FBI arrests "anarchists" for bomb plot in Cleveland

[redknight]

I still live in Ohio. And I recently blogged about this incident. Here's what I posted.

I really wish that I could just ignore this story, since as a philosophical anarchist myself I find it to be personally embarrassing. However, being that it's a major news story, plus the fact that I happen to live in the surrounding region in Ohio, I feel obligated to comment. Let me begin by saying that if there had existed a revolutionary situation, which clearly there was not, I would have found it to be a valid strategic tactic of guerilla warfare. Most, notably, during the U.S. Civil War, soldiers would blow up railroad lines, and cut telegraft lines, in order to disrupt both transportation, and communication. However, the Occupy Wallstreet Movement is commited to using peaceful methods in furthering a just, and equitable, society. I feel that we should all go along with this approach. There is not widespread popular support for a violent revolution, and I also do not feel that we've reached a critical situation yet. Now if perverbially speaking, there were a repressive regime which violently suppressed the non-violent actions of dissident activists, thereby making a violent solution necessary, I would regard it as being right to revolt. But I do not believe that such an aggressive "propoganda of the deed" inspires the people to rise up against the powers that be. If anything I feel that it acts to discredit anarchism in people's minds, and casts suspicion upon other anarchists by extension. Because the public will tend to hold us all as being guilty by association. Lastly, I find that another lesson which can be learned from this is that if people try to promote insurrectionary violence, we should have nothing to do with them. Not only might we be possibly be charged as accomplices, in providing some sort of support to terrorism, but also it would be likely that the persons in question would turn out to be agents provacteurs. But lest anyone become disenchanted with the anarchist movement, know that all causes have potential fanatics. This however does not make the ideas itself extreme. For example, in regards to abolitionism, John Brown was a fanatical militant. But most people would consider his cause to have been worthwhile, even if they feel that his methods were not praiseworthy. P.S. If social revolution were to finally come, it will not be broadcasted. Seriously, if anarchists, and/or other revolutionary socialists were to try to depose the established government at the time, I would then put my blog on a hiatus, for an indefinate amount of time. I mean it would still be kept up, but just not updated. And also, whether or not i were to decide to join in the rebellion, I would still go underground, as I expect I would be a person of interest to the powers that be. That's just a sensible given.

And here are two good articles. http://geopoli.net/archives/434 http://rt.com/usa/news/cleveland-fbi-bomb-may-433/

[Dr. Alan James]

They look mentally challenged. I'd be willing to bet that more than one of these guys rode the short bus to school.

The FBI must be getting desperate for people to entrap. These pics remind me of the Hutaree Militia members who were arrested several years back. The judge threw the case out of court after 2 weeks of the prosecutor offering up absolutely no evidence, other than what the informant said.

[Jim Ed of those Elk]

Originally Posted by redknight

Most, notably, during the U.S. Civil War, soldiers would blow up railroad lines, and cut telegraft lines...

I know they're quite a bit before your time, but they're telegraph lines.

[Thomas777]

Originally Posted by Dr. Alan James

The FBI must be getting desperate for people to entrap. These pics remind me of the Hutaree Militia members who were arrested several years back. The judge threw the case out of court after 2 weeks of the prosecutor offering up absolutely no evidence, other than what the informant said.

I've had the same thought - these make-believe ''terrorists'' really aren't at all credible, and I've contemplated why that is.

One interesting point that was raised recently by a pop-sociological author is that the liberal managerial state is simply bad at propaganda. Its not necessarily more or less malicious than blatantly authoritarian states in history but its just not very good at managing its own security apparatus, especially with respect to public perception.

This social justice type who wrote the book What Money Can't Buy was on CSPAN recently, and he was talking about how bizarre the manner in which government and entertainment and news media continue to handle public relations and perceptions in the War on Terror. He pointed out, as one example, that the Dept. of Justice is obsessed with these elaborate and bizarre torture scenarios - and the commentariat in media like Dershowitz, John Woo, Hannity, and others are incessantly discussing it as a major and contentious point of national security. Similarly, on these foolish programs like ''CSI'' and ''24'' its a recurring motif that criminal suspects must be tortured to ''save the day''.

This is perverted for all kinds of reasons - not the least of which being that states that historically resorted to things like police torture as a matter of course, like the USSR, would have never admitted that they did these things publicly - and their official stance on these kinds of questions was that such things were ''illegal''. Of course, most people didn't believe that the NKVD didn't torture and murder people, but it was understood that these kinds of fictions are part and parcel of political life.

Everything else aside, I suppose the lesson to be gleaned here vis a vis ''Hutaree'' militiamen, make believe terrorists, and police-torture-as-entertainment is that Americans are really, really disengaged from the world to the point that not only do they lack basic empathy for other people, but that they also harbor bizarre and almost childish ideas about the kinds of dangers present in the contemporary security landscape.

I mean, how removed from day to day reality do you have to be to think that the ''Hutaree Army'' or what have you is dangerous to your family or the government or to essential infrastructure or that 'terrorists' are constantly planting bombs and secret agents need to pull their fingernails out until they disclose the location of these things?

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Thomas777

....
I mean, how removed from day to day reality do you have to be to think that the ''Hutaree Army'' or what have you is dangerous to your family or the government or to essential infrastructure or that 'terrorists' are constantly planting bombs and secret agents need to pull their fingernails out until they disclose the location of these things?

This is a good point. To be fair to Americans though I get the impression many if not most people have trouble imagining the state, imagining the system of government under which they live. I'd even say that the vast majority of people can't imagine such things and so it's not surprising that people will believe the most remarkable things about the state, who runs it and what it would take to bring it to its knees.

[delete]

Originally Posted by Thomas777

One interesting point that was raised recently by a pop-sociological author is that the liberal managerial state is simply bad at propaganda. Its not necessarily more or less malicious than blatantly authoritarian states in history but its just not very good at managing its own security apparatus, especially with respect to public perception.

Only stupid people, who don't really understand modern surveillance society, think that they can escape government jurisdiction if they commit a terrorist act.

Intelligent people know they will be caught and given a harsh punishment, so they don't fall for the FBI traps.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Dr. Alan James

They look mentally challenged.

The thought of the guy who was said to have burned down the Reichstag came to mind...

[The_Chauvinist]

Aren't most anarchists mentally challenged? If not the level of drug abuse is good assistance.

[The_Chauvinist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmJwlKvUag8 

[redknight]

Originally Posted by The_Chauvinist

Aren't most anarchists mentally challenged? If not the level of drug abuse is good assistance.

Well, I certainly wouldn't consider Noam Chomsky to be mentally challenged. That's if one would consider him to be authenticly anarchist to begin with. But say what you will about him, he is an accomplished academic.