By the time I arrived at 8:30, all the most exciting events of the day had already occurred. Joe Turner had already been arrested (a rumor later confirmed by an AP report), and some verbal conflicts that had developed into shoving matches had already been quelled. But this was a rally like none other. I had heard reports about the two opposing sides coming into close contact before, at BP I and Alhambra, but they always depicted a negative view of the interaction. At this rally, however, I was thrilled to overhear numerous engagements, conversations, and dialogues, and was glad to have the chance to participate in a few myself. At certain points, interaction between groups and individuals did take the ugly turn down the path of shouting, name-calling, and baiting. But on the whole I heard much more genuine exchange than I have ever heard at any such event.

While many activists have extolled the pleasures of joining together for political self-expression, there is a unique and interesting dynamic at immigration-centered actions. Nobody ever seems to be sure exactly what is going on. Some people have an agenda and a message, and take advantage of the gathering and commotion to further it. Other people seem to want to engage in debate, dialogue, and networking, while others seem content to stand back and observe or to make a silent statement with a sign. While many of us are now veterans of several engagements, there continues to be new people with the same questions at each rally. Some of us have gotten to know each other and even learned to get along. There is deep bitterness between others. People photograph and videorecord each other, eavesdrop on each other's debates, waiting to become offended enough to pipe up. And that's how people begin the conversations and debates that, hopefully, allow them to exchange a few ideas.

This time, Save Our State, an internet-based anti-illegal immigration group active in the greater LA area, had set their sights on a day labor center across the street from the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale. After a traffic-free drive through the crystal-clear morning, I was surprised to see so many people as I looked for a parking spot. There had been so few at the last protest-counterprotest duo I attended in Laguna Beach.

Quickly making a sign, ("Work is a Human Right"), I took a spot on a curb beside a young woman wearing a Border Patrol baseball cap. She informed me that originally, SOS had taken up a position on the sidewalk in front of the Home Depot, and the counterdemonstrators had posted up in front of the day labor center and on the opposite corner, which was home to a bar or restaurant. SOS members and supporters then crossed the street, she continued, provoking some of their opponents to also cross the street, "And now everybody's all mixed up." I thanked her for the information and began observing the scene.

Indeed, in the three areas making up the protest/counterprotest area, anti-illegal immigration activists were fairly well intermingled with anti-racist and pro-labor activists, although again I'd say we outnumbered them from about three or four-to-one. There was also a sizable press contingency. A group made up predominantly of day laborers dominated the corner nearest the Home Depot, and the Mexica Movement took up a defensive position in front of the center itself. The opposite corner, where I found myself most of the time, seemed to enjoy the most diversity of opinion. I saw members of CARECEN, Save Our State, the ISO, the Freedom Socialist Party/Radical Women, the National Lawyers Guild, the CCIR, and the Minutemen. There were also priests, youngsters, and college students.

The first person I spoke to was a former Navy man who had struggled with bouts of unemployment. He explained to me why he was there. "The funny thing here is, is that we have a thing called laws. And everybody has to obey them. Have you ever filled out a job application before?" I nodded in silent assent. "Then you've probably filled out these two forms called a W-2 and an I-9." He thumbed through a small stack of papers, eventually producing a five-page stapled document. "I didn't write this; this is from a government website." The first page was a warning to employers about the necessity of assuring that their employees have the legal right to work in the U.S. It went on to enumerate the penalties for breaking federal labor laws.

The next three pages were those infamous IRS forms, and the final page was a two-column list. Column A was a list of "Secure Borders URLs", and Column B was a list of "Open Borders URLS".

I must admit that I admire anyone with a DIY independent spirit, especially those in media production. I have at times produced my own fliers and pamphlets, and recognize and appreciate the effort it requires. So I engaged this "BorderRaven", a name used in the document and presumably the man's internet handle, in a discussion. He harped on "law breaking-immigrants", whose children "we taxpayers" must educate and whose medical emergencies "we" must pay for. I asked him if he thought it was just or humane to deny people education and health care. Again, he attempted to tally the economic costs to the taxpayer, arguing that they far outweighed the benefits of cheap labor, agricultural or otherwise. He estimated that if the state's expenditures on the incarceration, education, and medical treatment of illegal immigrants were tallied, totaled, and added to the the average person's cotidian grocery purchases, a head of lettuce would cost four to five dollars. He admitted that he had no proof or research on this figure, but used the example to illustrate the "hidden cost" of illegal immigration.

Certain of his rhetorical victory, he turned his attention to the counterdemonstrators. "I've tried to talk to them, but if you don't say what they want to hear, they turn around and walk away." "I'm not a politician," he continued, "so I don't tell them what they want to hear. And they can't handle it."

Sometimes I wish I wasn't the polite, respectful young man my mother raised me to be. Then I could interrupt people without feeling bad about it. Because by this time, my head was already racing with so many thought, ideas, refutations, and counterpoints, that I didn't even know where to begin. So I began by explaining my opinion that things as basic as health and education are human rights, and we ought to be fighting to extend those rights rather than to limit them. Then I turned to what I viewed as the crux of the matter: simple economics. "The problem, as I see it, is limited resources and unlimited wants." I was just getting my wind when he interrupted me. He talked about his troubles staying employed after being discharged from the navy, his view of temp agencies (they're just a step above slave labor), and a seemingly endless list of complaints, red herrings, and non sequiturs. I realized I was not dealing with someone that wanted a genuine dialogue. So when he finally ceded the floor back to me, I briefly made my point about this anti-illegal immigrant struggle really being a fight over scarce resources, and how, since we are beings possessed not only of reason but also of empathy, we ought to do the best we can to fairly distribute resources to assuage poverty and suffering. And with that, he turned around and walked away.

Then I ran into some acquaintances from a socialist organization. We chatted a bit, and I asked if they had seen "Uncle Joe" Turner, the founder and exective of SOS. "He got arrested!", they reported. "No way, for what?" "I think he was throwing water bottles at day laborers."

Just then Don Silva, better known as OldPreach, passed by. "Look what the cat dragged in," he greeted, extending his hand. I asked him if Turner was around. "He got taken away." "Oh really?", I pried. He explained, "There was some shoving earlier, and he kinda elbowed someone back, and the cops were all over him." He seemed a bit worried that if I was seen speaking with him, I might be viewed as a "traitor" or "vendido", but he continued. "It doesn't matter how many times I tell the other side that at events like this, they do our work for us. The fifteen or twenty of us here could have never shut down this center. And normally, this place is very active. I've staked it out before. But since you guys all came, there's only been one pickup. All we wanted to do was shut down the center. And you did it for us."

I tried to explain my rationale: "I think most of the people here see it as a necessary sacrifice: the jornaleros miss a day of work, but we continue to show our strong opposition and get the chance to articulate our points to the media." As was often the case during the day, tumult cut our conversation short. I would have liked to elaborate on why else it was worth it to counterprotest them, but will have to wait to the end of this article.

I spoke with some other day laborer supporters, sharing battle stories from rallies past. The feeling of solidarity with othr activists, especially those who are movement veterans, is unparalleled. I take heart in their lifelong dedication. It gives lie to the belief that idealism is confined to the young mind. There are plenty of people of all ages who remain active in the struggle despite setbacks and ageism. I can never take the argument, "You may think so now, but you'll change your mind when your older" seriously, having met some of the people I have at these rallies. I overheard it twice today, despite the fact that the average age of the crowd was much higher than at the Laguna Beach or the BP II rallies.

At that moment, musicians, one carrying a viguela and the other an accordion, crossed to the corner where I was standing. I couldn't abandon my conversation--I was discussing a book with an older socialist woman--but I could hear the music and longed to get nearer to it. Seising a brak in the conversation, I approached the ensemble just as a song ended. I followed them across the street so I could listen to the next one and photograph the performance. They crossed to the side where the Mexica Movement had made their stand. I just listened to the song, which was called "El Barrio", snapping a quick photo and enjoying the music. None of the Mexica Movement people gave me any trouble, and some even talked to me. (SOS contends that they are racist against white people. If that were truly the case, wouldn't they take opportunity to express their disdain for their presence among them? While my experience is in no way proof-positive, it does add to the anecdotal evidence refuting SOS' claims.)

I crossed back and spoke to a tall man who was waving a U.S. flag on a tall pole. He recognized me from Laguna Beach, so I asked him to confirm or deny a rumor I had heard. "Some of the people over there said that you don't believe in mixed-race marriages. Is that true?" He said it was absolutely false, since his wife was Mexican. When I asked if his wife supported the movement, he said, "She hates immigrants even more than I do!" I interpreted this statement to mean that he hated immigrants, so I asked him if that was the case. He was tripped up a bit, but eventually refined his statement to, "I hate that they're here". But it was too late. His Freudian slip had already revealed his true sentiments. I pushed the matter a little further. "What is it that you hate about their presence?," I asked. "This country is becoming like Mexico," he answered. "In what way? Because I've lived in East Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley, the Inland Empire, and Santa Barbara County, and its all America." He brought up graffiti. "Graffiti is an American problem," I answered. "The graffiti here does not compare in any way to the graffiti in Mexico. I may notice it more than you because I work in and have an eye for the visual arts, but if anything, they are more influenced by our styles. But is that it? Do you have any other examples?" He stood there silently.

After a few minutes, I realized that he he didn't intend to respond. I could tell the conversation was doomed, and so resolved to try to get one more piece of information. I basically asked him how he was informing himself. What books, journals, newspapers, and websites he was reading. When he didn't answer, I asked, "Have you read Mexifornia?" The look on his face was incredulous. It gave me the impression that he thought it was ridiculous that anyone would publish a book with that title. "You haven't heard of it? It's a fairly major work on the issue, and it was well-reviewed. It's written by a CSU Fresno professor who writes from the anti-illegal immigrant perspective. It came out a few years back (2003), so you might have missed it. But since you're out here on the front lines, I expected to be well-informed and your opinions to be based on reliable facts."

I wasn't trying to make him feel stupid. I just think the issue of "how we're informing ourselves" is absolutely crucial, and I was just trying to drive that home. A major study on illegal immigration was published this year (the Bears-Stearns Report), but I wonder how many of us who are active in the scene actually read it? Especially when people are out there in the streets and tensions get high.

By way of diversion, or perhaps to make his final point, he asked me about a sign across the street. "Does that offend you?" The sign read "All Europeans On This Continent Are Illegal Since 1492". "No," I answered. "And would it offend you if I said, "Go Back to Mexico?" "Yes," I responded. "And you don't see the double standard there?"

I could tell he was no longer in the mood to discuss, so I wasn't able to explain my view that the statement, though unenlightened, was understandable in the historical context of colonialism, and not personally offensive to me.

I met back up with the first man I spoke to. This time I asked him whether or not he thought his situation would have been different if the union had protected his job. He said that if he thought he could, he would make an international union in his field to prevent companies from simply changing countries. I explained that if these demonstrations are about preventing exploitation of migrant laborers, then we should be looking at solutions like international unions for imbalances in the labor market. He said, "Nice talking to you", and again walked away.

I ran into the Sandinator. After asking her how it was going, I said, "You know Sandi, the last time we talked on the boards, you called me a racist. I didn't appreciate that." She affirmed, explaining, "You just say some things that are too extreme sometimes, and you never back it up. Never." I answered, "I tend to be of the opinion that everybody has some racist ideas and additudes that are just part of socialization, and it's up to each of us to fight that kind of thinking within ourselves."

"Personal responsibility!" A middle-aged man, an SOS sympathizer had overheard us, and he usurped the chat. While we had a pretty good talk, we allowed it to get overly complicated at times. With him, too, I stressed the economic aspect of the day laborer question. He argued tha people should have be able to come here for opportunity, but that they should do it legally. He didn't show much sympathy when I countered, "when confronted with a question of life or death, breaking the law is worth the risk." He said it wasn't fair to all the people who immigrated legally, like his ancestors, but didn't have much response when I said, "then they should be able to cross through Tijuana instead of the desert." I asked him what he saw as the solution to the problem. He seemed keen on "personal freedom", which he tied to capitalism. He said that in America, we can work our way up. "But when you have nothing, your only resource is you labor," I said, gesturing across the street. He also did not seem to understand that the government and corporations suppress and have suppressed labor. "But the AFL-CIO is the major donor to the Democrat party? Why would they suppress labor? That's biting the hand that feeds them!" he said with a chuckle. I was not disappointed in his intelligence, but I felt that his perspective was strongly colored by his view of history, which I saw as a bit narrow. He was proud to have been educated in the days before "political correctness". Education even today neglects the history of the labor movement. He didn't seem to know what I meant when I mentioned the Ludlow massacre when he asked for an example of the suppression of labor. So I suppose I can't really blame him for that.

He was the last person I really got to speak to besides words of mutual encouragement between other anti-SOS activists, but on the way to my car I was surprised to find an old childhood friend of mine standing on the sidewalk and wondering what was going on. In this small world, he was working at a sign shop across from the Home Depot, and I used the chance to explain a little about what was going on and to get back in touch with him.

In previous reports I have lamented the lack of dialogue and exchange resulting from police separation of the "two sides". Without that separation, I can truly say that this was the most productive rally I've ever been to. There was a true unity of purpose. I firmly believe that when it comes down to it, we hold much more in common than we do in opposition. And I think the results were impressive. A solitary arrest out of an estimated 300-400 people is not a bad ratio. And I wasn't the only one talking and debating. I heard it going on all around me. There was also the chanting and yelling which has come to characterize any mass action. Most of the time, it was counterproductive, as it made it difficult to hear. But in total, I was quite encouraged by the turnout, the course of events, and the conversations I heard going on.

Rockero,
I have to say, you have made quite a reputation for yourself with SOS. Although I think that your attempt to find some sort of common ground with SOS is one of the most misguided attempts I have seen in all of this recent resurgence of anti-immigrant sentiment, it isn't my place to tell you what to do. If you feel that meeting and greeting those who you claim to stand against is the best way at dealing with the problem, go right ahead.
However, you claim in your title that both sides have some things in common. The truth is that nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact that both sides may be against certain issues related to the human condition, including being anti-war and anti-globalization, does not translate to having the same motivations and therefore the same political ideologies that can unite us.
My position is that human suffering transcends economics, something that you and SOS fail to recognize. Except for this last protest, I have been at every action against SOS, including the first couple where we had equal numbers as they did. To think that these people only have economics on their mind is completely ridiculous. Moreover, if you or anyone else actually believes that these fascists only target businesses who hire jornaler@s, then you either have never been to a protest or haven't been paying attention. If they were only targeting the employers, then they wouldn't spew garbage like "viva la migra" and "go home, vermin," comments that are racist and intentionally inflammatory.
By trying to make peace with them, all you do is to pacify their position. I for one could care less what they think of me and those who I work with in this effort. Let them lie in their own ignorance thinking that we are all uneducated and crazy. I'm not willing to "talk it out" as you put it. Oppressed folks in the U.S. have been kissing our colonizer's ass for way too long. There is no more talking or trying to make it better.

no peace.

I've wanted to meet Rockero since Laguna 3, but havne't had a chance yet. I also wanted to seek discussion from SOS's opposition and others, even from when I was in SOS. I think Rockero and I are on the same page in that we'd rather have civilized discussions rather than act like hooligans outside a Home Depot.

But you're right in what you're indicating with behavior. I've seen it first hand from SOS, Minuteman people, and Gilchrist campaign volunteers.

Now I realize after reading Rockero's report that there is someone else aware of Freudian slips, and boy have I heard some in my experience with the Gilchrist campaign!

Rock on Rockero.

Benji is a plant who outed Leslie Radford. Benji told SOS the photo of Leslie on SOS's "gallery of goons" on their website wasn't a photo of her but of someone else. Benji is a f'ing plant. He claims to be an anarchist but is probably working with law enforcement. Always be wary of scumbags who work both sides of the street.

he has outed quite a few of the allies. In his attempt to be friends with SOS, he has compromised the well being of many of us who already have to live in fear on a daily basis. Sexism and racism already plague our lives without help from those who say they are on our side. Don't make it worse by trusting this individual.

If they posted a photo and said it was Les and he said no that is not Leslie that does not give out information on Leslie it just negates a false piece of information which could have negative consequences.

Also, Rocko does not "work both sides" in these alleged sense of a "plant" he is someone who

(1) is open about what he is doing and
(2) tries to find common ground and establish dialogue
(3) is obviously a peace maker
(4) is relatively open about is identity

all of which

(5) suggests good faith.

Was Leslie incognito somehow? Maybe we could start a "where's Leslie" game.
Let's see....
She posts her own name, email address on this comment page, and on her articles. Doesn't seem to be hiding that I can see. But come to think of it, I have never seen her either.
Maybe L. Radford is really "El Radford"



They're onto yah, Jammer........

I'm working for the CIA.

< If they posted a photo and said it was Les and he said no that is not Leslie that does not give out information on Leslie >

Ah....yes, it does, moron.

< it just negates a false piece of information, which could have negative consequences >

Oh, okay I see....so if SOS were planning on killing Leslie, ol' Rockhead just made sure they got the right person. Uh, okay I get it, now.

Hey, Rockhead, here's an alternative: how about not saying anything at all on the subject. That ever cross your mind?

Hey, btw, I want to know what CAZAMIGRANTE and BORDER RAVEN look like and they're real names. Can't stand 'em, but I bet they're the same guy. I know who can hook me up. I know you can help me "out" here. You are fair to both sides like Check said a'intcha??

1st Hand I understand your point but I don't think you understand mine. There is a qualitative difference between negation and actually pointing out an affirmation of ID.

Secondly, you overlook the fact that Leslie is a totally above ground activist. You write as though she was a clandestine activist, which she is not. Perhaps you have been watching too many reruns of The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Third, the example you posted is not helpful to this issue. If you think that your political base, primarily college students, college washouts and jaded Noam Chomsky wannabe's, will benefit by the introduction of spurious images of "assassinations" you are gravely miscalculating the distribution of forces. Nothing that has ever been attributable to SOS supports that kind of imagery, which says more about what is going on in your mind than it does about SOS.

Fourth, Rockero has put his finger on some important aspects of this issue. Why does the so-called "left" support a system where the American worker is being reduced to working essentially scab labor with NO workman's comp, NO unemployment insurance, NO minimum wage, NO health insurance? That is what Home Depot is putting over on the American working class and the imc-aztlan nationalist alliance is being unwittingly manipulated (I didn't say "duped") into collaborating with this final nail in the coffin of the working class.

Rather than encourgaging a mushrooming population of hyperexploitable undocumented workers as direct competition with unionized American workers, IMC should be supporting an improvement of the dignity of labor...indocumentos who take shortcuts and sneak under the wire to scab on American workers do not represent anything progressive any more than workers who sneak in behind picket lines. IMHO.

I have responded to this accusation before, in the comment thread of my report on Laguna Beach III, and feel no need to respond to it again. And I don't really work for the CIA, although I could use an extra paycheck. I was just alluding to one of my heroes, Dr. Leary, who used to claim that he was an intelligence agent just to keep people guessing. As far as the Leslie controversy goes, if I did inadvertently negate a bit of information, how does that impinge on my credibility? And if anyone has reason to criticize my actions, it's Leslie. And since that affair, I have been much more careful, especially about personal information. When did I claim to be an anarchist? I have never claimed to be anything but a pacifist (apparently greenblack did his/her research on that, but the Leslie thing is the only scandal I've been involved in, so I don't know where he/she gets the idea that I've "outed several of the allies"). That said, I am here to help. You all have my e-mail address, so if you think I can help you, write me.
Rockero420
Hell I'll even put my URL up

Do us all a favor and read up on netiquette.This thread is an importnat process that may have some important ramifications in the field. Don;'t clutter it with your self indulgent off topic vanity posts.
==========================

For what it's worth, I didn't mind the reply about grafitti. Maybe that's just me.

Is this BorderRaven? Benji

I'm not going to get embroiled in the "Leslie" issue, but I have a couple explanations on the last two issues.

Not all the Left support illegal immigrants, but in LA, I think most people on the left are interested in international solidarity. Anarchists, have always supported the undocumented, and were often the ones who would try and organize the workers most hated by mainstream labor.

Regarding unions, I can't speak for the AFL-CIO, or AFL-CIO in LA, and I'm not even a member, but, as I understand it, right now, they are not taking their traditional anti-immigrant stance because it harms their ability to organize. Most of the working class in LA are people of color, and many have or have had family who may are undocumented. They go to church, and the church may have undocumented members. Being anti-immigrant or anti-illegal-immigrant creates unnecessary friction. Since taking this neutral position, union membership increased in Los Angeles, even as it declined in other cities. Within the City of LA, the unions were in the catbird seat, with two strongly pro-labor candidates.

Look at the sad state of labor today. Unions have organized something like 8% of the private sector. They're just hanging on for dear life. With numbers like that, you cannot negotiate. Yet that number keeps shrinking.

The last point is this: the IMC supports a range of positions. If people from the labor movement(s) put stuff up, they get highlighted. If there's debate or argument between the counter-protesters and labor, that's up too. The IMC is *not* a project that organizes demonstrations; it's a resource that dozens of people and groups use to get attention for their cause, to reach interested people, and to document what people accomplish. It helps others in organizing. It is a product of the global justice movement, and the protesters at the Seattle WTO ministerials, and that event still defines what the IMC is about.

I understand that more now and I'm appreciative that I can post information here. Totally aside from the border/immigration-against-US-immigration-laws issue, I feel that I have a lot of common ground with some people here. I've been largely out of touch with "global justice movement" until recently.

I'm not sure if I have much more to offer in terms of going public on Gilchrist. I'm now on a look out for who to contact.

Does anyone, in all honesty, recomend the Southern Poverty Law Center? I started reading up on their website and their articles on the Minuteman Project and the founders. I've noticed startling similarities in what I've read and what I've witnessed and experienced in person. So yeah, the SPLC has my attention. As long as they're based in Alabama and not an offshoot of the National Council of La Raza or something. Indeed, I won't talk to the ACLU for the most part, certainly not with a comprehensive testimony.

As for Univision, maybe. I wasn't ready at the KFI event, sorry whoever that Univision reporter was. It was my first ever experience with having anyone from the press really trying to get info from me. I didn't mean to put anyone at a tease. I had to tread carefully. I'm being thorough in this.

I didn't mean to go off topic, I guess this can relate as in "progress through dialogue with the SPLC." They may even be interested in what happened in Glendale.

Jammer, I think you're having a knee-jerk reaction to those two groups, due to the propaganda you're reading from the Right. The ACLU and NCLR are moderate liberal groups.

Rockero420, if you feel you can't call yourself an anarchist, but can openly label yourself a stoner, I guess it only reflects poorly on anarchists' ability to carry out the goals of peace, mutual aid, worker solidarity. Stay intoxicated, and peace.

"...would ideally like to live according to anarchist principles, living and participating in our society precludes my labelling myself in such a way. "

I'm not sure if that has to be the case Rockero, aren't there varying degrees to which one is an Anarchist?

As for ACLU, okay maybe I'll give them another look at. Didn't they organize the "Legal Observers" at the border? I witnessed some biased and mischeif conduct from them at the border at Jacumba.

Senor tu palabras no es verdad.
Not only did you gay bait bBenji, you labeled me with a string of false epithets such as Mexican hater anti-immigrant, I defy you to quote ANYTHING I have posted that supports any of that.

I merely suggested going easy on Rocko. You blew up waaaay out of proportion.

I even acknowleded there was some validity to your point. But rather than accept that and see the validity of my point, you turned around and made a personal attack on Benji and a false charge against me.

I quote:

Uh...I haven't counted the posts on this thread, but so far, the only person speaking up for you is anti-illegal immigration, mexican hater, and SOS supporter Check, and who is "he" your girlfriend?

That, my friend, is called HOMOPHOBIA and it is a species of HATE SPEECH.

BTW, are YOU Cazamigrante?

Check, Mate.

The events I "infiltrated" were public events, held in a public library and a community college campus, and both were open to the public.

BTW -- I am former military, not LEO.

And If you are posting a threat, against me, I'll have to take care of it also.

SPLC is disreputable.

Distorts, exagerates, misrepresents.

Rich.

I'm still reading up on them and a Gilchrist volunteer has offered to mail me some articles about the SPLC. I will still speak with them and some of the things in their articles about the Minuteman stuff are things I saw in person. Not the same particular incident but repeated elsewhere.

And they aren't the only people I'll speak with. I'm new at this so it may take some time. Infact it already has, but that's okay, no hurry.

For now, I suggest every single person involved with Gilchrist/Minuteman/SOS/CCIR read this and see if this rings similar to what you experience:

According to a report published in 2003 in the FBI Law Enforcement bulletin3, a hate group, if unimpeded, pass through seven successive stages of hate. In the first four stages, hate groups vocalize their beliefs and in the last three stages, they act on their beliefs. They point to a transition period that exists between verbal violence and acting that violence out, separating hard-core haters from rhetorical haters.
Stage 1: Grouping
Haters feel compelled to have others hate as they do. Through peer validation, they get a sense of self-worth and at the same time prevent introspection. Individuals that otherwise would be inefficient, become empowered when they form or join groups. In addition, groups provide a welcome anonymity in which to express their hate without being held accountable.
Stage 2: Self-definition
Hate groups create identities through symbols, mythologies, and rituals, designed to enhance the members' status and at the same time, degrade the object of their hate.
Stage 3: Disparaging the target
By verbally debasing the object of their hate, haters enhance their self-image, as well as their group status. Researchers have found that the more often a person thinks about aggression, the greater the chance for aggressive behavior to occur. Thus, after constant verbal denigration, haters progress to the next stage.
Stage 4: Taunting the target
Time cools the fire of hate forcing the hater to look inward. To avoid introspection, haters increase their use their rhetoric and violence to maintain high levels of agitation. Taunts and offensive gestures serve this purpose.
(Think CCIR, Barbara Coe, Terry Anderson, etc!)
Stage 5: Attacking without weapons
This stage is critical because it differentiates vocally abusive haters from physically abusive ones. Violence coalesces hate groups and isolates them from mainstream society. The element of thrill-seeking appears in this stage. The adrenaline "high" intoxicates the attackers. Each successive hate derived thought or action triggers a more violent response than the one that originally initiated the sequence. Anger builds on anger. Adrenaline-high combined with hate becomes a deadly combination.
Stage 6: Attacking with weapons
Stage 7: Destroying the target

I suggest anyone opposing the Minuteman/SOS/Gilchrist read that too. Just to make sure your reasoning is logical :-)

I've come to recognize the hateful and paranoid nature of SOS and CCIR. Even if it's not the intention by all the leaders and organizers, that is the overall effect. Same with the Gilchrist campaign to a certain degree. And the Minuteman people, from what I've seen. Especially from day labor protests, now that the herd mentality has worn off on me. Not to show off, but that kind of thing doesn't really last on me. And after this experience, it won't work on me in the first place. Count on it.

All that puffed up gobbledygook about stages is just some self important intellectual trying to create a grandiose sociological theory out of thin air.

If there were any scientific validity to all of that verbiage, it would apply as well to Mexica, La Voz de Aztlan and certain leftist formations.

Rather than sucking off of bourgeios police science, I suggest you read up on anarchist theory, French structualism and the critique of globalism.

All that stuff you are into is just liberal window dressing, It means nothing.

There is not predictable progression such as your FBI teachers claim. It is just made up to provide a legal theory to violate people's liberties.

The same reasoning can be directed against Black Uhuru, Indymedia, the RCP, etcetera. It has nothing to do with real praxis.

'liberal ' gobbeldegouk? From law enforcement documents?
Troll alarm
Troll alarm
Troll alarm
ding
ding
ding

When a radical uses the term "liberal", it's meant as an insult.

It's not a troll. S/he makes some very good points.

I don't think there's a progression either. SOS started out hateful. The MMP engaged in actions basically identical to those that the KKK did in the 1970s. They don't progress -- they revive past political arguments and actions, with presumably identical goals.

The "stages" argument talks about these groups like they are not conscious actors, and that they require a supervisorial "parent" to keep it from going bad (Jammer CC sees himself in this role, as well).

That's why it's "liberal."

Leslie has outed herself many times do a google search She teaches a class at pasadena city college. among others Check surrent the class catlouge for times and classes. Lives in an Apt on Keystone in LA. Her phone number pops up on a ZABA search.. Address, occupation, income, place of employment. hobbies, sexual orientation. Its all there because she has posted it. Somebody in the business of outing people should be more careful

critiquing specific people in an organization such as SOS seems to do nothing more than stroke your holier-than-thou intellect. can you actually discuss the issue at hand? if so, get back to me, i'd love to debate you.

I don't want to see any more outing where it involves someones' sexual orientation. It takes all the fun out of mischaracterizing them.
Some things are better left to one's imagination.