CT: Black Bloc

Kama

Buddy was asking about conspiracy theories, so I thought I'd throw some old chestnuts out there for the lulz...so...


In response to neoliberalism and the actions of the IMF and WTO, or using them as symbolic points of compaint, a movement called 'anti-globalization', 'anti-globalism' emerged in the late 80s, with its coming-out party at Seattle in '99. Its an umbrella movement, with a lot of difference in approach, which has been viewed as a strength and a weakness.

Media coverage of the protest events usually concentrate on the activities of a group called the 'Black Bloc', an affinity group of autonomous anarchists who concentrate on destruction of property. Masked men smashing Starbucks, that kind of thing. Black bloc tactics grew out of squat defence, and are easily reproducable, so can spread rhizomatically; anyone who feels like doing it, and has a few mates, can try.

Now, its common in Leftists groups to find people who consider the Black Bloc to be agent provocateurs operating to discredit a generally peaceful movement, or providing a violent spark to justify a stronger, more coercive response by police security at events, or split people between those who denounce and those who do not. Diogenes 'ego-****' of being important enough for the powers that be to organise against you is no doubt also a factor on a psychological level.

The more peaceful side see a problem: violence at demonstrations, and place blame with the government and police; CT near-always features blaming someone else, in this case: police and intelligence incite violence in the movement to undermine, discredit, and distract.

It seems likely to me that a certain number of people like to break stuff to begin with, and will take the excuse, or feel theoretically justified on autonomist grounds, or are mad enough about the world situation that they will break things as a pretty impotent show of voice, etc. Or just does it because it seems trendy and they read it in CrimeThinc A 'conspiracy' seems unnecessary.

Equally, given how easy it would appear to be to 'be' a Black Bloc, and the masked anonymous nature of their protests, BB would seem an ideal vector for agent provocateur groups; low-cost, anonymous, violent, plausibly deniable. Some allege this to be a continuation of COINTELPRO tactics to split and discredit oppositional groups, with a return to the policies of an earlier era in resonse to the heightened security situation, and a reduced tolerance for dissent and resistance.


See link for a humorously inept Canadian example which ended in the 'Black Bloc' leaving the protest through police lines, with their bandanas, fashionable rock accessories, and police boots. Assuming some degree of security convergence in demonstration control and tactics, and slightly more competence than the Canucks, fake BB events seem more plausible.


Any thoughts? Experiences? Refutations?

buddyonair

never heard of it but I new to this "business" :P anyway.

for me it sounds like Hooligans, but with a message and a mission :cool:

It the first link it is said that Black Blos was responsible for the Boston Tea party NICE! :pac:

meglome

Never heard of them. It remind me though of the lyrics of an old Dead Kennedy's song that went something like "Anarchy's great but who's gonna fix the sewers".

buddyonair

nice ! :cool:

Kama

for me it sounds like Hooligans, but with a message and a mission

Haha you put it better than me. Punk anarchists, like wearing black anyway, like smashing ****. If you've ever seen photos of demonstrations with a guy with a black banadana, covered face, and black sunglasses, thats probably a Black Bloc.

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

Any thoughts? Experiences? Refutations?

I've never been to demo, thats turned violent and not heard about APs. And I've never seen any evidence.

Part of the problem is a mixture of naive protesters, more. ahem, ego ****, by other protesters, who's claims are often bolstered, in part, by other genuine illegal acts by the police.

It is similar to the morally bankrupt Bush administration. Many heinous crimes have been committed across the globe by this administration. The logic is that, "well if they're capable of Gitmo bay, they must also have been capable of carrying out 911". Similarly protesters see police beating people indiscriminatingly, and think "well then they are also capable of infiltrating protesters".

A little over seven years ago I was in Genoa, and filmed outside the School Diaz raid, it's one of two criminal cases I've been involved in investigating police brutality at demonstrations. The outcome of the Genoa case is coming to a head.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/italy.g8

As with other demonstrations like Prague, Seattle, Gothenburg, accusations of agent provocateurs were rife. I do not see why As with all these demonstrations a small but significant (several thousand at Genoa) turned with the intention of violence. I'm sorry could you find several thousand police among any force who could blend in with a group of vegan anarchists?

As to your Canadian incident, I think it would be perfectly logical to have police infiltrating demonstrators. Blac bloc's don't discuss their route with the police, don't have police liasons, and have ad hoc leadership, making it impossible for the police to gain accurate intelligence. Having one or two men in a group who can give real time intel about a mobs mood, plans and direction, and goals.

I've seen plenty of examples of police infiltration of protests, I've just never seen an example of someone identified as a police committing violence.

buddy wrote:

It the first link it is said that Black Blos was responsible for the Boston Tea party NICE!

No that was wealthy americans who didn't like all their profits from their slave labour plantations going back to england. Wow they were totally radicals.

for me it sounds like Hooligans, but with a message and a mission

Ever seen the aftermath of a city after a Black bloc has had it's way with it? Burnt out cars, and not just mercs and jags, but fiats and nissans, trashed for the sake of it? Rubbish strewn streets with burnt out bins. Businesses destroyed and not just banks and Mc Donalds, but family owned local delis restaurants, and shops, looted and trashed. Blood, alot of blood, from for example a guy being pistol whipped with his own camera for having the temerity of filming some BB'ers? Have you ever spend time in a city after it's been wrecked by these people, and interviewing the locals trying to rebuild locals businesses, and them asking you "why? what does this accomplish? What point are they trying to make?"

They, like totally, deserve the "cool" smiley.