Skip to content or view screen version

We Will Not Be Disrupted

Stroppyoldgit | 17.01.2011 02:34 | Repression

Disruption is one of the purposes of political policing and infiltration by the likes of Mark Kennedy and whoever Lyn and Marcos really are. As a counter to depression and disintegration, let’s look at how the pieces are falling from all this and think how to re-organise.

These destructors and their depraved controlling minds think they’re onto a “win-win”. With specific intelligence they may, and sometimes do, disrupt our activities directly, they can try to fragment us by sowing dissention, as Marcos apparently attempted, but if / when they are discovered they rely on us self-destructing through recrimination, mutual suspicion and internecine squabbling.

Is that’s what’s going to happen now? Is it fuck! Let’s not do that, eh..

So this is a call to arms
This is a call to legs
This is a call to brains

Sure, we have analysis to carry out and lessons to learn. Much of that is not going to happen on IM for Hugh Ordure and his ilk to lap up, so this is not a call to arseholes. It’s highly unlikely the last infiltrator has been rooted out, and there are bound to be new ones. How can we improve security whilst remaining open, because we have nothing to be ashamed of and everything to win?

It would be easy to get depressed in the current situation, to think we can’t trust anybody, to wonder if we can really achieve anything, to lose our future-orientation and determination to fight for the only planet we’ve got and for it to be free from all exploitation and oppression.

Paradoxically, a strong antidote to that and an important enhancement of security would be for us to trust and cherish each other more, to know ourselves and our comrades better, whilst being open to new people, new ideas and new inspiration. Above all, we need to discuss and understand our politics more deeply in a context where we’re never going to agree with each other about everything, but are bound together by a commitment to action, and to informing our ideas by, through and during what we do.

It’s significant that so many people who were close to Flash Mark, and shared many ventures, many stresses and many good times with him, now say things like “..but I never really had a political discussion with him”. We have been too readily infiltrated by taking our politics as read, or as signified by mere cultural superficialities.

Could the likes of Flash have remained unsuspected for so long if we’d had a more analytical and consciously transformative politics of direct action, without slipping into exclusivity or “right on” doctrine? Would he have been sussed much sooner against such a background? Not everyone has thought through their politics with equal clarity, of course, and some people are more instinctive than intellectual in their approach, but I can’t help feeling that Mark Kennedy’s fundamental motivations were never apparent because we don’t talk about such things as often or in such depth as we need to..


REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL

Many not to be, of course. On the shit side, there’s apparently people in Ireland who were sent down for possessing stuff Mark had supplied to them. People and networks in other countries may have been compromised. There needs to be a reckoning of all such damage and what, if anything, can now be done to repair it.

But on the jammy sandwich side, the powers of darkness have tripped over each other big time. The disruption, disintegration, unwelcome exposure and mutual recrimination frenzy they’ve managed to cause themselves is massive and will go on for some time. NPOIU, NETCU and their seedy mates are now hanging morosely round the Shit Creek Paddle Shop and may soon find the stock exhausted. We can also be quietly satisfied, though not complacent, that of the three infiltrators now confirmed (or virtually so in the case of Marcos), two of them came under heavy suspicion and disappeared. Only in the case of Kennedy was a stroke of luck required.

Certainly, there’s many bad aspect to all this, not least the hurt and distress some people are going through. But it’s not all bad by any means. We’re used to thinking and moving quicker than the cops on the streets and in the fields, to shifting, adapting and improvising while they stand around waiting to be told what to do. It’s one of our strengths, so let’s use it now and turn chaos into opportunity. Let’s fashion renewal and improvement out of Sir Hugh’s ordure.


P.S. The above is not the answer to everything. It’s meant to be just a start, and this may not be the best place to continue it.

Stroppyoldgit

Comments

Hide the following 17 comments

well said

17.01.2011 07:32

Thanks for this posting, which addresses some really important points. Probably the most imprtant ones we should be addressing at this time. It is likely that the Kennedy issue will cause at least as many problems for or movement(s) now through this recrimination, mutual suspicion and internecine squabbling than could be caused by the actual police spying and information gathering.

The role of the police/state organisations is to disrupt our movements, arguably this is their promary function as this is more effective than just stopping a few actions or nicking a few activists. So, the unmasking of Kennedy et al is a win for the police; if WE let it be so.

concerned


finally

17.01.2011 07:37

as usual the Old Git is spot on. We can be paralysed by rage, frustration and fear, or we can forward with love and defiance; adapting to what they throw at us but always caring for each other too. Nark K and his mates are the losers - and if you look at him now, you can see he knows it.

Johann Neve


Tell that to SHAC

17.01.2011 08:36

Get a grip on reality - if the state want to disrupt you and you give them the opportunity by stupid stunts then they will - very effectively - disrupt you.

Gotta be smart

@reality


Nice one

17.01.2011 09:58

Well said. Yes the state will disrupt, we will get hurt infiltrated etc but all we can do is minimise damage, learn from mistakes and keep calm and carry on. Stroppyold git is right in saying that we have to stand together. SHAC is not a good example compared to the Radcliffe defendants. SHAC was demonised successfully PRIOR to the raids of May 2007 so much so that even other activists believed the shite coming out of the mainstream press. If Radcliffe had been a SHAC action of course there would be no questions about civil liberties etc PC Kennedy would be lauded as some sort of hero something to ponder on and learn from perhaps i.e that the environmental movement must never allow itself to become demonised as the animal rights movement has and learn from past mistakes made.
Keep calm, regroup, carry on, never give up.

Lynn Sawyer


My point exactly......

17.01.2011 10:52

Lynn makes my point for me - the enviro movement need to be wary about thier more extreme actions - SHAC got up to all sorts of stupid criminal acts that allowed the press to villify and marginalise them.

Shutting down power stations is similar in nature and is not understood by the man in the street.

It also has to be said tha admitting the conspiracy and hoping the Jury will aquit as they agree with you aims was never gona work for ever - the wheels came off with the Ratcliffe 20 - hopfully the Kennedy / Stone affair will dsitract all attention away from that!

@reality


good points

17.01.2011 11:52

well said stroppyoldgit. A refreshingly forward-looking view, much more constructive than lots of the paranoid headbanging that sometimes appears here!

cleveland steamer


@@reality

17.01.2011 11:54

are you a cop or something?

SHAC didn't get up to "all sorts of stupid criminal acts" - they were and still are a legal organisation.

Some people in SHAC were stitched up with vague conspiracy and blackmail charges - not for doing anything illegal themselves, but just for running the campaign.

It is true that other individuals did commit criminal acts with similar goals in mind to SHAC, but they weren't stupid acts. Huntingdon Life Sciences are serious animal abusing scum and deserve all they get. I think most people would agree that people involved in things like torturing beagles to death by feeding them toxic chemicals are getting off extremely lightly by just having their windows put through, their homes graffitied and their cars torched. These people are absolute scum.

Here is a link to what Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty are campaigning against:  http://www.shac.net

The animal rights movement has had many suspected and exposed infiltrators throughout the years. But the difference is that they don't really go in for the kind of large scale semi-legal civil disobedience that environmentalists are more fond of. So infiltrators waste all their time with totally legal campaigners and rarely get near the people doing the illegal acts, because they work on their own or in small groups with people they really trust. Infiltrators tend to get neutralised by people being aware of them, rather than being explicitly challenged. If you kick one out they will only put another one it, so better to have infiltrators that you know about than ones you don't.

anon


Good points, well made

17.01.2011 12:07

I'm glad to hear the point that "no-one had a political discussion with him". It's the one thing I always wonder about infiltrators - are they seriously gonna read a load of kroptkin and consider the theoretical minutia some of us get involved in - fuck no, and if they did, i reckon it's much harder to lie about your political motivations than to just offer services while concealing you're a policeman....

Not to say that people who don't know a lot about politics (or spend a lot of time discussing it) must all be grasses, I fully believe that we can be motivated by passion and anger that things are fucked up. But surely this is another area where suspicions can be raised...

How did this fucker respond when he had the crap beaten out of him by coppers for instance? Did he rant on about what wankers cops are? If not, if if he did but it seemed a little odd, wouldn't that arouse a little suspicion...?

In a way, I also think this case raises the issue of "full time activists". The "give up activism" text is great for all sorts of reasons, but I'd say one is that it'd be much harder for the state to give infiltrators a life that seemed like many other activists, if other activists saw themselves less as 'activists' and more as normal people engaged in struggle (ie, got less involved in the cliqueness of activism, brought their activist friends and non-activist friends together, got involved in workplace struggles, blah blah blah...

I appreciate that many people who devote their entire lives to activism are motivated by great passion - and make serious sacrifices for which I have to express respect - but personally, I always find it a little suspicious when people are happier to be more engaged in far off international struggles than in building on and radicalising whatever admittedly rubbish campaigning might be going on in their local area. I'd argue that this kind of 'activism' can actually be a hell of a lot more threatening to both the state and the status quo than the kind of militant lobbying tactics that have come to define much of the movement (particularly I really think a lot of people need to re-think what *Direct* action means)

Anyway, that's a lot that's not really connected to all this stuff. Love and respect to all those who are having to deal with this. I'm personally not sure regarding the value/problems of dealing with the corporate media on all this (perhaps it will help reveal others, advance our cause, make the general public hate the police even more, all good things), but as someone who didn't know mark, and isn't even sure I recognise him (though I've obviously been tangled in similar circles from the events I've heard he was at), I respect the right of those who HAVE had to deal with the shit to figure out how to deal with it themselves. We should be offering solidarity and support to them, not attacking them for decisions we might not have made personally. Critique is fine (and its definately worth having a no-holds-barred debate about how we deal with these instances, as there will clearly be similar ones in the future), but there's no need to add to the sense of paranoia and divisiveness by getting personal (or excessively strident) about it.

In fact, those who do so - without meaning to be divisive myself - make themselves out as nothing so much as police trolls or divisive undercovers themselves...

(p.s. Fuck that bastard. I'm sure he's not having a very nice mental time of it, and I feel a very slight pang of human sympathy. Plus, maybe some of what he's saying - amongst the lies - is useful. Nonetheless, fuck him. wanker. utterly agree that he should be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He'd have to do an awful lot of very helpful stuff for more than 7 years to be deserving of *any* forgiveness)

peterpannier


Yeah - really getting real....

17.01.2011 12:54

I think most people would agree that people involved in things like torturing beagles to death by feeding them toxic chemicals are getting off extremely lightly by just having their windows put through, their homes graffitied and their cars torched. These people are absolute scum.

Most people on here - possibly. Most people - no they wouldn't.

As I said to the enviros 'Get real' - my comments were not addressed to AR - to far gone as your posting makes clear.

@realist


@@realist - I think you underestimate the public

17.01.2011 13:48

If you have ever done an animal rights stall in a public place and spoken to people, you will know that a lot of ordinary meat-eating people are more vocal than AR activists about what should be done to people like beagle torturers. Granted they are much less likely to do anything about it, but the sentiment is there.

I think you underestimate how much sympathy there is around for animals and against animal abuse.

Don't believe all the media spin that has been pushed about animal rights recently at the behest of some very rich and powerful people. Although you are probably a part of this process yourself, so you will know it is bullshit anyway.

anon


Secret Police are shitting themselves

17.01.2011 13:58

Remember that Stone, Watson et al are pathetic Walter Mitty types who see themselves as some kind of James Bond, out to protect the security of the realm from subversive domestic extremists.
They also don't have the bottle to infiltrate real terrorist groups or criminal gangs where they would be exposed to danger.

Right now while all this is in the media, there must be some still embedded who are shitting themselves knowing they could be exposed any minute.

Next time you meet your activist pals, mention how pathetic the exposed ones are, and how it must be real shit to live a double life and grass on people who trust you. If there are any secret police present, make them squirm inside, as they are expecting to be outed at any time. It may be interesting to see people's reactions when talking about this.

Mainly though, we just have to accept there will be a secret police quite close to us, but don't let that stop us from doing what we have been. The existence of these pathetic undercover Bond wannabees just shows how shit scared the state is of us and how affective we have been over the years.

La lucha continua!

info


Ratcliffe 20

17.01.2011 14:25

"It also has to be said tha admitting the conspiracy and hoping the Jury will aquit as they agree with you aims was never gona work for ever - the wheels came off with the Ratcliffe 20..."

I don't think the wheels did come off. It very nearly DID work, and the sentences passed (conditional discharges for most, CSOs for those with "bad" records) certainly mean the whole expensive shebang didn't work for the cops and the prosecution. They were made to look complete dicks.

Although Mark Kennedy had not been exposed when the defendants first decided to argue self-defence, it happened several months before the trial, giving time for re-evaluation. Do you play watch rugby union? It's a bit like when the ref awards you a penalty, but play goes on. You can then try something very ambitious, even outrageous. If it doesn't come off, it doesn't matter because you're going to get a penalty in your favour anyway. It's a bit like that. It didn't quite come off, but now there's a likely opportunity for a second bite at the cherry on the basis Kennedy was an agent provocateur. Subject to what the defendants think and legal advice, of course, but I believe appeals are now being actively considered.

Stroppyoldgit


Nope - you miss the point

18.01.2011 11:42

This isn't a battle between eco activists and the Police - the Ratcliffe 'operation' was to influence public opinion regarding climate change.

It DID achive massive publicity - most now diverted to the UC questions

The 'wheels came off' when a jury, presented with the full fat - extra NASA inconvenient truth presenatation decided that these aims did not justify the means (or intended means). Thus reversing the Kingsnorth victories.

It isn't the end of protesting or this campaign but it may mean the end of this sort of protest. The next Judge may be less understanding.

Once agan (and I know I risk the wrath of the zealots) look at the downfall of the AR campaigns, from tangable victories to substantial jail terms. Eco protest dosn't have to follow that curve.

@Realist


Sawyer, get real

18.01.2011 17:00

"Yes the state will disrupt, we will get hurt infiltrated etc but all we can do is minimise damage, learn from mistakes and keep calm and carry on. Stroppyold git is right in saying that we have to stand together"

A few months ago that advice would have has had us all standing together with Mark Stone. That is poor advice from you Lynne, and you don't seemed to have learned any lessons, espcially since you with the sloppy old shit that has consistently placed others at risk with consistently awful advice mixed with petty point-scoring. I can't think of a non-sexist way to say this, but grow a pair. We should be aiming for more than minimising damage to us, we should be aiming to do them some damage. That means admitting basic errors and genuinely learning from them, including excluding the unexposed sources of our problems. British activists are the laughing stock of Europe now, and the people most to blame for that are the people you are still praising. I know you are better than that so stop praising solidarity and start emphasising dissent .

not true


No risk, no reversal

19.01.2011 09:18

@ not true How has anyone been put at risk? A wild, divisive allegation without substance or sense. Great care has been taken to put nobody at any greater risk than Kennedy has already put us all in.

@ Realist Nothing, including the Kingsnorth acquittal, has been "reversed". NO precedent has been set which will affect anyone else. Precedents are made only if appeals are taken to a higher court. These self-defence, prevention-of-genocide type of principled defences rarely work but occasionally they do (as at Kingsnorth). It's all down to the casino-style randomness of a jury -to luck as much as to good legal work- and no precedent is set or damage done.

Obviously, the 20 people convicted will need to take careful legal advice about whether to appeal on the basis of Kennedy's role. They'd have to be sure the issue could be confined to that and not spill over into harming principled defences in future (i.e what you incorrectly say has already happened). It's at the appeal stage that precedents are made and previous gains might be reversed, not earlier.

Stroppyoldgit


Nice.....

19.01.2011 09:40

So what we should do then is be really nasty to each other, have sneaking suspicions, make snide personal and sexist comments ,anonymously of course, and be crippled by paranoia? Brilliant strategy!
I have no problem with fighting back, I have no problem with dissent and I have no prblem with people forming small cliques with others for security purposes and steering clear of others but in general for a large movement and those of us who wish to engage with other activists it does mean there is a risk of infiltration. I personally would rather show some trust and freindship to a new activist or someone I didn't know and show solidarity than assume they were a cop. Many very experienced activists did not recognise Mark Kennedy as a cop but this does not mean that we should run to the hills screaming. I reiterate, this probably has not been handled perfectly, but I fail to see how it could have been handled better with information had at the time and the shock of those who uncovered this, of course there is much I do not know, nor do I wish to know. The sniping and backbiting against other activists on Indymedia has been appalling.

Lynn Sawyer


My point is to be realistic

19.01.2011 12:10

In fact the Kingsnorth aquitals were reversed some months later at the local magistrates court were all who were aquitted of criminal damage were convicted of Agravated Trespass - but that gained no publicity and thus the Ratcliffe defendants (who hopefully knew this) decided it might be worth another go despite there being no specific defence in Agravated Trespass (unlike Criminal damage)

We need to be relalistic and take a measured view - dificult to those who are by nature idealistic

@Realist