Recent hype by the FBI concerning alleged "terrorist" attacks by a domestic group against media vehicles at the DNC protests led me to think, once again, about the role of the media in the debacle we know as the Bush Administration and its terrorist war against liberty, rights, Muslims and Arabs. While I suspect that the FBI's allegations are bogus and just another example of the paranoia they seek to provoke, I mused over another interpretation of the allegations. Since the word "terrorist" is often used by states as a term to smear freedom fighters, let's attempt to reverse engineer the FBI's PsyOps attempt with regard to their press release.
Anti-Media
Terrorism at the DNC or
FBI PsyOps, Disinformation and Paranoia Mongering?
Author: X
Recent hype by the FBI concerning alleged "terrorist" attacks by a domestic group against media vehicles at the DNC protests led me to think, once again, about the role of the media in the debacle we know as the Bush Administration and its terrorist war against liberty, rights, Muslims and Arabs. While I suspect that the FBI's allegations are bogus and just another example of the paranoia they seek to provoke, I mused over another interpretation of the allegations. Since the word "terrorist" is often used by states as a term to smear freedom fighters, let's attempt to reverse engineer the FBI's PsyOps attempt with regard to their press release.
Not out of some desire to be kind to the FBI, but out of an attempt to take the middle path between the most extreme interpretations of the press release (i.e. either such an attack is planned or the FBI is publishing disinformation to increase the media's hostility to the anti-fascist movement), let's examine the possibility that there is a non-terrorist plan to confront or harass the media during the DNC. Would confronting or harassing the media during the DNC be justified?
State terrorism against protester.
Like millions of Americans, I watched the second jet crash into the WTC on 9/11. I was paralyzed before the television, watching the first tower burn, and as I saw the second jet impact the second building, it became clear that the WTC was under attack (i.e. the first event was not merely a fire or an accident). I realized, at that point, that our lives, in the short term, would change. I assumed that we would be at war and that the war would disrupt our normal lives. However, I did not make the specious leap that a terrorist attack of such enormous proportions demanded a suspension of our civil liberties. Unless one rejects the notion of rights altogether and regards freedoms as a privilege, an assumption that puts the government before the nature of what it is to be a human, one cannot, even for a moment, consider the possibility that what exists by nature (i.e. our rights) are subject to negotiation. My belief in the priority of rights is fundamentally American and it was this belief, shared by the founders of the United States, that led to the Declaration of Independence and a war against colonialist oppression.
On the other hand, the media did make this specious leap and did so within seconds of the second attack upon the WTC. This second attack was the first event that publicly made obvious that the first event at the WTC was no accident. Therefore, at the first instant that knowledge that an attack was underway, the media concluded immediately that "things would never be the same," that "Americans would need to sacrifice their liberty for security," and that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" (personally, I believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact: the assumption is that freedom takes precedence over life). It is not the case that just one news outlet or news network came to this conclusion immediately. The reality is that ALL of corporate media came to this same conclusion simultaneously and immediately. If the corporate media of the United States were engaged in free speech, then promulgating such an anti-free-speech position instantly upon an attack would be self defeating. The corporate media does not take steps that are antithetical to their well being. We can only conclude that the corporate media does not believe in free speech, never has believed in free speech, and act not to forward the interests of Americans but to forward the interests of those who would negate our cultural devotion to liberty (the corporatist class).
The corporatist media did nothing to expose the evils of the PATRIOT Act when it was being debated. The corporatist media has never taken congressmen to task for passing the PATRIOT Act unread. At every opportunity, the corporatist media has done all it can to play the role of apologist for the PATRIOT Act. Even their criticism of the PATRIOT Act, when it exists, is superficial and ignores the real issues (i.e. any opposition they have shown to the PATRIOT Act has been designed to marginalize and hide the real arguments against the PATRIOT Act). If we were to believe that the corporatist media was on the side of liberty, we would interpret this as a betrayal. However, the truth is that the corporatist media is not an organ of journalism and information at all. It is nothing more than a ruling class PsyOps organ that works to suppress understanding of reality. Its primary goal is to subvert liberty by subverting the public's ability to understand, identify and respond to threats against liberty. For those of us who put liberty first, the corporatist media can only be identified as an enemy.
The corporatist media did all it could to put torture as a legitimate means of obtaining information on the table. It debated it on the air as if such a topic was subject to debate. It lent legitimacy to the concept by putting it on the table. When the media then turned around and exposed, as if with surprise, the crimes against humanity waged by the US Government upon innocent Iraqis and Afghani's held in detention, it spun its statements with rhetoric about why it just might have been necessary.
During the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the corporatist media did everything it could to push uncritically government lies about connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, deceive the public about the size of the antiwar movement (even to the point of pointing their cameras only at the fringes of protests to create the illusion that the protests were small), promulgate false and bizarre Pentagon announcements about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and silence all debate about whether a war of unprovoked aggression is justified.
During the war in Iraq, the US media volunteered its journalists to be agents of the state propaganda machine, embedding their journalists within the US military. Fox News presented what seemed to me to be clearly bogus interviews on or near the battlefield. The disinformation flowed profusely and the media was more than happy to whore itself to the Pentagon and sell the war. Later, when the lies of the Bush Regime became undeniable, the media feigned embarrassment.
Such media is not an ally of the American people. It is an enemy of the American people. Dissidents would be absolute fools to court the media during protests and perform for corporatist cameras. It would be far more intelligent and beneficial to the American people for dissidents to confront the media at demonstrations, make the statist whores feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, and to dismiss the notion that the corporatist media can be used as a tool of dissent. The corporatist media controls the horizontal and the vertical. The best you can do when face to face with the corporatist media is to raise a middle finger in defiance, for THEY ARE THE ENEMY.
State terrorists prepare to terrorize protesters.
Once again, we see the FBI sending out reports about planned "acts of terrorism." Once again, the FBI is blaming protesters and characterizing dissidents as terrorists. It would be foolish to dismiss this as nothing more than overprotective and concerned FBI seeking to protect Americans. The FBI has never protected Americans and the FBI does not exist to protect Americans. The FBI's rhetoric about why it exists and what it does is just that: rhetoric. Just as the KGB did not exist to protect the people of the USSR, the FBI does not exist to protect the people of the USA. The actual purpose of the FBI is to act as the enforcer for the government mafia. In this role, it specializes in harassing Americans, denying Americans of their rights, framing Americans and promulgating the belief that danger is around every corner, the goal of which is to justify its reign of terror. There is nothing more un-American than the FBI.
The FBI does not stop terrorism. It does not even fight against terrorism. The first WTC attack in the early 1990's, the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of 9/11 all happened because the FBI let them happen. The FBI has no interest in stopping terrorist events. The opposite is true. The FBI's budget increases, its freedom to violate the Constitution increases, and its ability to terrorize the American people increases with every successful act of terrorism. When the FBI appears to have stopped a "terrorist event" (something that nearly never happens), what they actually do is falsely accuse some dissident, Muslim or Arab of terrorism. The press jumps upon the bandwagon whenever such a report spews forth and does little to cover the eventual and certain later reports that the "terrorist" was not a terrorist at all. By letting real terrorism occur and falsely labeling non-terrorists as "terrorists" the FBI increases the perceived number of terrorists and benefits from the farce.
The real face of the FBI can be seen in what we learned of earlier FBI COINTELPRO. Once again, the FBI is engaged in COINTELPRO, only this time they have more technology in their hands and an Attorney General that would have given Hitler a hard-on.
State terrorists attack protester.
The FBI, as an enforcer of the statist mafia, is exhibiting the height of hypocrisy when it screams "terrorist!" at dissidents alleged to be engaged in plans to attack the media. Many media organizations have charged the US Government with deliberately targeting journalists during the war on Iraq. This targeting has included dropping bombs on media headquarters, shooting missiles into media buildings and locations where journalists are known to be housed, detaining, threatening and beating journalists and murdering journalists. If these acts by the US Government are not an example of terrorism, exactly what is terrorism?
US Weapons of Mass Destruction Fall on Baghdad
In addition to terrorizing the foreign media, the US Government has been exploding to pieces Iraqis celebrating weddings, dropping massive bombs on Iraqi civilians, torturing prisoners, raping women and children in US prisons in Iraq and possibly beheading Americans in Iraq for PsyOps purposes. Such a government can only be described as terrorist.
State terrorists look for victims.
On the off chance that someone is planning to violently attack the media, let me point out that it would be against the interests of dissidents to use violence for anything other than self defense against an immediate threat of violence. When violence is used for any reason other than immediate self defense, it becomes a justification for increased repression. Law enforcement depends upon irrational acts of violence to justify its budget and attempt to justify its encroachment upon our freedom. Acts of violence designed as "propaganda of the deed," increase repression. We do not need more repression. We need less repression. Removal of oppression requires removal of the state but you will not win against the state by using the state's means (i.e. violence) for the state has you outgunned. You can only win against the state by (1) weakening the public's belief that there is need for a state and (2) providing alternatives to the state.
An Intelligent Approach to Resisting The Media WhoresAn intelligent approach to resisting the media whores is to make it impossible for them to catch the images and sounds they seek to record and broadcast. Since only by unprovoked violence can you stop them from filming or recording, some other method must be sought. That other method is easier than violence. Surround the media, taunt the media incessantly placing into the eyes of their cameras and the ears of their microphones the message that they are liars, agents of the government, distorters of truth and enemies of freedom. Just what is the media to do with such footage? Use your liberties to impede the media's attempt to distort reality.
Wound inflicted by state terrorist.
The FBI seems to be more paranoid about what will happen in Boston during the DNC than they are about what will happen in New York City during the RNC. This is because Boston is the home of the modern concept of DisOrganized Resistance. DisOrganized Resistance, as a concept, emerged from Boston where it has more believers than other parts of the United States. Boston had the nation's first self described DisOrganized Resistance movement which occupied Harvard Square from mid-summer 2003 until November of 2003. The FBI was so concerned about this nascent movement that they attempted to infiltrate it and spent a very large amount of money attempting to discredit it through disinformation, libel, harassment and attempts at harassment. While they succeeded in slowing down the first group of DisOrganized resisters, they failed to stop the spread of the DisOrganized Resistance meme, which has no doubt evolved since then and is now embraced by many more groups and individuals.
Since DisOrganized Resistance is explicitly designed to undermine the ability of organizations such as the FBI to squelch it, and since there will, without doubt, be DisOrganized Resistance in the Boston, the FBI has less of a handle on just what the anti-DNC protests will be like than it has on what the anti-RNC protests will be like. Furthermore, it is impossible for the FBI to learn what will happen in Boston ahead of time because no one knows what will happen in Boston ahead of time. DisOrganized Resisters do not share their plans with others and do not coordinate with others. Consequently, there is no way for anyone to know what will happen during the protests - not even the DisOrganized resisters know and this is as it should be.
What is more American, from an ideological perspective, than individuals and organizations doing what they wish to, within their rights, and not reporting that information to the FBI? Why should the FBI know what will happen during the anti-DNC protests? Why should the plans of individuals engaged in behavior that they are entitled to engage in, by right, be any of the business of the FBI? Has the FBI been appointed supreme dictator over the people of Boston? If it has, then it should be abolished.
DisOrganization is nothing new to New England. The original uprising against the British was not organized. New England towns, by and large, are ruled by a form of direct democracy known as the "town meeting." Even physically, New England is an entangled disorganization of transportation lines and communities. It is no coincidence that Boston was the sight of one of the largest (and certainly most effective) anti-Ashcroft protests. While many organizations take credit for "organizing" the protest, it was the DisOrganized Resistance that designed, published and disseminated a call to attend, passing out leaflets, without communication with or coordination with these organizations. Indeed, when I showed up at the protests, a very large number of individuals told me that it was our (the DisOrganized Resistance's) leaflets that brought them there.
DisOrganized Resistance is not an organization (obviously). It is not a terrorist movement. It is modern approach to resistance rooted in our right to free expression. That it terrifies the FBI is merely proof that the FBI hates our freedom.
Original: Anti-Media Terrorism at the DNC?