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
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
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.