systemic disruption
Few people would consider silently walking around with signs criminal. People most likely wouldn't think of it as something that could tear apart the fabric of civil society. As a matter of fact, most Americans would think of such actions as mild, respectable, and part of the democratic process. Similarly, it seems humorous that during the American war for independence, Britain couldn't recognize the semi-informal, non-uniformed, resistance fighters or their tactics as legitimate warfare.
Of course civil discourse has co-opted what was once deplorable and unpatriotic actions. Tactics of war are largely decided acceptable by the powerful and the winners. While Americans look at the Colonial guerrillas as heroic, they fail to recognize such fighters and tactics (or newer tactics) in contemporary theaters of war.
So-called "non-violent protest" is dead as a means of changing society. It's easily ignored/overlooked in a media saturated environment and the methods of controlling and marginalizing it have become widely practiced/tolerated.
Global Guerrilla addresses approaches to systemic disruption as a tool. GG (probably unknowingly) suggests the SHAC model: "if you can successfully deter/coerce individual decision makers in this decision making group, you will win (and quickly)." Of course, this model is effective and has been targeted as criminal by the powers-that-be.
Of course civil discourse has co-opted what was once deplorable and unpatriotic actions. Tactics of war are largely decided acceptable by the powerful and the winners. While Americans look at the Colonial guerrillas as heroic, they fail to recognize such fighters and tactics (or newer tactics) in contemporary theaters of war.
So-called "non-violent protest" is dead as a means of changing society. It's easily ignored/overlooked in a media saturated environment and the methods of controlling and marginalizing it have become widely practiced/tolerated.
Global Guerrilla addresses approaches to systemic disruption as a tool. GG (probably unknowingly) suggests the SHAC model: "if you can successfully deter/coerce individual decision makers in this decision making group, you will win (and quickly)." Of course, this model is effective and has been targeted as criminal by the powers-that-be.
posted by shane at 5:14 PM
2 Comments:
I've seen content at the Global Guerrillas a few times. I may be misinterpreting it, but the tone of the rhetoric seemed to me to be that of a Hobbesian with hawkish political tendencies; the tone of the mesaage being along the lines of 'the terrorist threat is real, my friend.' Something about John Robb definitely rubs me the wrong way.
I often disagree with content on Global Guerrillas. While the author may not consider himself rightwing, he is a rightwing libnertarian. It is an interesting point that I note his suggested model is one already used by SHAC and already considered criminal by the state.
I do find it helpful to take ideas from across the political spectrum and apply them to anarchy (and not free market libertarianism).
Post a Comment
<< Home