Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 07:52:04 -0500
From: Unka Bart <mendicant-AT-buddhist.com>
Subject: Re: BIG MEDIA PLAN ATTACK ON WTO OPPONENTS


>I just read the piece I forwarded to you guys. It raises some valid
>concerns, but it also uses some standard Left distortions against
>anarchists. The conspiracy theory that police agents were involved in
>the window smashing is very tenuous. This conspiracy is brought up to
>devalue the direct action against corporate chains by anarchists and
>others.

I think that if you do, you'd be well advised to tone down your own
*rhetoric* and avoid anything that could be seen as "wide-eyed, foaming
about the mouth."

>After watching several more hours of Seattle footage tonight shot by a
>D.C. anarchist, I find these charges even less believeable. For one
>thing, they rely on an oversimplification of the riot conditions that
>extended over dozen of blocks. After watching more videotape, that's
>basically unedited, it becomes clear that the cops were pretty confused
>most of N30.

For example, after reading the piece several time, I can't see
characterizing anything Duncan said about anarchists, as "these charges."
Charges is a loaded word, and your reaction to it is proof.

I think Duncan made the kind of presentation that reasonable, ordinary
people, will respond favorably to.  If you think it merits a rebuttal, I
urge you to be careful to set it aside for a while after you write it, and
then go back and comb through it and re-write anything that smacks of
*emotional* response in favor of a similarly calm and thoughtful
presentation of your point of view.

What you want to strive for is a thoughtful piece that says the original
piece contains some factual errors, and you would merely like to set the
record straight.

If you accuse him of "making charges," people who are already sympathetic
to your viewpoint may applaud you with a few, well received "RIght ON!s,
but the audience that matters, those who have an open mind, will simply
tune you out, because he is not making any "charges."

>The author of the piece says that "these warnings should not be
>construed as a blanket accusation that so-called anarchist groups or
>individuals advocating adventurist tactics are ipso facto agents." Yet,
>by bringing up COINTELPRO and referring to "adventurist tactics," this
>writer is once again devaluing the actions of the anarchists and
>attributing the police crackdown to the work of police provocateurs.

He is not "Doing" that, regardless of whether his phrasing has that effect.
This is a perfect illustration what I am talking about, precisely.

If you believe that his phrasing has the effect of implying something other
than he meant, then simply call the reader's attention to that by saying "I
believe that the reader could get the wrong idea about anarchists from Mr.
Duncan's statement; the facts are (whatever) and his statement implies
(whatever else)"

This approach will plant the seed in an open-minded reader's mind that you
want to plant.  The approach you *are* taking will merely turn the reader
off, because it is what they expect of "wide-eyed anarchists."

The world at large is where the important audience is to be found, and the
world at large has a picture of anarchists as "wide-eyed bomb-throwers."
If you want to change that perception, you must first face the fact that it
is the one that predominates, and then work on changing it.  You won't
change many minds by playing true to the stereotype with knee-jerk
reactions.

>This fascination with alleged COINTELPRO tactics and police infiltration
>are a hallmark of the ineffective paranoid Left activism of the last 20
>years. Should we spend out time as victims worried and paranoid about
>police provocation, or are we going to stand on our feet and support our
>comrades?

First, while you are correct about your characterization of the
"ineffective paranoid Left activism of the last 20 years," if you don't
heed this message, you aren't going to do any better.  It is of *far* less
importance to "stand on our feet and support our comrades" than it is to
*be effective* in opposing the things that your comrades (and you) oppose.

I'm not shooting at *you* ChuckO, I admire you for your dedication and your
efforts!  But equally, I am concerned that the things you stand for are
*not* well served by rhetoric and arm-waving, which your message is a prime
example of.

Think about this.

>This kind of agent-baiting is no better than the "nonviolent" protestors
>who attacked other activists, or the misguided liberals who "protected"
>Niketown.

What I just said, brother ChuckO.

>We need to respond to this piece in some way. Suggestions?

Yes.  Thanks for asking.

Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart