COINTELPRO has a new name in the North East. They call it "feuding." Next thing you know, they'll call rape "what she had coming to her."
According to literature on stalking, a common phenomenon that victims of stalking, especially cyber stalking, experience is the presumption by many that they are at fault for the stalking. This was once a common misconception with the crime of rape as well. This misconception persists in much of the activist community. The area where the phenomenon seems least understood is in the North East of the U.S.
In order to prove the lunacy of the this phenomenon, I propose a thought experiment. Let us suppose that a woman is walking down the street. She has pinned to her back and upside-down American flag as a form of protest. A group of right-wing men see her and are angered by her display. They decide to teach her a lesson. Among the group of men are police officers and private individuals.
The men grab the woman, toss her behind a bush and gang rape her. She goes to the local police department to complain, but they do nothing because their own officers are involved in the rape. With no recourse left, she writes about what happened to her. The gang rapists respond calling the incident a private feud. By calling it a feud, they equate themselves with the victim. The ethical logic they wish readers to adopt is that there are two equal parties in a dispute and that everyone should just remove any articles about the event. The only party the benefits from this is the party of gang rapists.
COINTELPRO is not new to the United States. It has been going on for about half a century. The Internet, however, is new. It adds a new dimension where government agents can act as thugs, anonymously. They can pose as activists online. In that role they can shape the perception of real activists by speaking of their own point of view (their desired way of looking at events and people) using the first person plural "we." This has the sociological effect of creating a false sense of consensus. Activists falling for this trap become pawns for COINTELPRO and inflict damage upon their own.
Nowhere I have seen this manifested with greater vigor than on the IndyMedia websites of the North Eastern United States. Specifically, no where is it worse than in Boston and New York. Next in line is Washington D.C.
In fact, I have provided not only evidence of police use of Boston IMC in the past, but obtained the confession of a police officer posing online as an activist. Despite this, Boston IMC continues to do its best to promote the equality fallacy. Some prominent "anarchists," Chuck Munson of InfoShop, for example, parrot verbatim the accusations of the COINTELPRO trolls. This is very disturbing.
There is no equality between rape victims and gang rapists and there is no equality between victims of COINTELPRO and COINTELPRO. If some members of the community do not believe that COINTELPRO is involved, then we must ask ourselves why? Do they have inside knowledge? If they do, then are they participants? If they are participants, then are they really activists?
Inquiring minds want to know. What I do know is that the police are involved. I know this because I spent many hours in Harvard Square with an "activist" who turned out to be a police officer. If anyone is working with this "activist", they are working with the police.