THE SOUND AND THE FURY

In this Establishment media article published in THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Bruce Chapman reveals the deepening sense of discomfort being experienced by mainstream culture as they begin to realize that the anti-globalization politics and call for greater social justice and democracy which erupted in Seattle, DC and Philly may not be disconnected, isolated incidents.

As they connect the dots, they are beginning to openly worry, blame, and react.

The recent tracking and arrest of Ruckus Society's John Sellers in Philadelphia may reveal how this reaction is creating an increased sense of permisability for the US Law Enforcement community to deploy old-school COINTELPRO tactics against movement leadership.

Chapman's article describes Seattle/ Philly/ LA activists as "rioters" who "plan mayhem," "have a common public relations line," and "given any opportunity" will "morph" their actions "into acts of violence."

This is an important article that may demonstrate what Noam Chomsky has called the "crisis of democracy"--the fear and discomfort experienced by those in power when the common citizenry organize to participate more directly in political decision making and communications.

The war of the words has begun.

But let ours be a "propaganda of deed." By forcing into greater public awareness the ways that corporate interests degrade our democracy and our lives, let us continue to organize, continue to speak out, continue to increase the level of discomfort of the two-wing business party and the corporate media that enforce it. Their "crisis of democracy" is a sign that our demands for greater democracy, for greater social justice, and against the myriad ways that globalization effect our everyday lives are, in fact, gaining power.

Obsessed with profit and commercialicism, they see people as consumers, not citizens; as markets, not as movements. They are worried because this is not be a crisis that the market can fix--a point we will demonstrate with increasing volume, beauty, laughter, love, and power in the streets of LA, outside the NAB convention in San Francisco, and in Prague.

--DJ Thomas Paine, IMC Volunteer



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

L E S S O N S O F R I O T I N G

Look to the Funders Behind the Riots

by Bruce Chapman

The Washington Times (Still owned by Rev. Moon?)

August 7, 2000

Protest groups that trashed Seattle during the WTO meetings last December have now tried violently to disrupt the Republican Convention in Philadelphia. Plans are underway for still bigger civil disturbances at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. An International Monetary Fund meeting in Prague in September is slated for yet another riot. But there still has been no public recognition that these events have a common organizing and funding background. And no one is holding the behind-the-scenes planners and funders accountable.

The modus operandi among the protests since Seattle is consistent-a kind of scripted chaos--as is participation by such relatively new groups as Direct Action Network, Global Exchange and Rainforest Action Network. There are always advance "training sessions" that plan the mayhem, secretive cell-like "affinity groups" that implement the planning, masks (so it is hard for the police to blame anyone in particular), defense lawyers on the scene, and even the larger-than-life-size puppets and the bongo drums. Also

consistent is the amalgam of ostensible causes, of which "globalization" is always key.

The rioters likewise have a common public relations line. Initially, they pledge to be "peaceful." Then, they it

be known that they will "only" sponsor acts of "civil disobedience and direct action." They would have you believe that such tactics blocking intersections, trespassing on private property, forcibly keeping delegates out of their meetings and infiltrating conference proceedings to shout down speakers is ethical and legal.

Given any opportunity, these direct actions morph into the acts violence and property damage the protest organizers claimed at first to oppose: assaulting police, breaking windows, throwing paint. Regardless of how hard local authorities try to placate them in advance, the protestors purport to find the local police (everywhere) to be uncommonly "brutal".

Something new in Los Angeles is the planned disruption of transit service in the metro area. City Council members already are complaining about the unexpectedly high level of security the city will have to provide the Democrats. That figure is nearing million two weeks before the event and some folks are questioning the decision to invite the convention there in the first place.

Crucially, there appears to be a bright thread through the funding apparatus: the California-based, tax-exempt Foundation for Deep Ecology, and (at the same Sausalito address), the International Forum on Globalization. The Forum is an umbrella group for 55 organizations opposed to globalization and high technology. The donor behind the foundation and the main donor behind the Forum is Douglas Tompkins.

He is a businessman who nurses an intense anger at modern technology and international trade. Several Tompkins-funded groups-including the Rainforest Action Network that engages in civil disobedience "direct action"-are signatories to an anti-computer, anti-trade screed that appeared recently as an ad in the Sunday New York Times.

In 1998 alone, Tompkins provided the Forum with 0,000 dollars. The Forum's website says the group "focused its efforts throughout most of 1999 on the WTO." And while some of its work is just research and conferencing, one of its ominous goals is "disrupting corporate rule." In 1998, Tompkins also gave 0,000 to the civil disobedience outfit, Rainforest Action Network. It would be useful to know what funds he gave in 1999 and 2000.

Tompkins made his fortune, ironically, in the highly trade-dependent field of recreational apparel. He was a founder of North Face and Esprit brands, and from his profits out of those companies he put at least 0 million into his Foundation on Deep Ecology. This foundation's 1998 IRS report reflected past dealings with Global Exchange, a behind-the-scenes force in Seattle and one of the groups organizing events in Los Angeles next month.

The co-founder of Global Exchange, Juliette Becker, 27, was profiled in The New Yorker recently, photographed as a kind of ingenue. But Becker is not nae. She relishes her role in creation of Direct Action Network, a key coordinator of the Seattle protests and connected to both the upcoming political convention protests. As William Finnegan of The New Yorker put it, "The shutdown of the Seattle Ministerial would never

have happened without the emergence of and efforts of the Direct Action Network."

Tompkins himself lives in semi-seclusion in Chile where he has created an "ecological park" the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. According to The Atlantic Monthly, he makes tireless efforts to keep others away from his vast preserve and to move out residents already there. Quoted in The London Sunday Times, he rails against "the runaway train of the global economy and its handmaidens-cyber-technology and a lethal cocktail of other clusters of technologies, such as television, satellite communications, virtual computation and especially the avalanching and cascading effect e-commerce will have on the economy."

Lots of other people have criticisms of technology and the global economy, of course. Whether they are right or wrong, it is entirely proper to debate their views in the public arena. They also are entitled to hold peaceful demonstrations. But rich utopians like Tompkins do not have the right to use tax exempt funds to finance groups that set out to break the law.

Much has been made in Seattle of the unpaid security bill left over from the WTO riots. But instead of investigating the rioters and their financial backers, the Seattle City Council set up investigations of the police department and the business leaders who invited the WTO to town. That mistake is the biggest lesson Seattle has to offer other cities.

The US Justice Department seems to have been lax so far. Perhaps, therefore, it is time for Congress and the media to investigate the rioters-and for cities like Seattle, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and soon, LA, to send their security bills to the wealthy individuals who made the riots financially possible.

Bruce Chapman is president of the Discovery Institute, and a former US Ambassadors to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna.

from The Washington Times August 7, 2000

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



"May the joy of rebellion

keep filling the streets

of all the continents."

--Subcomandante Marcos, EZLN

This is a very interesting article. One of its most telling aspects is that a mouthpiece for the establishment is coloring the movement as being run by a few grand conspirators with an overall master plan. It's as if they are actually taking us seriously enough to imagine that our conspiratorial power is a potential threat to their's. Well, in fact it is, but of course they can't imagine any other form of organization than that demonstrated by their plutocratic top-down management styles, so they portray some of us as little bosses cut out of their own mold.

As alternative media blossoms, they will have to actually "compete in the marketplace of ideas." And for all their talk of free markets, the ruling class hates that kind of competition.

Viva la IMC

Viva las puppetistas!

Chapman's cheeky arguement rests on one fallacy, which is that Seattle, DC or Philly were 'riots'. The fact, supported by endless feet of tape and personal accounts is that the protestors were true to their word; peaceful.

To publish such an article, in direct conflict with the paper's own massive pile of evidence, shows their true color...(yellow)

I emailed this letter to the editor of the Washington Times in response. Someone in DC--please let me know if they print it, and how they edit it!

--------------- letter -----------

Mr. Chapman's recent essay, "Lessons of Rioting", was highly inaccurate and terribly misleading. As a physician, I was in Philly from July 29 to August 2--as a participant in the marches and a medical observer in the "direct action" non-violent protests.

The first sentence, in which he claims the protesters "violently tried to disrupt" the Republican Convention, is completely false. The story goes downhill from there.

On July 29th, roughly 3,000 people marched for healthcare reform. Nader spoke to them. On the 30th, 20,000 marched for social and economic justice issues. On the 31st, another 3,000 marched against the "war on the poor." All of these events were absolutely peaceful and inspiring.

August 1 was "direct action" non-violent protests against capital punishment and police brutality. As a medical observer, I was in the hottest part of the action all day. A few hundred people who wanted to make a stronger statement of their beliefs linked arms at various locations and sat down blocking traffic and awaited arrest. Call it "annoying", or "illegal", but that's not "violent".

When one blockade, late in the day, was ending, an impromptu march started through the streets. It was peaceful until the police caught up and started cracking heads. I saw some protesters push to get away from police who were attacking them. I never saw any protester attack any person, including police. Never. I did see some graffiti.

Journalists who misrepresent the facts about Seattle, DC, and Philly do a great disservice to their readers. This is an important, nonviolent movement, but it would be hard to know it from mainstream "reporting." Stop by my web page for photos and links: www.net-link.net/~stahlhut

Richard Stahlhut MD

Kalamazoo MI