed with riot shields “were not readily distinguishable from violent protesters.”
In Erie, Pennsylvania, police pepper sprayed a woman who was sitting down. She covers her eyes with both of her arms. A cop then kicks her in the face.
In Los Angeles, the LAPD shot a homeless man in a wheelchair in the face with a rubber bullet. A photo of the man's bloodied face has gone viral; the LAPD has declined to comment.
[...]
Bill De Blasio, the man who is nominally in charge of the NYPD, which has more officers than many European militaries have soldiers, has repeatedly told the public that we should not take these photos and videos at face value, though they have all been corroborated by contemporaneous eyewitnesses. Last weekend, he told us that two cop SUVs bulldozed into a group of unarmed protesters because they were “surrounded.” Footage from above shows that either SUV could have easily backed up. This line—that we cannot believe what we see—is one that de Blasio has repeated often.
“Sometimes what we see with our own eyes is the whole story. Sometimes what we see with our own eyes, it’s not the whole story, if you see a video,” de Blasio told WNYC radio host Brian Lehrer Friday morning. “The cell phone video picks up one piece of the equation but sometimes there is another problem or [context that you can’t see].”
"Observers from City Hall saw a different reality than you were seeing," de Blasio said in a different interview Friday morning. De Blasio nor the NYPD have provided any mitigating evidence for any of the cases of police brutality caught on tape, nor have they said what their "reality" is.
New York governor Andrew Cuomo, meanwhile, has simply said that people who ask him straightforward questions about police behavior, based on video evidence, are asking biased, “offensive,” and “incendiary” questions: “It’s not a fact. It’s not even an opinion,” Cuomo said to a reporter who asked why NYPD officers bludgeoned peaceful protesters with batons, suggesting that police are the real victims here. “That is a hyper partisan political attack … they don’t do that.”
Without ever-present cell phone cameras, we are unlikely to have had murder charges filed against Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd, and video evidence has been integral to holding police accountable in other cases as well. But justice, accountability, and even a basic acceptance of the truth has remained elusive on a large scale, even with video evidence.
This pervasive denial of reality has exposed one of the most popular and widely suggest police reforms, body cameras, as a bad faith compromise. For years, our leaders told us that always-on video surveillance of police would stop police brutality as a concession to the original Black Lives Matter movement.
[...]
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n7wn ... ighting-us
JUNE 4, 2020 2:27PM ET
New York City’s Curfew Is Only Leading to More Police Brutality
A firsthand account from the streets of Manhattan on Wednesday night, where the NYPD arrested 60 protesters for violating a hastily assembled curfew order
By RYAN BORT
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... y-1010003/
[...]
De Blasio’s pie-in-the-sky musings about a world without struggle underscore his approach to the demonstrations, which is to say that he doesn’t seem to have one other than to cross his fingers — or put on his headphones — and hope everything works out all right. It’s a strategy New Yorkers may remember due to his handling of the coronavirus outbreak in early March.
Determined to remain as out of touch as possible, the mayor has ceded control over the situation to law enforcement, taking every opportunity possible to defer to the city’s aggressive police force, which has been brutalizing demonstrators nightly. He sided with them when they attempted to run over a group of protesters in an SUV, and he sided with them on Monday when, despite his Lennon-inspired anti-“restriction” message, he imposed an 11 p.m. curfew. It was the first curfew instituted in New York City since the Harlem riot of 1943, an event spurred by a white police officer shooting a black soldier.
On Tuesday, de Blasio moved the curfew to 8 p.m., and in the two days since, it has become clear that the confusing, hastily executed order is nothing more than a license for cops to arrest peaceful protesters at will. It is a legal repudiation of the popular protest chant “Whose streets? Our streets!” and in turn the protests themselves. No, these are not your streets, the mayor is saying, and to prove it we’re going to arrest you if you’re on them after a certain time.
[...]
A few cops in riot gear walked alongside the demonstrators as they marched. Every few blocks, the crowd passed an intersection with a police presence. There were no altercations. The most anyone threw at law enforcement was a middle finger. At times, an NYPD vehicle drove in front of the demonstration, which was exuberant, inspiring, and thoroughly peaceful. People sang; people cheered. Overhead, people banged pots and pans and clapped out their windows in support. Curfew had been broken, but police were around and there was no indication anyone would be arrested for being out after nightfall.
But at 9 p.m., a full hour after the curfew passed, the crowd arrived at 50th and Third, where police suddenly descended on the demonstrators, ripping them off bikes, forcing them from the crowd, and zip-tying their hands. People were confused. People were scared. People were pleading for restraint. It started pouring rain. In the end, around 60 protesters were arrested at the intersection, according to NYPD Police Chief Terence Monahan.
“We are one with the protesters. We’re out there for each other to fight, but not with the people who want to cause mayhem for our city,” Monahan told a scrum of reporters after the tension settled.
“We move in tactically, we take people out,” he added. “We will let people leave, we will allow people to protest, but if they start violating the law, we’re going to take action.”
But by no stretch of even John Lennon’s imagination could the word “mayhem” be applied to the demonstrators the NYPD swarmed on Wednesday night. The only law violated was the one de Blasio installed the previous day, seemingly to no other end than to give the NYPD free rein to indulge their fantasies of carrying out “tactical” operations like the one sprung on the hundreds of New Yorkers marching against police brutality when they arrived at 50th and Third.
What was once a scene of hopeful, communal demonstration twisted into a blur of glistening black body armor, rain-specked face shields, and red and blue lights, as one final chant rang out from the crowd:
“Peaceful protest! Peaceful protest! Peaceful protest!”
The NYPD didn’t seem to hear it.
Live Protest Updates: Cops Kettle Protesters Then Begin Aggressively Arresting Them At Bronx March
BY ELIZABETH KIM, CHRISTOPHER ROBBINS, BEN YAKAS, JAKE OFFENHARTZ, GWYNNE HOGAN, WNYC AND NICK PINTO
JUNE 4, 2020 10:10 P.M. • 421 COMMENTS • 10 PHOTOS
https://gothamist.com/news/live-protest-updates-june-4
Cops Kettle Protesters Then Begin Arresting Them At Bronx March
NYPD Commissioner Apologizes For Excessive Force But Claims No Protesters Have Been Seriously Injured
Thousands Of Protesters March Across The Brooklyn Bridge
Mayor De Blasio Booed By Massive Crowd At George Floyd Memorial
Last night's updates: Peaceful Demonstrations Met With Aggressive Policing & Many Arrests After Curfew
More Than 400 Current And Former Members Of The De Blasio Administration Say The Mayor Is Failing At His Job
Despite More Violent Arrests Of Peaceful Protesters, De Blasio Sees "A Very Different Picture"
Protesters Threatened By Enraged Man With Four-Bladed Weapon In Queens
Scroll down for a running list of protests scheduled for today
[...]
text circulating among NYC residents wrote:NYC folks a few things I want you to know:
1) NYPD is enforcing the curfew and not just for protestors. They have arrested essential workers, despite the fact that they are exempt from the curfew.
2) NYPD is also restricting access to some subways. This is incredibly dangerous. It means that it will take people longer to get home even when they are attempting to honor the curfew.
3) NYPD is using a practice called kettling. Kettling means corralling all protestors into a space so they can be arrested. This happened yesterday in Brooklyn and the Bronx resulting in injuries. This is an escalation tactic. The purpose is not to disperse the protesters, it is to arrest them.
4) Habeas Corpus has been suspended at the request of the NYPD by NYC Criminal Court Judge James Burke, allowing the police to detain anyone arrested for any reason for longer than 24 hours. If you go 48 hours without hearing from or about your loved ones, reach out to a legal aid society for help.
Please, please don’t order food after 6:30/7:00. You’re putting the delivery personnel at risk.
Be careful out there. Keep tabs on your people.
Jeff Wells wrote:june 5 at 9:12 AM ·
"POLICE OFFICER TELLS PROUD BOYS TO HIDE INSIDE BUILDING BECAUSE THEY'RE ABOUT TO TEAR GAS PROTESTERS. THE OFFICER SAID HE WAS WARNING THEM 'DISCRETELY' BECAUSE HE DIDNT WANT PROTESTERS TO SEE POLICE 'PLAY FAVORITES.'"
[video]https://twitter.com/Satellit3Heart/status/1268863536299675648
Jeff Wells wrote:June 6 at 7:51 PM ·
"Documents obtained by The Intercept via the Freedom of Information Act reveal that a Pentagon war game, called the 2018 Joint Land, Air and Sea Strategic Special Program, or JLASS, offered a scenario in which members of Generation Z, driven by malaise and discontent, launch a 'Zbellion' in America in the mid-2020s....
"According to the scenario, many members of Gen Z — psychologically scarred in their youth by 9/11 and the Great Recession, crushed by college debt, and disenchanted with their employment options — have given up on their hopes for a good life and believe the system is rigged against them."
https://theintercept.com/2020/06/05/pen ... ame-gen-z/
Our System Is Corroded: Carol Anderson on Rampant Police Violence and Assault on Voting Rights
JUNE 05, 2020
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/6/5/n ... rbery_case
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman. On Thursday, disturbing new details were revealed in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, the 25-year-old Black man chased, ambushed, shot dead by a group of white men in Georgia in what many have called a modern-day lynching. In a nearly seven-hour hearing, a state judge concluded all three men — Travis McMichael; his father, former police officer Gregory McMichael; and William “Roddie” Bryan — would stand trial for Ahmaud Arbery’s murder, after special agent Richard Dial of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation testified Travis McMichael used a racial slur after shooting and killing Arbery.
RICHARD DIAL: Mr. Bryan said that after the shooting took place, before police arrival, while Mr. Arbery was on the ground, that he heard Travis McMichael make the statement: “[bleep bleep].”
AMY GOODMAN: Those last two words were the F-word and the N-word. Travis McMichael had a sticker of a Confederate flag on his truck’s toolbox. The investigator, Richard Dial, also testified the three white men hit Arbery with a truck as he attempted to escape them. Special prosecutor Jesse Evans said Arbery was “chased, hunted down and ultimately executed.” Arbery’s family is calling for all three men arrested to face federal hate crime charges, as well.
For more, we’re going to Georgia, to Atlanta, where we’re joined by Carol Anderson, professor at Emory University, author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. She has a new piece in The Guardian. It’s headlined “In 1919, the state failed to protect black Americans. A century later, it’s still failing.”
In a minute, we’ll speak about the ongoing protests in defense of Black lives, but let’s begin, Professor Anderson, with Ahmaud Arbery and this unusual hearing, not like an arraignment hearing, but went on for hours. Can you respond to the testimony, the new information, and this whole issue of lynching in America — not a hundred years ago, but today?
CAROL ANDERSON: Thank you so much, Amy.
What we saw on that tape was so contradictory to the statements that the McMichaels had originally made. And what it showed was them blocking him. It showed them hunting him down. It showed them executing him. And the fact that that tape was in the hands of law enforcement almost immediately, but nothing was done until protest, intense protest, erupted that thing out of the bowels of that law enforcement clique in Georgia so that justice could begin to move down the pike, it begins to tell you about how unseemly, how corrupt, how corroded the system is, so that it takes protest to deal with issues of basic justice.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re in Georgia. Georgia is one of the few states in the country that doesn’t have hate crimes laws. The family is calling for these men to be brought up on hate crime charges. Can you explain what this is about?
CAROL ANDERSON: One of the things is that for Georgia — is that, you know, Georgia is one of the key lynching states. One of the most graphic lynchings happened here in Georgia, the one that Senator Cory Booker was talking about, which was Mary Turner, who had protested because her husband was lynched. And they were angry at this woman who was eight months pregnant, who dared defy them. And they hung her upside down. They stripped her naked. They burned her. And then they cut the baby out of her stomach and stomped on the baby’s head. That is Georgia.
And so, hate crimes becomes one of those very slippery ways that the state does not have to come to grips with the damage that it has done and that it continues to do. And I would just say, on the whole issue of lynching, the fact that you had, during George Floyd’s memorial service, Rand Paul blocking an anti-lynching law named after Emmett Till also speaks volumes about where we are as a nation.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to issue a warning to our audience, because, Professor Anderson, I want to ask you about the story that contains just horrifying footage. Arrest warrants have been issued for six Atlanta police officers after they tased two Black college students, dragging them from their car for allegedly violating the city’s curfew Saturday night. One officer was filmed smashing the window of the car. Another slashed the car’s tires. Two of the officers have already been fired. The victims were a 20-year-old Spelman College student, Taniyah Pilgrim, and 22-year-old Morehouse College student Messiah Young, who suffered a fractured wrist, needed 24 stitches, had a tase in his body for something like five hours after they shot him. This is Pilgrim and Young speaking Tuesday.
TANIYAH PILGRIM: I hope every police officer who thinks it’s OK to drag someone, beat someone, do all this stuff because they’re cops — I hope they’re all going to be held accountable, as well.
MESSIAH YOUNG: I feel a little safer now that these monsters are off of the street and no longer able to terrorize anyone else from this point on. So, I think, moving forward, we just need to — like Ms. Pilgrim said, we just need to make sure that all officers are held accountable and that there really is change moving forward within the culture of policing.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that is Messiah Young and Taniyah Pilgrim, two kids, one at Morehouse, one at Spelman. You teach at Emory, Professor Anderson. The horror of this moment as you see the electricity just convulse Messiah. Two of the police officers were fired. All six, arrest warrants were issued for them. Can you respond to this?
CAROL ANDERSON: It absolutely had to happen that they are held accountable. When you see that film, one of the things that you see is that the car right in front of Messiah has a white woman who is waving out the window and smiling, but the police converge on these wonderful, beautiful students and slash their tires, smash out their windows. And for what? For what? That’s the thing that is actually convulsing across the nation, because you’re asking, “For what?” None of this looks like protect and serve. None of it.
The trauma in that interview, you saw where that — there was one moment where he’s just saying that he almost has to disassociate himself from it because it was so traumatic, so violent. We do this to our people. What is that? I’m sorry. Just, it — I was in tears when I saw that interview. I was horrified when I saw the original footage, and then in tears when I saw the interview.
AMY GOODMAN: And at the same time, you have Senator Rand Paul blocking anti-lynching legislation, right? He has proposed an amendment on Thursday that would weaken a bill making lynching a federal hate crime punishable by up to life in prison. A day before, Senator Paul single-handedly stopped the legislation by denying its passage on unanimous consent. The bill is co-sponsored by the Senate’s three African Americans: Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democrats Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: But I am so raw today, of all days that we’re doing this. … I do not need my colleague, the senator from Kentucky, to tell me about one lynching in this country. I’ve stood in the museum in Montgomery, Alabama, and watched African American families weeping at the stories of pregnant women lynched in this country and their babies ripped out of them.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Carol Anderson, talk about the significance of this legislation, passed almost unanimously in the House, and Rand Paul has stopped it in the Senate.
CAROL ANDERSON: And when, you know, you think about it, anti-lynching legislation, the NAACP had tried since the 1920s to get federal anti-lynching legislation passed. And this is at that moment where you are seeing one horrific lynching after the next. And there’s a key moment in the mid-1930s where it’s after the lynching of Claude Neal, the spectacle lynching. And that’s where the lynching is actually advertised, and that is when they sell tickets. And Claude Neal is taken through a gauntlet of torture and tortured for hours, and his body parts cut off, and he’s forced to eat his own genitalia. And the NAACP is pressing hard for a federal anti-lynching bill. And two senators from the South — Jimmy Byrnes and Tom Connally — blocked it. They mocked it. They laughed. They did almost a routine on the Senate floor, making lynching a joke.
And so, when I see Rand Paul talking about, “Well, we don’t need to have this being, you know, so extensive, so we need to make sure that just when somebody is slapped, that that’s not called a lynching,” that does violence to the thousands upon thousands of African Americans who have been lynched. That does enormous disrespect to the lives and to the families of those who have had to live under this terror without any kind of justice being brought.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to the words that are often used in the corporate media — the “riots,” the “looting” that’s going on? You’ve talked often about the state violence, that is not so easily addressed.
CAROL ANDERSON: And so we see this kind of false equivalence. I mean, it is The Philadelphia Inquirer’s “Buildings Matter, Too”? The language of looting is a way to try to distract and diffuse from the kind of bureaucratic violence that has rained down on Black communities, bureaucratic violence in terms of militarizing the police, bureaucratic violence in terms of underfunding public schools, bureaucratic violence in terms of environmental toxins being poured into poor and Black communities. That kind of bureaucratic violence just gets elided over.
And so, one of the things when I wrote White Rage, I talked about how we focus so much on the flames that we miss the kindling. And the kindling is that bureaucratic violence that systematically destroys Black communities, that systematically erodes their citizenship. That is what we need to be paying attention to, or we’re always going to see the flames.
And so, that looting tries to make that equivalence. It’s a false equivalence, that language of looting, that language of, “Well, you’re distracting from the peaceful protest.” But when African Americans peacefully protested, like Colin Kaepernick, he was just vilified for somehow disrespecting the flag? When the real disrespect of the flag is the systematic destruction of Black people.
AMY GOODMAN: In your Guardian piece, Professor Anderson, you write, “[O]ur current attorney general, Bill Barr, does not appear to see injustice. Instead, he sounds much like his ancient predecessor, A Mitchell Palmer.” Explain.
CAROL ANDERSON: So, A. Mitchell Palmer was the attorney general during 1919, the Red Summer of 1919. And there you had an eruption of anti-Black violence as Black veterans are coming back from World War I. Their work in the military as soldiers so disrupted what was the hierarchy of power, because it was like, “Wait a minute, they think they’re citizens now?” So, you saw this violence erupt, where Black people were hunted down and killed.
One of the most horrific cases was in Elaine, Arkansas. And that is where Blacks were mobilizing to unionize because their wages were being stolen. You had this massive group of sheriffs and vigilantes and the U.S. Army coming in and just massacring Black people. A. Mitchell Palmer didn’t see that. What he saw instead of people fighting for their constitutional rights, he said, “These are these left-wing radicals. These are communists.” And it launches what would become known as the Red Scare, this hunt for communists in every kind of movement for equality.
What you see with Bill Barr, by raising up this fictive antifa organization that is out to destroy all that is good and right in America, where they can’t even identify what the antifa organization is — and “antifa” stands for anti-fascist, fighting the fascists. But what we do have is the violence of the right wing, the violence where you have armed men storming into the Michigan state Capitol and threatening to kill the governor and yelling at law enforcement. But somehow that’s not the kind of violence that Bill Barr is concerned with. So you get this mobilizing of federal forces to knock out progressive forces that are fighting for equality, by using the threat of some outside agitator, some terrorist group — for A. Mitchell Palmer, communists; for Bill Barr, antifa. Whatever.
AMY GOODMAN: Bill Barr supposedly was the one who called for the police forces outside the White House to clear Lafayette Park for the president to walk forward with his chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of defense for a photo op. And, of course, President Trump, once again yesterday, tweeted about the protesters being terrorists.
Before we end, I wanted to ask you about something people might not have noticed amidst the mass uprising this week. There were primaries around the country, people finding it extremely difficult to vote. Your latest book, One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy. This is an issue you care immensely about, especially communities of color so hard hit by these twin pandemics of police brutality and the pandemic, and the fact that the pandemic continues, people being afraid to go out to vote, that they have to choose voting over their own health, and the assault by the president on mail-in voting, though he does it himself. Talk about democracy, voting, what’s going to happen in November — if President Trump allows this election to happen at all.
CAROL ANDERSON: And so, what we’re seeing is laying the groundwork for trying to erode these elections, the same way you had voter suppression undermining the election in 2016. In 2016, because of voter suppression, because the U.S. Supreme Court had gutted the protections of the Voting Rights Act, you had a drop of 7% in Black voter turnout. And remember that Trump won that election only by the Electoral College votes of 77,000 votes among three states. Voter suppression is lethal. It is deadly. And they’re trying to replicate it again.
So we’re seeing things, for instance, like in Texas, where the Supreme Court and the attorney general in Texas have said that the pandemic, a fear of COVID-19, is not a justifiable excuse to get an absentee ballot; where you have, in Kentucky, where because of the pandemic, they shut down the Department of Motor Vehicles, and then the Republican Legislature said, “Oh, but in order to use an absentee ballot, you have to have a copy of your ID, your driver’s license.” So, if you don’t have a driver’s license and you can’t get a driver’s license, how do you use your driver’s license, that you can’t get, in order to vote absentee? It’s in Alabama, where the U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on the side of Alabama to say that you must have a witness statement, in the middle of a pandemic, in order to use an absentee ballot.
So, what we’re seeing here, in addition to what the U.S. Supreme Court did to those in Wisconsin in the middle of a pandemic, is to use the threat that is COVID-19 as a way to suppress voter turnout. But what is happening is that you have seen people who understand that the way that this regime has attacked their very being means that they’re willing to crawl through glass, they’re willing to stand in front of a COVID-19 firing squad and risk their lives, in order to vote. Now, we have to ask ourselves —
AMY GOODMAN: We have 30 seconds, Professor Anderson.
CAROL ANDERSON: What kind of society is that, that makes people choose between their right to vote and their health? That’s where we are right now in the United States of America.
AMY GOODMAN: Carol Anderson, I want to thank you so much for being with us, professor at Emory University, author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide; her most recent book, One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy. And we’ll link to your piece in The Guardian.
When we come back, we speak with an African American filmmaker. Police pepper-sprayed him directly in the face as he was filming. We’ll look at the militarization of police. Stay with us.
Tamika Mallory: Nationwide Uprising Against State Violence Shows People Have Reached Breaking Point
STORY
JUNE 04, 2020
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/6/4/t ... d_protests
As Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison files charges against all four Minneapolis police officers involved in the killing of George Floyd, a mass uprising against police brutality continues. “At this point, we’re looking at a nation and a world that has decided that what we saw happen on camera … is no longer acceptable, and we cannot continue to meet and ask and cry and beg for change. People have taken to the streets to demand change,” says Tamika Mallory, former national co-chair of the 2017 Women’s March.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. As the Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison files charges against all four Minneapolis police officers involved in last week’s killing of African American George Floyd, a mass uprising against police brutality continues in the streets, from Minneapolis to Louisville to Houston to Los Angeles.
We go now to activist Tamika Mallory to discuss the latest developments, the police killing, as well, of Breonna Taylor, and more. Tamika Mallory is the former national co-chair of the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, D.C., also co-founder of the social justice organization Until Freedom. She’s joining us from New York City, after participating in the protests in Houston, Louisville and Minneapolis, where she gave a major speech that went viral. This is a part of it.
TAMIKA MALLORY: Don’t talk to us about looting. Y’all are the looters. America has looted Black people. America looted the Native Americans when they first came here, so looting is what you do. We learned it from you.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Tamika Mallory joins us now from New York, soon headed to the memorial for George Floyd.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Tamika. Talk about the latest development, the charges brought against all four officers, and their significance.
TAMIKA MALLORY: Good morning. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me.
So, as Nekima, my colleague, has said, we are definitely glad that there have been charges against all four officers and, of course, that the charges against Chauvin have been increased. However, we know that we cannot rely on charges as the end of our fight. We have to ensure that we stay engaged in this movement and continue to push for convictions, because too often we see these things happen where everyone is excited that someone has been charged, when we get an officer charged, and then, in the end, it falls apart once it makes it into the courtroom, into a system that is not designed to hold police officers responsible for the abuse against poor, Black and Brown people.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Tamika, I mean, several people have pointed out that these protests are very different from the protests about previous Black African Americans killed by the police, from Trayvon Martin to Eric Garner. First of all, these protests spread very rapidly across the U.S., but also across the world, from New Zealand to Brazil to France, and also with much greater intensity. And many observers and protesters themselves have said they have never witnessed such an outpouring of grief and anger on such a mass scale. Now, do you think that the intensity and the range of these protests, as some say, might actually result in substantive change? You’ve said that we can’t rely any longer on just charges against police officers, but also prosecutions. Do you think it’s likely that the scale of these protests, unlike the protests that have preceded them, may actually make that possible?
TAMIKA MALLORY: Well, I mean, certainly, you are right. The protests that we’re seeing today and the ways in which people are engaged and sustaining for so many days is very strong. I think we saw something similar around Trayvon Martin’s death when George Zimmerman was found not guilty. We saw real energy across the country, where the Black Lives Matter movement was sparked. But, of course, in this particular moment, it is intensified. And I think that from Trayvon Martin, and even cases before that, leading up to today, all of it comes together, and you see that energy.
But particularly in the last month, month and a half, we know that people have literally been traumatized by not one, not two, but three different incidents, where I know for sure I’ve personally been traumatized. Ahmaud Arbery — people watched a video where it was clear that that young man was hunted, and he was hunted by two different cars, in which they boxed him in, and he was shot with a shotgun on the streets just for jogging.
Then we see Breonna Taylor. Breonna Taylor is a young 26-year-old woman, an EMT worker, so she is a first responder at a time when people are also stressed and going through a lot as it relates to COVID-19, 100,000-plus Americans who have died at the hands of an incompetent administration.
And then we come to George Floyd, in which we watch him die. We literally watch his life leave his body. The difference, to me, in the Eric Garner situation is that he’s — as he’s being choked, there is some movement of people around. But in this situation, we see George Floyd literally held, handcuffed, down, suffocating. And as the attorney Ben Crump said, he was being tortured by someone who literally sat on his neck and was there trying to kill him, and he succeeded.
So, therefore, there’s a level of trauma that I believe has built up in individuals across this country. And it’s no longer just a Black protest or a Black movement. At this point, we’re looking at a nation and a world that has decided that what we saw happen on camera, not just in one incident, but Ahmaud Arbery and this incident, is no longer acceptable. And we cannot continue to meet and ask and cry and beg for change. People have taken to the streets to demand change.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Tamika, I think one of the things that has exacerbated the trauma that you speak of is the extent of the militarization of the police that we see. I mean, we’re all in New York City, and you can see. I mean, there are literally the constant sound of helicopters overhead, constantly police sirens all across the city, and then just the figures of these police officers, who look more like paramilitary with all this gear and equipment and so on. Now, in New York, hundreds of staffers of Mayor Bill de Blasio have called for defunding the police, following what they’ve seen here, the New York Police Department’s response to the protests. Can you respond to that, the question of whether the police, not just in New York but across the U.S., should be defunded?
TAMIKA MALLORY: So, I 100% support defunding the police. The one thing we know about America and its capitalism is that money is all that really, really, really matters. If people were just walking in the streets in New York and across this country, and there were not folks vandalizing — which we totally don’t support — but to make the point, that the vandalism is what has sparked a need to try to reconcile and fix it and let’s see what we can do to calm things down, not the violence that occurred in the first place against George Floyd, where there should have been swift action to deal with it before people hit the streets, and then, afterwards, people began to vandalize — some people, rare instances, yet it happened.
So, the same thing applies when we’re talking about the police department and, again, how this system functions based in and steeped in capitalism. If you defund a person, you defund a company, you defund an institution like the police department, you get people’s attention. And I completely support that.
What I don’t think is that you will receive from this mayor in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio, an interest in it. And even, I don’t even think he’ll give it the slightest bit of attention. And the reason why — maybe his staffers can help, and I think it’s great that they were courageous enough to step out there and to do something on behalf of their communities. However, this mayor has not shown us that he’s bold, that he is courageous and that he’s willing to stand up to the police department. It took us five years to get Daniel Pantaleo fired after he choked Eric Garner to death, and in the police manual, it says that a chokehold is inappropriate, and it is in fact illegal. But it still took us five years, plus protesters like myself, Kirsten Foy of Arc of Justice, Carmen — not Carmen Perez, I’m sorry — Mysonne Linen, Linda Sarsour and so many others, to go to a presidential debate and have to actually call him out during the debate in order to make sure that he could not go around this country touting his relationships between police and community in New York that doesn’t really exist.
And so, you know, I’m not confident in this mayor, unfortunately, that he’s going to do that work. I’ve seen him, as of late, trying to begin to have conversations around the social distancing piece, with community groups to figure out other ways to deal with social distancing in communities, but I still just do not feel that he has what it takes to really stand up to Commissioner Shea and those in the NYPD, and particularly the police union.
AMY GOODMAN: Tamika Mallory, I’ve got two questions for you. One is the tear-gassing of protesters, this critical issue, these two plagues of racism and police brutality and the pandemic, and the fact that protesters all over this country are getting gassed — tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed — and coronavirus is a respiratory disease, and it’s particularly affecting communities of color, who are the leaders now of these protests all over the country — what this means?
And the other question has to do with the militarization of police all over, the buzzing by a helicopter of the protesters in Washington, all levels hiding their affiliation of security, whether you’re talking National Guard, Bureau of Prisons, all together with police, and the whole battle over whether the Army is going to be involved with suppressing protests, and what you make of people like Mattis, the former defense secretary, General [John] Allen and others, who are now condemning Trump for what’s happening right now, bringing the Army into the streets. And Esper, it’s not clear where he stands. He condemns it, then he goes back. He has a fight with Trump, and then he says he supports it. Not clear. But your thoughts on both?
TAMIKA MALLORY: So, I think the tear-gassing and the ways in which — the rubber bullets, of which I experienced in Minneapolis, and I know much about it because many of my friends and colleagues in this work experienced the same on the streets of Ferguson, where Mike Brown was shot and killed and left there for four hours laying on the ground for the entire community to see and to be traumatized by. I know that America has always been militarized in terms of its police force. And we’ve been saying that. In fact, there is a campaign called “end the police militarization,” that folks have been pushing to get done in Congress. And so, we’ve been sounding the alarm about all of these things. This is not new.
As it relates to what we see happening with the administration, the president of the United States ran on being a law-and-order president. He said it. He said it. And that was a part of his platform. So we knew what he would do when he had the opportunity to show that he is in fact a law-and-order president. He is also an extremely disrespectful — and his rhetoric is racist. His rhetoric is dangerous. And, in fact, because of his actions, people are on the streets even more angry. I believe that this president has incited most of what we see happening today. He does not know how, nor does he care, to bring people together. Instead, he wants to send the military to the streets, because I don’t even think he knows how to actually work on relationships between humans and bring people together, and especially not as it relates to race relations.
I am happy to see that those individuals, one who actually — he actually bought into office — that they would be courageous enough to speak out, because wrong is wrong. And if you are a person of good moral standards, you should speak truth to power. And so, that is what we have seen happen, and I am very, very grateful to those people who have done that. I wish they had done it earlier, when they heard — because, as Maya Angelou said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them. And now we know that we can actually believe who Donald Trump said he was. And now November is coming, and I hope people are getting themselves prepared to do what’s necessary to take back our country.
AMY GOODMAN: Tamika Mallory, we want to thank you for being with us, activist and former national co-chair of the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, co-founder of the social justice organization Until Freedom. She talked about Breonna Taylor. We’re going to go extensively more into her case. When we come back, we’re going to Louisville, Kentucky, where thousands are protesting, for more than a week, in a row, seven days, demanding justice not only for George Floyd, but for two Black Louisville residents killed by police, including Breonna Taylor, the EMT police shot dead in her own home. Stay with us.
COMBAT THE COP IN YOUR HEAD
Paraphrased from Mao by an antifa comrade
We stand for open rebellion because it is the weapon chosen by a great many of the people in the streets in the interest of our fight. Every revolutionary or radical should stand with those in the streets.
But the liberalism rejects open rebellion and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent attitude and bringing about political degeneration among supporters at home and the masses in the streets. The police state has always sought to sow division and distrust between those who rebel, and in the century where everyone is a content creator, the best asset the police state has to spread distrust is to allow the movement’s supporters to sow distrust ourselves. From the false stories and false accusations planted by the cops, these stories and false accusations are then increasingly spread by the cop in your head.
The cop in your head manifests hisself in various ways.
To stay at home and then spread unverified images of supposed infiltrators to anyone who will listen, to encourage people that there is infiltration, rather than to send verified or verifiable information to rumor-conscious people on the ground to help protect them from infiltration or spreading the best ways that people in the streets can deal with infiltration and help their immediate rebellious tactics overcome and persist regardless of that infiltration. This is also a cop in your head.
To be in the streets, or especially be at home watching, and assume that someone who is breaking the law and engaging in militant activity must be an infiltrator, without looking for telltale signs like a badge, handcuffs, the same individual previously walking among and behaving friendly with uniformed law enforcement, wearing police-issued armbands or other VERIFIED forms of plain clothes police code, to then attempt to out people without such evidence. This is called bad jacketing and it is a cop in your head.
To claim that some protestors are good and some are bad, that some are in it for the cause and others have a sinister and destructive agenda, parroting what the capitalist media, the capitalist politicians, and the white supremacist police state loves to repeat ad nauseam, to post these sentiments on social media or say them in interviews to the press or in conversations with the power structure and your racist relatives. This is a cop in your head.
To point out people breaking the law, to assume that lawbreaking could only be from without, to post pictures of ANYONE doing so without verified and verifiable evidence that they are an infiltrators, to claim the existence of infiltration (which is ever present) invalidates law breaking amongst the masses. This is a another cop in your head.
To spread more graphics and memes and stories that claim to reveal infiltration, or to share them at all without verification, rather than to share graphics and memes and stories that expand support for the nationwide rebellion and show concrete ways that people can be involved and support those who are hurt or arrested or lack access to resources because of police state policies like curfews; to spend time spreading things that lower morale rather than offer support for the persistence and expansion of rebellion. This is absolutely a cop in your head.
To seek to claim that young Black and Latinx people are not involved and conscious actors, to claim that their militant activities are always manipulated rather than to stand with them and offer a principled defense of their actions is another cop in your head.��To claim that white people are engaging in most of the “looting” or militant activities, or to claim that white people don’t get to do so in a society that exploits most of them as the working class or the poor, that also attacks, brutalizes, beats up on them, even if disproportionately less so, to use their involvement based on their apparent race alone to discredit Black and Latinx and indigenous militancy, rather than trumpeting the multiracial and multiethnic character of the rebellion. This is another cop in your head.
To post photos of people that the capitalist press- especially the conservative elements of it- have derided as middle income, well educated, white or Asian participants in the rebellion, to insist that they somehow prove that any violence should be categorized as not committed by the masses of people but to spread the media and police narrative that these participants are somehow deserving of stiff penalties and doxxing, to demand people with race, class or national privilege be good allies but then to ridicule and doxx them when they are accomplices. This is a cop in your head.
To claim to be a radical or revolutionary in times of status quo, to claim to fight for radical change and the participation of the masses, and then to be a sheep in wolf's clothing who decries open rebellion, providing cover for the white supremacist and capitalist police state to brutalize those who actually are in the streets creating an opportunity for radical change. To claim to be a fighting wolf during the peacetime of day, but to reveal oneself a quivering sheep in the light of the burning passion of the night. This is a cop in your head.
To call on the masses in the streets to pull back, try to muzzle them or pull their reins as if the masses serve you rather than to serve the masses and stand with them, to claim they have gone too far, to claim you are at the forefront when you are clearly in the rear. This is a cop in your head.
To shine a discrediting light at all on the militant action of people in the streets, to spread rumors or stories or images that suggest militancy does not begin and encompass real outrage from people deeply affected, to post images that can be used to identify people who could be accused of breaking the law, rather than to focus on the police state, the lies of the ideological capitalist apparatus, the police and national guard abuses, the deceptions of politicians, the impunity of capital and the state's alleged to police violence. To discredit those rebelling rather than to discredit those who seek to discredit and disarm the rebellion. To post anything at all that would suggest that any police response right now is valid, and militant outrage by the people is invalid. This is a police commander and several officers in your head.
They are all cops in your head.
The cops in your head are extremely harmful to a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy, and creates dissension. It robs the rebellion of solidarity, of energy, of legal and moral defenders, and alienates the people in the streets from those who are spreading this information, which sometimes alienates the young from their elders, the new from the inexperienced, and the active from those at home.
The cop in your head stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal beliefs first and the interests of the rebellion second.
The cop in your head is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with liberation struggles. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of so-called radicals and revolutionaries.
All loyal, honest, active and upright radicals must unite to oppose the cops in the heads of certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our social media front.
Dear History Students
Posted By Paul Street On June 5, 2020
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/05 ... nts/print/
Last (Wednesday) Night: Interstates Matter
Dear XXX.edu History Students:
Last night, around maybe 11 pm, I got to taste some especially nasty tear gas along with 500 or so people one-third my age (and less). This taste-test came courtesy of maybe 100 or so state and/or county police in full riot gear just south of I-80 on Dubuque St. in Iowa City. The police state drew the line at the Interstate, which is, after all, the “Main Street of America.”
The riot police continued to shoot off canisters and flash bombs even with a young Black man on the ground having a seizure (an ambulance got him out of there as tear gas swirled overhead).
I had attempted to have a conversation with the assembled riot police about race, class, mass incarceration, militarized policing, and democracy with them but they wouldn’t utter a single word. These cop guys (all male and white) are just no fun at parties.
Their violence was unprovoked. There had been no violence from or by the protesters. Anyone who dares call it a riot needs to be clear: it was strictly a police riot.
“What’s with all the riot gear? We don’t see no riot here.”
Some “democracy.”
What did it (elicited repression) in this case was certainly the state cops’ determination to defend the Interstate at all cost.
Interstate traffic matters to the powers that be; Black lives, not so much.
But for the storm troopers blocking the marchers, this crowd would have easily halted and backed-up westbound I-80 as well as the eastbound side (as many of us did in November of 2016) and it would have been national news.
Hope for Change
These are dark times but hopeful ones too. The energy and courage of the new youthful activists is quite remarkable. I saw a young white woman walk straight up to the gendarmes and take a vicious pepper-spraying right into her face.
Young folks from coast to coast are becoming veteran street resisters. Iowa City, somewhat to my surprise, is no exception. The kids here ID’d medics, did good parade/march control, had excellent coordinated chants, watched out for each other, were masked up, passed out masks, passed out water, had lots of water on hand. It was very impressive and instructive.
This is history in the making.
Beyond Academic Pretense
You do not have to agree with the protesters’ values and/or tactics, of course. I obviously do and make zero apologies for that — I am a human being with values, a world view, and a politics with feelings and allegiances.
Academics’ common pretense of being above values, world view, politics, and “ideology” — of being dispassionate and purely “objective” Mandarins — is just that: pretense.
I am sensing (from whoever it is that keeps harassing me via the Dean of Students and the chair) the expectation for a “good professor” to be some kind of apolitical automaton, a value-free professional- -class cog living in a value-free dream world beyond feelings and commitments. That is absurd and, by the way, dystopian. It is a preposterous expectation, especially now. And it is foolish and cowardly for academics to play along with that expectation.
The best thing an academic can do is make their commitments and values reasonably evident so students can control for them if they feel the need to do so. If you are a professor who thinks corporation capitalism and global empire and militarized policing and racially disparate mass incarceration and savage class and racial inequality and patriarchy and ecocide are just fine and/or that people who rise up angrily and passionately against these oppression structures are misguided, perhaps even dangerous, fools, well, that’s your right Goddess knows, but at least be up front up about it.
Make your values and commitments known. But please do not pretend to be “above it all,” on some purely “objective” (a myth) perch.
Different Trajectories
These are fateful times. We are in a “fulcrum moment” (to steal a phrase from Truthout writer William Rivers-Pitt) that makes neutrality difficult (to say the least) and silence a form of complicity. We will move forward with struggles for democracy, social justice, economic equality, racial equality, gender equality, peace, de-militarization (of the federal government as well as the local police) or we will drift ever further into the nefarious clutches of 21st century Trumpian neofascism, ethno-nationalism, and arch-authoritarianism with a police state on our necks.
If you ask me, it’s socialism or fascism.
Petty Harassment
I repeat for the 20th time that values and world view are grade-neutral in this class. There is, I repeat, no grade penalty, none, for disagreeing with the instructor and/or his assigned authors. There is no grade boost, none, for agreeing with him and/or his assigned authors. Any assertion to the contrary is pure and simple misrepresentation.
The repeated claim that I am “unreachable” is false: pstreet1@XXX.edu; paul.street99@gmail.com. Also false is the claim that I have downgraded anybody for their political values. Please cease and desist from the harassment. I really would like to avoid having to spend more time on a computer filing a harassment charge in a time when remarkable and fateful events are underway in the United States and the world, demanding our serious and adult attention. So please stop.
We have real history to attend to right now as this quarter is ending in a moment of (to be frank) national and global crisis.
New Writing Option
Here is an additional/new essay option for Part 1 of the Final Paper:
“Have you participated in any of the many protests that have followed the murder of the 46-year-old Black man George Floyd by Minneapolis police on May 26, 2020? If so, briefly relate the events you participated in and then situate them within the history of earlier protest waves and social movements in the history of Midwestern Metropolis and the United States. Mention at least three other such waves. What have these movements’ (including the current one) goals been? What sort of tactics have they used? What responses have they elicited from the ‘forces of order’? How do you explain the rapid spread and intensity of the current ‘Say His Name’ uprising?”
Whitewash
Iowa City’s city hall and police department’s windows were boarded up behind big concrete blockades that still bore protest graffiti when I looked at 8 this morning – as if the peaceful protesters were going to attack the building. They have never posed the slightest threat of doing any such thing.
Early this morning, in downtown Iowa City, on the University of Iowa Campus, and all along the march route up to the Interstate, dozens of white city and university workers and white business owners were out dutifully whitewashing history with high pressure water hoses and sponges. They were erasing the graffiti that young Black (and some white) taggers had spray-painted and chalked on the city’s and campuses’ buildings, streets, and signs: “BLM,” “I Can’t Breathe,” “Say His Name,” “ACAB,” “Brionna Taylor,” “F12,” “FTP,” “F*#k Trump,” “FAmerika,” and “Defund, Disarm, and Dismantle the Police State.”
The white whitewashers were working to toss visible signs of last night’s rebellion down George Orwell’s “memory hole” – the one I mentioned at the outset of this class in my opening (and sadly online) talk on “Why Study History?”
Postscript: A False Dichotomy
I see that XXX.edu has said you can do a Grade Freeze for the rest of this quarter. That’s pretty damn nice of them. If you can take your grade as it is and join a popular movement (perhaps you already have), that’s all for the good. “Philosophers,” the young Marx wrote, “have sought to understand history; the point is to change it.” That was an eloquent turn of phrase though it was plagued by a bit of a false dichotomy: (a) understanding history OR (b) changing history. It’s both. They go together, particularly when it comes to the matter of how and what direction you wish to change history.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests