So You'd Like to See Some Bankers in Handcuffs? A Radical Proposal

I'd like to start this by apologizing to you. My headline is misleading. I don't really know how to get the likes of Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein behind bars. I'll venture so far to say that such a prospect is highly unlikely given our current set of circumstances. Much has been written about the revolving door between high finance and the agencies that are supposed to regulate its goings on, how banks buy politicians, and how infinite sums of zero-interest money are available to the very institutions that have proven through their ineptitude and corruption that they don't deserve to exist. I don't have to mention that J.P. Morgan Chase bought the protection of the NYPD, and a consortium of firms has access to a high-tech surveillance system in lower Manhattan. That is not what I intend to write about, nor do I have any real suggestions on how to accomplish fixing these problems within the current framework of our system. If you want polemics on these issues go dig up some old Taibbi diatribes, or listen to some of Max Keiser's dozens of rants from the past few years.

This is a call to the mischievous, to those who love to laugh, and those who would love to see some heads roll (literally) or some bankers hung without us actually having to get to the social level where such a thing happens and the perpetrators are hailed as heroes instead of being thrown in jail for the rest of their lives. So here it is...

Black Tie Bloc. The idea is for a bunch of people to show up in the financial district of your city wearing business attire (suits, ties, etc.) to appear indistinguishable from the low-level drones that run our financial system, for some to mask up and (this is crucial) for some to simply stand around and observe as if unconnected, and engage in Black Bloc-style property destruction for a short period of time. When the police arrive (as they inevitably will) you will have de-masked and disappeared into the neighborhood, leaving behind a bunch of your confederates who appear to be normal workers in the area who then point their fingers at bank employees in an attempt to get them either arrested or at the very least ruin their day by getting them temporarily detained until the police figure out what just happened.

Some points:

-Put this together as one would a flash mob, with an arranged time and place.
-Pre-select targets for destruction/vandalism
-Bring all the necessary tools, viz. pipes/sparkplugs/ice-hockey pucks (for window-breaking, general smashing) spraypaint (and a few choice slogans) bandannas (to protect identities), and, of course gloves
-Make the destruction epic, scream and ululate while you do it.
-Make sure it doesn't go on too long (one minute, two minutes max) and what it lacks in length make up for with intensity.
-Once the adventure is over and you are unmasked again, WALK like everyone else. DO NOT RUN.

Just remember that Occupy has been so utterly destroyed and discredited that there is no reputation to protect at this point. This will make a statement, and is hilarious as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to launch into a defense of the idea, nor participate in it, were it to ever manifest itself in the world.

I'm just planting seeds.

I owe many thanks to someone who'd probably rather not be named for helping me develop this idea, but you know who you are.


In love and solidarity, for the revolution at large and not any one movement, 


CB  

Outline of an Occupy-Acceptable Black Bloc

Taking "Zuccotti Park Is Everywhere" Literally

The Occupy encampments themselves were peaceful protests. They were necessarily non-violent, as any violence could be used as a pretext to end the protest. Not only were people encouraged to be non-violent, but also keep the places clean. This was a particularly heavy concern for the camps, especially NYC, where the evictions were carried out under pretenses of unsanitary conditions. Combined with free food, de-escalation teams, and safe spaces, these were places parents could bring their children. A march however, even one connected with an Occupation, has no underlying presumptions of non-violence. Just as Occupation is a form of protest with a set of practical concerns particular to it, marching is a different form of protest, and has its own set of underlying assumptions and practical concerns.

The language of "violence/non-violence" or being "peaceful" or "non-destructive" shouldn't apply to protest marches, as the oversimplification may prevent us from considering tactics that are beneficial to their success. There are certain actions that may be categorized as "non-violent" that interfere with the success of a march. These can include marching on the sidewalk as to not confront the police, or creating dangerous conditions when trying to film an arrest. There are also actions that might be categorized as "violent" that can make a march successful, such as kettle-breaking. Hurling projectiles at the police could fall into both categories. If an individual uses the cover of the march to throw a bottle at a cop, then he very well may endanger the safety of peaceful marchers or cause the police to move in and start making arrests (to say nothing of the reports of this in MSM). However, if there is a clearly established no-man's land between a march and a line of police, projectile throwing can keep police at bay while protesters escape from the rear, or a group of militants can mobilize behind a police line to throw projectiles in an attempt to break a kettle.

This is not to say that marches or large gatherings are inherently "violent." The October 5 Union March, the October 15 Convergence on Times Square, and the November 17 Convergence at Foley Square and subsequent March over the Brooklyn Bridge were by and large peaceful affairs. The march after the attempted October eviction of Zuccotti Park, The First and Second Oakland Solidarity Marches, and the March on the night of the actual Zuccotti eviction, all saw confrontations with the police and the application of certain Black Bloc tactics. Of these marches, all of them with the exception of the Second Oakland Solidarity March were more hampered by "peaceful marchers" than those using Black Bloc tactics.

In all of these instances there were people who generalize the assumptions that belie Occupy encampments to the realm of marches. They literally fear militant tactics of any kind, and see garbage bag roadblocks in the street as a Rolls Royce smashed to bits and set ablaze by black-clad anarchists to be hidden away from view before FOX News can capture an image and beam it into the heads of their viewers, forever and irrevocably destroying their precious liberal tea-party. For them a bottle or two thrown from a crowd is tantamount to someone shooting a police officer and scrawling #OWS on their forehead with a switchblade. A flaming trashcan may as well be a terrorist bomb. My point is that their concern with PR trumps the tactics that are widely seen as beneficial. This concern with how we appear to the public via the MSM makes events that are unfortunate but should be overlooked as anomalies (and not manifestations of the more controversial tactics employed by the Black Bloc) become the locus of the success or failure of the movement as a whole.

In light of this I will present a sketch of what may be an Occupy-acceptable Black Bloc. This is a compromise without a doubt, and doesn't even reflect my own views.



Why Occupy Needs a Black Bloc 

1. Black Bloc has the resolve to take and maintain the streets. Marching on the sidewalks is not only counter-revolutionary, but also dangerous. Sidewalks are tighter than roadways, making it easier for police to attack/arrest Marchers, and any attempt to do so puts a stop to the march as a result. The freedom of movement of the marchers and spontaneous application of tactics is all severely limited since the police are already dictating the terms on which the march can take place. Your more timid marcher may be reluctant to take the streets, but the Black Bloc is enthusiastic about it. 
2. Black Bloc protects peaceful marchers. Varieties of shields can be used to counter ranged attacks by police (tear-gas, less lethal rounds) as well as melee attacks by police (batons). Banner-holders at the front and sides of marches can prevent the police from entering the march and arbitrarily picking people off for arrest or brutality. Alternatively, Black Bloc could create a distraction for the police, allowing peaceful protesters to escape unharmed and not-arrested. 
3. Black Bloc breaks kettles. Kettling as a practice is supposed to suppress dissent in both the short term and the long term. Its short term effects are obvious, it puts an end to the march, but its long term effects are more insidious. Once hundreds of people are successfully kettled and placed under arrest they have to be processed and loaded into police vehicles, which can take hours. In this time one has no access to bathroom facilities and it could be in inclement weather (bitter cold, heavy rain/snow, extreme heat). Then there is the ordeal in jail where in the light of the mass arrest the time spent incarcerated before arraignment could be longer than usual (I personally spent over 44 hours awaiting arraignment after my arrest on Zuccotti Eviction Night). One may be charged with a violation or a misdemeanor for having been kettled. All of these factors combine to make people not want to go to protest marches, not only if this has happened to you, but also if you take these things into consideration as a possibility beforehand. This is why it is important for Black Bloc to do what they can in recognizing the formation of kettles and helping people get to safety before it can close around them, and in the event of its closure do what they can to physically break the kettle. 
4. Black Bloc Unarrests People. There can be few things as demoralizing on a March as watching people get arbitrarily plucked from the crowd and arrested. There can also be few things as infuriating as watching a cop knock someone over only to pick them up, put them in zip-tie handcuffs, and lead them away. The act of unarresting not only saves a comrade, but also invigorates everyone who sees it happen. 
5. Black Bloc Slows Down the Police: The best way to keep a March safe is to keep it away from the police. Being a block or two ahead of them means they cannot attack you, and cannot attempt to arrest you. This can be achieved by stopping traffic, and having the ability to accelerate and change directions quickly. These may indeed be recognized and catalyzed by Black Bloc members, but the more Black Bloc specific method of slowing down the police involves building barriers or placing obstacles in the path of the police. Anyone who doubts that placing bags of garbage in the middle of the street is effective in slowing down the police has never seen advance police officers come down a barricaded block and move everything to the sidewalk to make room for the motor vehicles coming up the rear. 

How Black Bloc Can Change to Co-Exist with Occupy

1. Drop the Black in Black Bloc. The point of this is obvious: if there are no black clad individuals getting together at a march to engage in militant activity then there is no Black Bloc. The reason for Black-Blocing in the first place is one of great tactical and practical concern, and by eliminating this aspect of it the tactic is less effective in many ways. This has to do with both maintaining anonymity and the psychological effects of this anonymity. On the positive side one is willing to take far more risks than one would be willing to take, but on the negative side one must fight engaging in reckless behavior brought on by this feeling of empowerment. After all, this is the psychology behind riot police. The psychological aspects apply not only to the people in the bloc, but those outside of it who perceive it as something frightening. Wearing all black at a protest march is in some ways asking to be arrested. Police know good and well what a Black Bloc is and what it does, and so black-clad militants might be singled out for arrest. This could be beneficial for "peaceful" marchers, as Black Bloc can be a distraction take the heat off them. But one credo for the Black Bloc is "do the right thing, just don't get caught doing it." Avoiding arrest is something that everyone should be concerned with, not only Black Bloc. This shows the strange nature of the all black: we wear it for privacy and anonymity, and yet it makes us even more of a target for arrest. We attempt to play this to our advantage by being a distraction, yet wish to hold on to our provisional freedom (time not spent in jail). To compound the problem the color black carries great symbolism in militant movements. It is the color traditionally associated with Anarchism, and is worn in solidarity with prisoners and other oppressed people. To give it up is not so easy for many reasons, but in doing so a great many tactics can be elevated to the level of acceptability and we can shed some of the connotation of the Black Bloc with property destruction and vandalism.
2. Refrain from Wanton Property Destruction and Vandalism If there's one thing Americans love more than violence it's property. Property destruction is seen as something that goes against the core values of the movement, and the worst kind of fodder to give the MSM. This is a pervasive view, especially among the moderates of the movement. Traditionalist Black Bloc defends property destruction as a latter day propaganda of the deed which seeks to smash the internalized capitalist psychology that property is more sacred than life in both fellow marchers and the outside world. However many modern militants, especially those associated with Occupy, would agree that these actions are alienating and divisive within the movement and most likely don't present a good image to the average American. Moderates will say that besides being terrible PR, actions such as smashing windows draw police attention and put "peaceful" marchers at risk. To anyone with experience in or of a Black Bloc this is patently ridiculous. Property destruction can be used as a tactic to divert the police from attacking peaceful marchers, and even if the goal of a particular Bloc is to be destructive (to make a point), they usually break off from a march to do it. Some acts which might qualify as vandalism or property destruction can be completely uncontroversial, an example of which would be when masked militants disabled NYPD vehicles by releasing air from their tires on Eviction Night in NYC. Having considered this we really have more of a reason to refrain from these tactics than to totally disavow them. 

Livestreaming and Occupy: Activism, Journalism, Propaganda and Truth

The moving image is powerful. In the context of social movements they can change popular perceptions, radicalize and inspire. Video of police violence against peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge changed the face of the Civil Rights Movement. Video of Anthony Bologna pepper-spraying young women behind a kettle-net helped bring Occupy into the public mind like nothing else up to that point. Beyond their immediate impact, moving images can become historical touchstones emblematic of an era. Videos of police dogs and fire-hoses being used on demonstrators in Birmingham, hundreds of people tearing down the Berlin Wall, or the lone man standing in front of a line of tanks in Tienanmen Square come to mind. The reasons for this are manifold, but it mainly has to do with the medium. Unedited video doesn't lie. It approximates how we actually see the world. Events happen in four dimensions and the still image can't capture that. A photograph can be deceptive insofar as it is but a slice of action. Once the propaganda value of American Marines raising of the American flag atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo-Jima was recognized, the event was staged a second time with a larger flag and photographers present.  Still shots of "Tank Man" in Tienanmen Square are iconic indeed, but the video of him stepping in front of the tank each time it attempts to go around him show him to be even more courageous.

The Occupy movement has been shaped by something rather unprecedented in history: livstreaming. While the moving image may seem objective it is localized to both a particular vantage point and a definite span of time. What happens before the camera is rolling can cast doubt as to whether the video is really being 'truthful.' Unedited Livestream as raw visual data seems to be as objective as it can possibly get: it is only subjective insofar as a camera can only be pointed in one direction at any given time (barring any editorializing done by the livestreamer). The question of what the streamer isn't showing is both a good question and at the same time such a basic consequence of working with the medium that it is uninteresting. The more interesting question is exactly what are the livestreamers focusing on at any given time? Are they somehow manipulating the medium to the advantage of the movement? If they are should we see what they're doing as a form of activism? If they are not then should we view live-streaming as mere journalism, something that may or may not be beneficial for the movement?

'Truth at all costs' is the realm of journalists. The importance of journalism was recognized by the founders of the United States who saw it necessary to protect the profession in the Constitution. It is often pointed out that it appears first in the Bill of Rights, along with freedom of speech, assembly, and the non-establishment of religion. But when it comes to Occupy should we really value truth above all else? Journalists, even ones that are sympathetic to the the cause, have an obligation foremost to the truth. This can be illustrated by the spate of articles that came out in the weeks prior to the eviction of Zuccotti, when many journalist "sympathizers" wrote unflattering articles about the social problems of the park (drug use, class divisions, etc.) that I would describe as 'older brother journalism.' In this case, 'truth' put even these sympathetic journalists in league with the most virulent demonizing from the right-wing press. One has to wonder whether we really need truth-tellers or propagandists in our ranks. I imagine that the story of the Boston Massacre would not have had the effect that it had if the event wasn't immediately mythologized and turned into propaganda, and even less so if there existed incontrovertible video evidence from the scene (or even worse, an uninterrupted livestream).

When Occupy Oakland was raided, many people watched the livestream of Spencer Mills, aka @OakFoSho for a very good reason: it was no coincidence that both ABC and CBS's helicopter images went dark one moment and then the next every twitter feed across the Occupy-verse lit up with reports of tear gas and less-lethal rounds being fired by the OPD. It is obvious that the mainstream media had no intention of allowing images of police doing this to unarmed protesters to be broadcast to the entire internet. Coupled with the fact that Oakland Mayor Jean Quan had much interest in the planning and carrying out of the raid (as leaked e-mails have shown) it is very likely that these news organizations had advance warning that this type of repression was to take place and were told that they damn well shouldn't film it.  Myself and many others watched as Spencer ran to retrieve another battery for his Droid-X phone so that we could see those images, and many people were grateful to him for doing it.  He stood there at the police lines, literally shining a light on police officers who had concealed their badge numbers with black electrical tape, which led to a ruling by a district court against the officers.

The case of Spencer Mills shows us two things about livestreaming: it can do the job mainstream journalists cannot be relied upon to do (as in the case of the helicopter streams going down before a brutal police action, the act of merely showing what is going on), and it can hold the authorities accountable (as in the case of the police who covered their badges with tape). That being said, Spencer knows better than anybody else that he would not get the viewership or approbation he received unless he was (one of) the only one(s) filming those now-famous and all-too-familiar scenes. After all, you're not getting ten-thousand views showing some people standing around in a public space talking radical politics and smoking Roll-Your-Own cigarettes. Sex sells, and police-oppression porn not only gets big numbers, but helps the movement as well.

On the night of the Zuccotti Eviction, Tim Pool, aka @Timcast, chose to livestream masked protesters releasing air from the tires of NYPD vehicles, despite the pleas from the masked people engaging in the activity to do otherwise. One might say that this was one of the only interesting things happening on Broadway and Pine at that time, and so for the sake of those viewing, he had to film it. One might say that he had to do it in the interest of truth, or objectivity, and that to not do it would betray some journalistic oath or duty. One might take a more cynical stance and say that he is interested in neither truth nor propaganda, and purposefully straddles the line between observer and protester for the advancement of his own career.  

Something has to be said of the self-perception of the livestreamer as well as how they are perceived by those around them. The complex interplay between these two things can be seen in a number of examples. While many live-streamers do consider themselves activists, some may be regarded as outsiders by protesters even to the point of derision and scorn, like Tim Pool. This however does not preclude them from being (ostensibly in Tim's case) viewed by the police as a "protester." Reports of police confiscating devices and deleting the photographs on them have come in from Nashville to New York City, where there have been many examples of livestreamers being selectively targeted for arrest and harassment by the NYPD. It doesn't begin and end with 'citizen journalists,' however, as Police Departments show the same contempt for the mainstream media. The New York Times has written a second letter to the NYPD requesting that they stop harassing journalists. If this is the way they treat them what chance does a live-streamer have?

Live-streaming is propaganda and the cameraperson is an activist insofar as the camera is pointed primarily at the police. I say this because if acts of unjustified police violence are one of the strongest tools available to any movement then it should be the job of the livestreamer, if s/he is an activist, to make this their primary focus. Luke Rudkowski, whose edited videos (which are mostly compilations of the NYPD beating and arresting protesters) and livestreams primarily focus on instances of police brutality would qualify as a propaganda, as would the work of Spencer Mills, despite the fact that both of these men have professed that they are not "protesters," and Luke Rudkowski has referred to himself as a journalist on countless occasions. They are propagandists whether they like it or not. If you don't think so, just imagine how much different the NYPD TARU videos of marches look like compared to video from either Spencer or Luke. These videos might resemble the perspective of Tim Pool, who has consistently turned the lens on protesters, in the name of truth or what have you.  

On February 1, 2012 Susie Cagle tweeted this:  "If spending the time to get the #OO story makes everyone think I'm "a protester" too, so be it. #OO needs more than fly-in reporting." This seems very much like a justification or defense of purposefully distorting the line between observer and participant. One of my mentors in radical politics and activism was an English teacher at my High School. When I told him I was going to the Iraq War protests in NYC he gave me this advice: "Go there with a pen and pad in hand, put a little slip of paper in your hat that says 'Press' and if the police try to arrest you tell them you are not a protester, but simply covering the event for your school newspaper." When one sees a Ryan Devereaux or Gavin Aronsen on an Occupy march it isn't always clear just by looking at them that they are journalists, and when it really comes down to it, they are just another body in the crowd. That is not to say that simply because they don't outwardly appear as journalists and are indeed indistinguishable from the protesters they are covering that they cease to be journalists, but rather to point out that the lines in this case are blurry, even when both external and internal perceptions align. By this I mean that in these cases both of these men are credentialed journalists (from albeit progressive news sources), but not livestreamers, and certainly not activists at any rate.

While it is clear that live-streaming is a necessary journalistic service in many ways, the sad but true fact remains that the proliferation of the means of journalistic production has made quality sources hard to find. This is a problem inherent in the very idea of livestreams, since each one is potentially as important as any other because not all eyes can be everywhere at once. We obviously value a higher definition image when we watch, but also would like to see content that helps to advance our struggle in some way. I've said this before and I'll say it again here: journalists (in the strict sense, that is to say for the purpose of this point, not live-streamers) have an obligation to truth above all else. They might sympathize with our movement but as journalists whose job and duty it is to uncover and report the truth they will never be our propagandists, nor should we expect them to be. Knowing that many livestreamers consider themselves both journalists and activists (some only when it suits them) further confuses this. We should value livestreams for their obvious functions as doing the job that (mainstream) journalists won't do, keeping people all over the world abreast of events about which they might never hear any fair coverage, and helping to advance our cause. But when livestreamers straddle the line between protester and journalist, particularly in the case of generating donations and helping to advance their career at the expense of the movement, then we should realize that livestreaming is not an absolute good, and there is nothing sacrosanct about it.

Bloc the Livestream (or How Occupy Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bloc)

I haven't been totally at ease that the issues stemming from the assault on Tim Pool, aka @Timcast, at Sunday's (Second) Oakland Solidarity March in NYC have been totally put to rest. There has been much written in both the mainstream press and in the blogosphere about what happened, and many a conversation on Twitter has been had on the subject. I neither intend nor believe that I will put these issues to rest here, indeed they have the potential to be divisive enough to cause people to leave the movement. I do believe, however, that certain things deserve clarification, particularly in regard to what is called "Black Bloc," and specifically the supposed 'contingent' here in NYC.

In several articles there has been a conflation of Tim Pool's attacker as a member of the Black Bloc simply because he was wearing a mask. An article in Tech News Daily (http://www.technewsdaily.com/3716-smartphone-journalists-resistance-sides.html) that highlights not only the attack on Tim Pool but other attacks on Livstreamers (by protesters or police) at occupations around the country defines them as "fringe anarchists who resort to vandalism and are shunned by other protesters." This definition is very similar to the one I saw in a local NYC NBC article about Sunday's March. I find it problematic in many ways, and also pervasive even within the confines of the Occupy Movement itself.

If one concedes that there is a Black Bloc in NYC (which I contend that as such there is not) I seriously implore anyone to show photographic or videographic proof of any property destruction that has happened in NYC since September 17, 2011 by their actions. By this I mean broken store windows, destruction of luxury cars, graffiti, things that one would legitimately call "vandalism." I am trying to narrow the definition here because I have indeed witnessed attempts by "Black Bloc" to build roadblocks using things found on the street (orange traffic cones, metal barricades, trashcans and bags of trash) but as these aren't permanent and can't have a dollar-sign attached to them, they don't qualify as "property damage" or "vandalism." Even when Zuccotti Park was evicted the "Black Bloc" did not resort to these tactics, although in one incident that night it was perhaps the closest that it ever has. After the eviction and a March, a large crowd gathered on Broadway and Pine. Tim Pool was there livestreaming and came upon a group of masked protesters releasing air from NYPD vehicles' tires. He was approached by these masked protesters ("Black Bloc") and a confrontation ensued when he refused to stop livestreaming their illegal actions. Here the Tim Pool connection is a bonus, and not really the point of me relating this story. The point is that this is the closest I have seen in NYC of so-called "Black Bloc" resorting to vandalism and that this particular action, as a tactic, had a definite goal (that the NYPD wouldn't be able to load brothers and sisters into them and take them away) and wasn't capricious aggression.

I'd like to take a moment here to say why I believe there is no legitimate "Black Bloc" in NYC, and why we should take to calling what there is that resembles a Black Bloc something else. First off, Black Bloc, as a tactic, is supposed to involve everyone wearing all black clothes and black masks so that authorities will have a hard time pinning a particular action on a particular person (especially in the case of their arrest). For this tactic to work a Black Bloc not only needs the proper attire, but also large numbers and organization. If there are only two or three people in masks in an area the tactic is far less effective than if there are twenty or one-hundred. On this level there is no organized Black Bloc in NYC, as I have never seen an actual organized Bloc on the streets, but perhaps only what could be defined as affinity groups of two to six people at most. That said, one can dress in all black, don a black mask, and never engage in a 'Bloc' of any kind (you might even throw a bottle at a cop and run away like a coward or assault a livestreamer). Many of the people I have seen engage in "Bloc" activities in NYC, myself included, think wearing all black is tantamount to putting a huge bullseye on your back, so many people simply wear normal clothes and don a mask. I think this is effective in first of all shedding the connotation of all black with property destruction, and also elevating effective tactics to the forefront of what a Black Bloc does.

A hallmark of Black Blocs in North America has been property destruction, and when they hear the phrase "Black Bloc" many people rightly think of broken windows of Starbucks and McDonalds locations from the Battle of Seattle. However, as I have pointed out at length above, I have never seen any of this in NYC. What I have seen are two things that are incredibly important to every protester, whether "peaceful/non-violent" or willing to engage with the police. These are unarresting people and breaking kettles. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against either of these things, especially kettle-breaking, kettling being one of the most heinous things a police department anywhere can engage in. In many ways I'd rather be a victim of police violence than be kettled. There is nothing fun about going to jail and facing criminal charges. Having a bullshit felony or misdemeanor on your record could ruin your life, and so especially if you are a peaceful protester with no inclinations toward resistance of any kind (when people say 'non-violent resistance' they really mean 'non-violent submission') you have to wonder who is going to break that kettle, or who is going to help you up from the floor before the police do. This is something I have seen time and time again on marches in NYC. Whenever a man gets helped up from the pavement, pulled from the clutches of a cop and certain incarceration, and whenever a kettle is broken and hundreds of people come streaming through what used to be a line that demarcated those who were free and those who were not, it is always a bunch of people in masks (not necessarily black ones) who are putting their safety and freedom on the line to make sure these things happen.

If we can accept that there will be selfish, violent people in any large grouping of human beings, and that things like a bottle thrown randomly here or there are going to happen, we can take heart that Black Block is taking "peaceful/non-violent" protesters' feelings into account by not engaging in property destruction (which benefits nobody) and only doing things that are beneficial to everyone. Before I continue, I want to point out that in a true Black Bloc the safety of other demonstrators is always taken into account and so they tend to break off from the March to engage with the police or destroy property.

So now when we reconsider where we started off, with Sunday's attack on Tim Pool at the (Second) Oakland Solidarity March, we have no reason to tie the attacker to the Black Bloc, and furthermore we have no reason to say that a Black Bloc does or even should exist in NYC. However, by making the conversation about "black bloc" on a flimsy correlation and not the person's action itself, you deflect from the discussion about the efficacy of livestreaming and onto the very existence of Black Bloc and resistance against police. Why would anyone not want Tim Pool to livestream? Why was he specifically targeted while Dwayne_wins and Luke Rudkowski went on filming unmolested? In that article from Tech News Daily, after caricaturing the Black Bloc's function and what people think about them they add this, literally parenthetically.

"(Several people, including Pool, theorize that Sunday's attacker may have been an undercover officer acting as a provocateur.)"

If we are reasonable about this and don't fetishize non-violence (remembering that it is only a tactic, and like any tactic should be used to reach a goal, and when the tactic becomes destructive of those ends it should be discarded) I think more of Occupy can learn to stop worrying and love the Bloc.

A Bike Cavalry Primer

Historically, Cavalry has had a twofold role that stems from its speed: to act as advance scouts, and to make flanking attacks. In the realm of Protest Marches, many tactics from cavalry can be applied to protesters with Bicycles. Bicycle Cavalry has been used to some extent by both protesters and police and there are a plethora of tactics we can gain from these examples.

1. Reconnaissance: Bicycle cavalry can scope out the blocks ahead of a march with an unplanned route, relaying information about the location of police to flag-bearers/banner holders that lead the march. Communication is obviously a must, and can be accomplished easily via text messaging. This requires some organization and planning.
2. Setting Roadblocks/Directing Traffic: Setting a roadblock may be useful for preventing indecision at an intersection (closing off the sides that the protesters shouldn't be going) or to stop vehicular traffic so that police vehicles have a hard time advancing to the location of the march. Stopped traffic means police will only be able to get through on foot, closing down their ability to drive vans into the march and force people onto the sidewalk, or use wedge (Flying-V) formations with their two-wheeled motorized vehicles (be they scooters or motorcycles). These are easily achieved by turning the bikes so that they are almost perpendicular with the street they are blocking, interlocking in a phalanx formation. This tactic is sometimes used by the NYPD, but judging from those circumstances, they are only as effective as they are complete. The more porous the line, the less effective it will be in being a barrier, but this isn't relevant if the only purpose is simply to help keep the march moving in the right direction. 
3. Flash Mob/Distraction: In this case the function as reconnaissance should tell the swarm where they are needed. A scenario might be appearing outside of a kettle, stopping to hurl some projectiles in the direction of the police as a distraction for long enough to weaken the kettle-line and help the people inside to break free. This is obviously a risky (illegal) offensive tactic and can be modified to a simple distraction-swarm, but kettle-preventing and kettle-breaking are two of the most important things a Bike Cavalry can accomplish and so this would have to weighed by individual members of particular bike cavalry organizations as to whether the risks involved are worth it. This is something that people would have to be willing to be arrested to accomplish and can represent a division in your local Bike Cavalry to arrestables and those not willing to be arrested. If one isn't willing to be arrested, one can focus simply on reconnaissance or become...
4. Couriers: This is simple enough. On long marches people get hungry and thirsty, and there can be members of the Bike Cavalry who focus on getting food and water to those in need.
5. Bicycle Medics: This would just be a medic on a bicycle, the advantage being one of rapid response to different parts of the march. Again, using the bicycle as a shield to protect an injured protester who is being treated by street-medics is another possibility here. 

This is a relatively new idea, with some precedent in the Occupy movement. Portland is known to have a bike swarm (read this on some of their successes http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-outsmarts-police-creating-blueprint-for-other-occupations/), and San Fransisco has a Bike Cavalry (http://sfbikecavalry.blog.com/). Many of these maneuvers require organization, communication, and most of all, training. Please share some of your ideas about uses for a bicycle cavalry in protest marches!

Some other suggestions:

1) Via @SFBicycleCavalry: Badges/Something similar to the street medics' cross to convey a sense of trust between Bike Cavalry and Marchers.
2) Via @PDXBikeSwarm: "Disco Trike" (a bike blasting music) and the presence of the bike swarm itself to show both solidarity and raise spirits. There's nothing worse than a march without noise!

My Thoughts on the (Second) Oakland Solidarity March, NYC 1/29/12

Firstly, if Sunday proved anything, it's that we need some organization in these marches. Banner holders should be at the front and sides of the marches, not only to keep shape and pace, but also to keep the cops out of the march. It serves the same function as their orange kettle nets, but obviously we would use it to our advantage (e.g. preventing them from reaching in and arbitrarily arresting someone, holding the line so that they cannot funnel us onto the sidewalk when we take the streets). Secondly we need to be able to take the streets. On Sunday, someone in a mask exhorted the crowd: "Marching on the sidewalks is counter-revolutionary," and he's right. All we really did for Oakland was go on a glorified walk with a police escort that constantly jeopardized both our safety and freedom. There is almost no point of marching unless we are creating a disruption (which we may have done, but in this case only marginally). On top of that marching on the sidewalks is tight, and opens us up to stampedes when cops rush into the crowd, and an inability to move freely to escape from them in dicey situations. Besides being dangerous in many ways it was also the cause of a major problem on Sunday: Indecision.

Here I think it is important to draw a parallel to the first Oakland Solidarity March. On that occasion, we were only confined to the sidewalk during the very beginning of the March, when passing by Ground Zero (this was in the days when Zuccotti was a living, breathing thing) and while we were at City Hall. But once we recognized there was a kettle closing, we rushed onto the pavement on Broadway and from that point on there was no stopping us. The half of the March I was on (the other half took Broadway all the way North to Union Square) spread into the West Village and meandered in almost no particular direction, constantly maintaining the streets, having full time to set up trash roadblocks on some of them before the police got to us (even though the peace police cleaned it up before they ever arrived). Coupled with points of running at full speed (which contravenes the conventional wisdom of keeping pace) we still overcame indecision. I think this is solely because we maintained access to the streets and therefore managed to keep the momentum going. When we are on the sidewalks the police are already dictating the terms on which we can march, and therefore limit our ability to make decisions (even if these decisions are mere manifestations of crowd psychology). This is why the March fizzled out at Tompkins Square Park on Sunday, and why we didn't take advantage of clear opportunities to take the pavement in Midtown earlier in the night. 

Another way to deal with indecision is by having flag-bearers in communication with Bicycle Scouts in the blocks ahead of the March. Even if this communication is lacking and the flag-bearer is making autonomous decisions, it can still add to the cohesiveness of a march simply by giving the marchers a clear sense of purpose (follow that flag).

I want to touch on the ideas on "violece" and the "peace police" which were highlighted by the conspicuous throwing of bottles on Sunday. Throwing bottles randomly is not productive (I think an argument could be made that projectile throwing can be effective in a standoff situation with two lines opposing each other and an obviously established no-man's land) and just because these people are wearing masks doesn't mean they're Black Bloc. Blac Bloc is a tactic that requires both organization and numbers, and what I saw Sunday was not that, but individual assholes who only wanted to injure the police at the cost of having cops chase them into crowds, injuring protesters in the process. Blac Bloc as a tactic is supposed to PROTECT people on the March by virtue of their organization and willingness to clash with the police. Shields, for example are obviously purely defensive. When organized into a Phalanx formation people wielding shields can protect many people, and also do things like better maintain access to the streets and distract the cops from attacking people who are being peaceful. There are tactics that we can borrow from the 'black bloc' without engaging in wanton property destruction or other activities that put people unnecessarily at risk. One of the highlights of the first Oakland Solidarity March was when a number of masked people (black bloc-ish), myself included, helped break a kettle, saving a large number of people from arrest, and leaving us with an orange mesh trophy to carry down Broadway. Organization in these situations is key (it all started with an outward call that the kettle was happening behind us and that militants were needed to help break it), and anonymity to some is paramount, which brings me to the attack on @timcast 

While I respect the service livestreamers provide in keeping people informed without either presence or fair coverage from the MSM, and (to what extent, really?) holding police accountable, this is a revolution, and not a purity contest. We will have to do grimy things, illegal things (the least of which would be marching on the pavement, unarresting people, and breaking kettles, though this is obviously not really what I mean by this), and these things should not always be broadcast to the world (and the police who are some of livestream's biggest fans). These could have legal implications for people that engage in them and also have a chilling effect as to what risks some people are willing to take if it could be used as evidence against them in case of their arrest. Openness and transparency are obviously important to us: this is what we want out of our governments! But in certain cases we need to be secretive and perhaps even distort the truth or outright lie. If we are to succeed we will have to recognize that livestreaming isn't sacrosanct and CAN be counterproductive. That said, I witnessed @timcast get accosted on Eviction Night (and at that time even made the argument that seeing people release the air from tires of NYPD paddywagons on livestream would be radicalizing for those watching) and I saw what happened to him yesterday. Carrerists who are trying to make a name for themselves aren't our friend as revolutionaries, but even if they aren't willing to respect people's wishes VIOLENCE SHOULD NEVER BE USED AGAINST THEM. There are those who value truth at all costs, and those who value revolution at all costs. In many ways these are in conflict with each other, perhaps to the point of mutual exclusivity, but both are commendable positions. 

Now, on to the "peace police." These people are incredibly divisive in moments where unity is absolutely necessary. Some might argue the same thing for those who set up roadblocks and hurl projectiles at the police, and engage in other "non-peaceful" activities. However I have never seen people doing those things attack other protesters (even though in certain instances they create dangerous situations that put other protesters at risk, but this is a result of selfishness and stupidity, not tactics). I have seen "peace police" attack supposed comrades either verbally or physically for doing something that wasn't "peaceful." Something that bothered me on Sunday was a masked man threw a bottle at the cops when we were at the abandoned school in Alphabet City, and he was verbally accosted by a protester. The police saw what was going on and arrested the protester who accosted the bottle thrower. On one level, the bottle thrower is a selfish asshole, as one of our comrades got arrested because of his actions (never mind the fact that he ducked before throwing it and immediately moved deeper into the crowd, which looked cowardly to say the least). On the other hand, if the protester kept his fucking mouth shut, he would've never gotten arrested. A person who assaults a livestreamer, whatever you think of them (snitch, invaluable service), should be brought to the police. But anyone who would snitch on a comrade, no matter how stupid or selfish their action may be, if it is not directed at one of our compatriots there is never a justification for it.


Update: I want to point out what may seem a glaring inconsistency with my logic in saying that militants have never verbally or physically attacked peaceful protesters in light of the discussion on the attack on Tim Pool is in fact perfectly reasonable. Tim Pool, Luke Rudkowski, and others that have become associated with #OWS (some may say profiteering, at the very least using it as a springboard for their careers) are only covering the events, not participating in them. That is to say they are journalists and not protesters. In Luke Rudkowski's video which ran in the Guardian with an accompanying piece by Ryan Devereaux, the arrest and release of a member of We Are Change includes some horrific speech from the NYPD officers but also some very telling lines from the cameraman. He tells them he is a journalist, not a protester, and he was only running down the street to catch the arrest as it is "worth money." This may have been overlooked by some because of the language and threats made by the NYPD officer, but it is a significant illustration of the point that they are not one of us. They are indeed journalists, not revolutionaries, and any attack on them, however unjustifiable and despicable it may be, are not attacks on one of our own. 


I would also like to add something to the list of negatives for marching on the sidewalk. When you experience the "photographer swarm" or "flash-bulb circle-jerk," every time a cop tries to arrest someone on the sidewalk it completely stops the march and has a tendency to split it up (a strategy of the police to put an end to the march)