Content with tag climatecamp .

Outline of 20 years ups and downs of grassroots activism in the UK

In my expirence the flowering of the indymedia networks followed by the first years of climatecamp were the high points of activist culture. The end of climate camp was the low point of activist culture, after this the drift to NGO and fashion was wide and dissipating.

Occupy was a break in activist culture, it was the first mass “internet first” on the ground manifestation that happened disconnected to the past of activism because of the use of #dotcons tools as prime organising space. The old couture has been discredited by the failings of climate camp, the new dotcon tools had been celebrated and used well by Ukuncut etal. Were Ukuncut was a reboot of old climate camp crew, Occupy was a project of the #failbook generation in all its wide reflective madness.

Were are we now? The old left is rebooting with a broken mix of the blairite right and the Stalinist/toxic left both pulling at the radical liberal centre. Alt media content is being rebooted but the network it needs to build, to stop its drift to NGO burn out is missing. The right is ideologically bankrupt and visibly grasping, but stronger than ever.

In activism currently we are full of the biter taste of occupy and NGO worshipping of dotcoms and careerism. The working of the 21st century is potentially different to the workings of the 20th century the are groups, networks and individuals that embody this and a larger group/individuals who fight for the past century working practices.

The “certainties of the 20th century” are grasped in our frail and trembling hands, the first stage of a “network” reboot is to let go of these “certainties” one constructive path to this is to fill in the gaping activist memory hole by looking at what works and what dose not. The lost and flailing progressive alt needs foundations bridging this gap to build on.

The IS NO SHORT TERMISM HERE but the is speed and nimbleness, plenty of fun, creative motivated building to be done. Many of the foundation problems can be built in parallel as a “network” so it can happen faster than most can imagine.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

 

UPDATE:

 

Am currently working on two projects to take steps to medate the issues I ouline here:

Open Media  Network (OMN)

The Witches Cauldron - open activist archive

 

Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.


Never heard of Spellchecker? Get someone else to look over your writing if you struggle with grammar etc. Readers will take these things more seriously - and more importantly, understand what you are trying to say more clearly - if it is better presented.
Posted on 27/12/16 18:18.

Where is our media?

Climate camp is a example of the transition from alternative media to social media. At the beginning of the Climate Change Movement Indymedia was declining. At the first two camps there was a healthy Indymedia centre providing internet, sustainable power and computers

There's always a stress between alternative media and outreach to traditional media. They're in competition and to a certain extent they ignored each other at climate camp. But for social change it is important for the two to go hand-in-hand. The outreach to traditional media should support the production of alternative media and alternative media should feed the best of its production into traditional media to amplify its voice. At climate camp there was only lip service to this happening, in reality the two groups split apart quite soon. Originally the groups were supposed to share the same physical space, but this did not last.

The agenda of traditional media outreach was about the shmoozing of traditional journalists.* Whereas alternative media was bogged down in providing real services in a field which to an extent is always dysfunctional. Like oil and water without a conscious emulsifier to hold them together they separated and throughout the life of climate camp the two never really came together. This happened to a certain extent because radical activists, and I use the word “radical” with "" marks, were prejudiced against people who do what is perceived as soft works such as media production. This is part of activist lifestyle. The spikey/floppy debate.

For a time activist/traditional media outreach ploughed separate paths both playing a role. With the growth of blogging and then most importantly social media - Twitter and Facebook. A new group of NGO focused careerists**  championed this initially successful new tool. The traditional media crew ignored social media***, mirroring the attitude of traditional media to social media at those times. The more naive alternative media embraced social media as an effective tool for social change. The realistic alternative media reluctantly embraced it as another form of media outreach, a form of outreach that bypassed the gatekeepers of traditional media.

The growth of social media impacted grassroots alternative media in catastrophic ways. The software NGO careerists**** championed social media and for the naive alternative media people this was the panacea, the future, the one way to gain a voice. Interestingly the traditional media outreach initially saw social media as a threat but they soon with reluctance embraced it. The few remaining radical alt media people struggled to work wih declining relevance, their tools ageing and disintegrating. With the problems of geek culture they had no way to compete with traditional media or the new social media.

Social media took over activist media. Traditional media still had a role as the traditional media belatedly embraced social media and learnt how to use it.

As I highlighted my other article the problem of geek culture damaged radical alternative media. The failure of traditional media outreach to complement activist media led to radical activist media being sidelined. The growth of individualistic blogging while temporarily bolstering individual voices inevitably led to a decline of of our cultural voice. The final blow the wholesale embracing of social media pushed by the NGO careerists.*****

In all these failures we have come full circle to where we started with a dominant hegemonic gatekeeper media world. If we are to rebuild an open media we have to learn from these mistakes and make sure that we do not continue to repeat them.

Lessons to learn

* Work out how to overcome the limitations of geek culture for activist media. Open is the solution here.

* The politics of media. We need to make sure that there is emulsifier in place between radical grassroots media and traditional media outreach. To achieve this the social movements need to rein in and refocus the traditional media message. Media production IS “spikey” and core to activism.

* Radical grassroots media is always incompatible with NGO careerists.****** We need to build in strong enough foundations so that our architecture cannot be subverted by these privileged people. This is for their good and our good.

Conclusion, the most difficult part of successful radical grassroots media is social, cultural and political. In this it's essential that it is not technologically led. Actually technology is the easiest part of radical media. The tools and standards that we need always already exist. What is missing is the willingness and the common-sense to use what we have.

Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.


The main arguments of this article are interesting and really worth considering. Unfortunately it is marred by some unjustified personal abuse, which really undermines the article. I should point out that the comments and questions below come from someone who was present and working in exactly the places cited in the article.

The asterisks refer to notes I have added to the text above.

* "Agenda" and "schmoozing" are loaded words with a negative connotation - what on earth is wrong with outreaching to mass media?

** It is completely unjustified to characterise these hard-working activists in this negative way

*** No, they didn't.

**** I'd like you to name names, then they can sue you for libel - it's cowardly to accuse an unnamed group of "NGO careerism".

***** Who are they again? I mean, is anyone who has a job with an NGO a "careerist"? - that would make it easier to know who was being fingered. Or are there some people who work for NGOs who are not careerists? Are you confusing "careerism" with "having a job with an NGO"?. Please clarify.

****** See my questions above.
Posted on 26/01/15 14:10.
I need to wright a post on this subject - coming soon.

My critique of people who build careers in NGO's I think is valid and if you talk to meany of them over a pint they would wholeheartedly agree the the NGO world is deeply problematic for meany resions.

To work for a NGO for any time is to be shaped by the NGO Agenda, you have to be otherwise you would not get funding and further your carrear. To fight that agenda would likely drive you out of the NGO.

"Schmoozing" My all time faveret quote from a climate camp media team meeting is honest self reference to "sucking corporate cock" which is what they did, to do, a very good job for the climate camp movement. Some one needed to do it.

I didn't, Yes they worked very hard and were successful, I liked um all, that dosent mean what they did was good for movement building. Look at the climate camp at on the Black heath for an example of this.

The traditional media for years was in denial of social media, it only embraced it with a generation change in the organizations.

Rich, the history is spoty, we are useless at achieving our seces and failers, activist memory is largely a black hole - its why we are now working on a open achieve project - lets see what comes out of that.

I think the affects wernt by active evil as you are implying, more by useless activist memmy holes so that we keep recreating the same shit outcomes decade after decade. This post is addressing this subject - piling shit over it even if well intentioned might not be the best thing to do or maybe am not shore maybe it will make it better lets see.

They are the people who drop in organize "good things". Its fuckup rather than conspiracy, few people are actively evil.
Posted on 26/01/15 18:01 in reply to Richard Hering.
"piling shit over it even if well intentioned might not be the best thing to do" - if you dish it you've got to be prepared to receive it.
Posted on 26/01/15 18:16 in reply to Hamish Campbell.
Shit is the bases of compost and all life is built on top of that, so as I dithered, maybe its a good thing emoticon
Posted on 26/01/15 18:20 in reply to Richard Hering.

Organise the 21st Century

Lets look at how we acturly organise.

Garssroots alternative streams (and mainstream river with more complexity) can be split into a number of streams

* The horizontals

* The verticals

In the horizontals the organising is actually pretty opaque – lets look at the tributary’s

Organic consensus – this is rare and generally fleeting, a working example is the rainbow gathering, generally as the project settles into place organic consensus is replace with one of the bellow organising strategys. The organic nature comes form shared myths and traditions.

Bureaucratic consensus – common but this tends to be only a surface layer obscuring the actual working practices which would be one of the others. It leads to ossification, see late climate camp process as an example of this. A current project is looking likely the “edge fund”.

Opaque affinity group – the is a group of people who are doing it but you don’t know how or how to take on a role. A lot of alternative are actually run like this, middle/late climatecamp is an example.

Invisible affinity group – the thing just appears as if by magic – lovely as far as it takes you. Given time this will burn out and morph into one of the other forms. Early Climatecamp is a good example of this as is early Indymedia

Open affinity group – the is hope in this hard to sustain one an example would be the tech group at Balcoby anty fracking camp. These are hard/tiring to keep open “naturally” falling into a different strategy.

Then the verticals are more in the open

Democratic centralism (SWP etc) top down and corrupt, good for the nasty crew at the centre that can last a long time by draining new blood from the alternative. Big noise and little effect.

Bureaucratic democracy (NUJ) good as far as it goes but endless meetings and heavy use of cross subsidy to sustain the sluggish process, problematically reactionary dues to glacial adaptation to changes around it.

Career Hierarchy – most trade unions and the labour party, conservative and sluggish, can be captured by functioning opaque/invisible affinity groups and then used for their own ends – an example the new labour project.

Generally the way things are on the river surface bears little relation to the undercurrents bellow the surface. Almost all organising that achieves social change is by opaque or invisible affinity groups. The more permanent static alt infrastructure is Democratic centralism or Bureaucratic democracy. The parts that merge into the mainstream river are career Hierarchy.

We live in turbulent times, enjoy your ride on the choppy river.

Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.


No comments yet. Be the first.

Where are we - an example of what works

An example of what works.

At Balcome the anti-fracking camp last summer we built a “visible affinity group” to do the power and tech for the camp. This was successful in providing working off grid energy for the camp of more than 200 people for 2 months.

However it wasn’t with out problems and did fail to build on this success when the time came to reproduce this open working model at the next camps over the winter.

How we made it work, a time line:

* Clear the space of the dysfunction by imposing open working practice's.

* This opens the space for functional working which has been excluded by the dysfunctional pushy minority.

* Open working practices nurtures talent and energy the space growers and blossoms, good shit happens.

* A tiny minority of seriously dysfunctional individuals will actively try and destroy this flowering, some emotional violence will inshuew in process of excluding them.

* The wider camp will become used to a working tech space and normality will settle back into place, at its best this is rinsed and repeated for each part of the camp.

* People will start to forget the open processes as artificial, constant vigilances is needed here to keep openness relevant and in place.

* As the camp is packed down a open meeting will bring this amnesia to the surface as everyone has an equal voice and the focus (affinity) that created the flowering will be trampled under the widening of the groups members.

In the horizontal alt the are only two successful working practices, most organising happens by “invisible affinity groups” climate camp and RTS are examples of this. Rarely “open affinity groups” are also successful, examples would be early Indymedia and this tech at Blacome.

Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.


No comments yet. Be the first.

I love affinity group organising

A ruff DRAFT

I love affinity group organising, its a very effective way of getting good stuff done. Lets look at the highs and lows of a few such inspiring groups.

First 2 years climatecamp were affinity group organised (manifested), it worked very well, the was no “democracy”. Process grew and smoothed this in-till the project “ossified” into the naive mess that you see in the film “just do it”, it went down hill when bureaucratic consensuses process brought a highrahcky into existences run by people who had no idea how to do real/horizontal things.

The first few years of London hackspace were afferently group organised (hacked), it was a exceptional frendly and open space, with few fundemental problems. Only later has it started to fall into the arms of “bureaucracy” which some naive people might call democracy. The common space, decision making and creativity are now “ossified” and the trolls are breeding and dispoling the decision making e-mail list.

In both cases the transition came about because of the limitations of affinity group organising – that small close nit groups, while nimbale/very effective move on. The resulting spaces are then filled with less imaginative/creative/lovely people who leave the space open to trolls and blind ego wankers.

Affinity group organising is the best we have for anerkist/libertarian/horizontal ideas about life, but the is no working horizontal process for passing on responsibility to new affinity groups – thus they are annual flowers, they fade and die too soon to be a real alternative to traditional society. What can we do about this?

The same happened to UK indymedia, though that was also different in some ways.

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 4.0 stars out of 5.


No comments yet. Be the first.

Balcombe - anarchist and conservative

(DRAFT)

Interesting to think about the things you are involved with and the things you do. Important to understand am not talking about the sciences or polatics of fracking here, am lifting the lid to see what I can see under the hood of both camps.

I had been staying in the Balcombe Protection Camp (BPC) for a week and was walking back from spending a few hours at the climate camp (RCP) along the beautiful bridal way, this seamed to sum up my feelings about the two camps. "#Balcombe protection camp is conservative and anarchic #reclaimpower is anarchist and conservative, thoughts on #frackoff camping”.

In the BPC we had a dysfunctionally colourful collection of disparate groups with the stongist being different “conservative' voices. But the overall process was arcnerkic in a creative way. Then at RTP we had a very functional mono-culture over all young and progressive lead by a affinity group of ex-arnercists who now largely work for NGO's.

Why would I call both camps conservative? Looking at the ongoing power struggles of BPC it becomes easy to see that the strongest voices are thoughs who have the lest progressive agenda’s – underlining it all are the squirearchy, they have the hands and fingers on the money, media and web sites. Then the is there natural allies’s the disempowerd working class who control the welcome centre and share responsibility for the money. Added to this you have the family history of occupy who some how fill this country space...

In the climatecamp (RTP) we have a odd mixture of old school lifestay anarchists and new professionals moving up the NGO pole. The meetings are slick, and all the decisions are made before the camp starts – this works very well as a one off and with funding might continue. Though am not shore if the few remaining “anarchists” will continue with this? Excelent actions, soughted pro tredtional media team, food, power, tolits and grhate legal backup. What more do you need? yes... that is a Q. a few peopule were asking...

My second comment a few days latter “Came back from #Protest #Fracking with the feeling of a Brothel of media prostitutes and corporate (media) cock suckers. Where is the balance of the (alt) contemporary media today?” both camps are hungry for traditional media coverage, the seams to be little belief or understanding left for alt-media or even social media.

A reply from Richard Hering “Where is the alt media? You could start here and watch all the videos http://grassroots.visionon.tv/fracking and if you want the latest, embed the player in your blog or site...” is like a cry in the dark and is ignored by both camps.

So neither is very progressive, but both have space for much more progressive input, you can turn up at both camps and as long as you are not relying on centralised resources you can have a big impact so both are relatively open as progressive spaces. In this seance they are both still temporary autonomous zones in the old anarchic speak.

I would like to make alt-media really work at such spaces. Todo this you would need:

1) a sorted team of people (3 would be a start)

2) own solar power and basic equipment

3) a big tent/small markey/carport

4) a budgit for transport and expesise 

Then turn up and make things happen – we did this very successfully at Kingsnorth Climatecamp.

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 3.0 stars out of 5.


No comments yet. Be the first.

Control freak's (DRAFT)

(Psychology) an obsessive need to be in control of what is happening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_freak This has been an issue with many groups and individuals I have been involved with in activist organising.

It was key to the decline of the http://indymedia.org.uk project and the ossification the climate camp process and static nature of the climate camp website http://climatecamp.org.uk My most destructive experience of this till recently was the organising of the London European Social Forum, and the central role of the SWP and Ken Livingston's office in this. Currently I am involved in the organizing of the http://rebelliousmediaconference.org and I would like to highlight how this process is being damaged by Control Freakery during the on going process.

RMC (Peacenews) process and “pushing the agenda”

During the first meeting I attended a single speaker talked continuously for ¾ of the meeting, constantly expressing the lack of time and the need to move on – this is called “pushing the agenda”.

Taking charge of the minutes – and constantly not reporting the views in the record of people who do not fit into this pushed agenda.

Packing and controlling the agenda of each meeting, then pushing through this agenda, leaving no time or space for differing views.

Then when the inevitable rebellion happens blocking this procedurally in till it becomes irrelevant to the outcome of the project. Nitpicking might be a good way of describing this blocking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement is used as weapon to stop productive open organising and to shut down process outside of the “pushed agenda”. 

Its hard to put your finger on what is wrong at the start of this process but as you go along it is soon made clear that it is a deep intolerance, a lack of trust and narrowness of vision that verges on stupidity.

As one of the core organisers of the RMC conference highlighted it is very hard to change this behaver, some back ground reading on the problems http://www.ec-online.net/knowledge/articles/control.html 

Issues that make this behaver more of a problem:

* Lack of solidarity among the organising group

* Unbalance of knowledge of the core differencet approaches in the RMC this has manifested as lack of understanding of technological change.

...

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 5.0 stars out of 5.


Paul Spencer This is only a surface level understanding of the psychology of a control freak. To reiterate the story of desire for control all the time only goes to strengthen the existence of this character in our groups. I think it's more useful to look at the underlying issues, which are probably things such as the feeling of powerlessness that comes over us when we start to face the weight of history and the momentum of convention that drives "the way thigns are" forward. (Just to name one.) I think apparent "personality problems" spring up persistently in groups that deprioritise looking after each other in favour of tangible political outcomes.
Yesterday at 07:11 · Like · 1 person


John Hoggett Yes, my therapy and group work experience says that if you drop the agenda and look at how the group is getting on, you eventually get a better outcome because people if you do that eventually you get a group that cares for each other quite deeply. You all came together for a reason so that will emerge and then you can make plans and implement them.
Yesterday at 08:59 · Like

John Hoggett The group that I am working with (and challenging quite seriously) has what is called, Founders Syndrome, a particular version of this. It has been going on for as long as I have been on the committee (1.5 years) and for a long time before that. The founder makes just about all the decisions. The committee is bored as he rabbits on, stopping other contributing, and then arguments emerge as different points of view are raised. Someone then smooths it over and we move forward an inch at at time, but the underlying problem is not resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome

Founder's syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Founder's syndrome, sometimes called Founderitis[1][2], is a label normally used...
See more
Yesterday at 09:05 · Like ·

John Hoggett Sometimes pointing out the dynamics helps (ie how we treat each other in the group) but it has to be done from a moderatly disinterested point of view, which is why an outside consultant can help. If you are frustrated that the agenda is not being dealt with you risk getting into a battle. Sometimes pointing out how it is perpetuated can help, but it is risky (so I need to point out to my committee how my Founder uses the word, "We" or "The Office" to mean a mythical group of people who are not in the room at the time who are lending wieght to his argument when in fact he really means he has not done something before and does not want to do it now).
Yesterday at 09:16 · Like

John Hoggett Putting names and groups on the blog seems potentially infalmatory. Have you considered the risk to yourself? Do you have the support you might need to deal with the back lash from people who feel exposed and take it personally? I sometimes like a bit of a barny myself, especially after sitting in a frustrating committee for months, but sometimes it just leads to flaming rows and then there is a risk that the group explodes and people leave or it ends.
Yesterday at 09:20 · Like
Hamish Campbell Not shore, am not naming any individual or even the groups involved?
Yesterday at 09:27 · Like

John Hoggett You have named some groups, it depends on how long they stopped working and if it will raise those discussions again. At the post climate camp discussions on how to go forward there are ghosts that infuse the discussions -worries that the old enmities will arise again in future projects (I was not involved much in the old climate camp process so I don't know what they were or who was involved but I can sense the worries and so people are really concerned about "consensus" and how to deal with difficult conflicts, but I think a lot of it about trying to avoid those old hurtful arguments). It might be important to name some as it makes it more real, it just depends on how much distance there is between you and them and if you feel ok about doing it.
Yesterday at 09:35 · Unlike · 1 person

Richard Climber thx 4 this work. useful stuff
23 hours ago · Like

John Hoggett yeah sure, put it on the blog. It is hard work challenging this sort of stuff. It is driven by intense fear of catastrophe from the controller, leading to a lack of trust in others, so the response to challenging it can be pretty gruesome. It can so easily descend into personal back-biting, talking it over in public might help me and others.
21 hours ago · Like
Posted on 22/09/11 11:17.

The ecology of hash-tag organising (DRAFT)

A look at ideas around Ukuncut, which grew from the winding down of the climatecamp movement.

The ecology of hash-tag organising
 
A group of driven people get together in a pub and come up with a strategy and a hash-tag – they then build a aggregating website to display the hash-tag and self organise around it. This facilitates exciting, dramatic and dynamic actions, which draw in more dynamic and active crew, the aggregating website allows fast feedback.
 
Mainstream media pick this up, a group of media savey crew start to feed this media. The mainstream media coverage brings in a flood of more “liberal” activists and normal people, this swells the actions and makes them much more affective. This swerles round for a while.
 
The targets start to recognise the damage that is being done to them and the threat that they might have to change – and start a two prong strategy
 
* PR offensive to show how they are changing
* Use of private corpurtae spy’s, the courts and the police to repress the demonstration strategy
 
The problems of hash-tag organising start here, as the mainstream media outreach has seceded in bring in many more less experienced (and more liberal) people there attitudes start to dominate the hash-tag organising space. And the more experienced activist voices are submerged in this flow. The effects of this are 3 fold:
 
1) Actions start to follow a narrow predictable pattern which quickly becomes stale
2) The forces of repression create strategy’s for dealing with these static ideas/actions
3) The voices of change are submerged under the voices of flow, and the flow cercals to 1)
 
This leads to the inflexible liberal elements wilting under the focused repression and the movement stagnating and often turning on it self. It seams to me that hash-tag organising has no way out of this cyclical.
 
Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 5.0 stars out of 5.


The recent police violences at the student demo's is nothing new - rather a new group of people are experiencing systematic police abuses.

The recent police violences at the student demo's is nothing new - rather a new group of people are experiencing systematic police abuses. This film is about what happened at the Kingsnoth Climatecamp 2008, at the big G20 demo after this they killed a man.

The harassment and exclusion of legal observers, the violent arrest of women refusing to be searched, the aggressive interrogation of local residents, the threatening of journalists with arrest for doing their job, the confiscation of 100s of items such as childrens' costumes and crayons, attempted dawn raids on the camp, the use of batons and CS gas against peaceful protesters, and the forced search of 1000s of people and the adding of their personal data to a secret database. This type of political policing has to stop, and the right to legitimate protest re-established. 

http://visionon.tv

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 5.0 stars out of 5.


ClimateCamp Media

The Ratcliffe Swoop prosecutions caused a backlash against activist media that reverberated around the Edinburgh climate camp. We were not present at the Ratcliife Swoop, and played no part in the gathering of video there. When we saw footage posted of identifiable activists doing criminal damage, we were astonished, as throughout the history of video activism this has been an absolute "no no", without the express consent of the activists pictured. We immediately took this material down from visionOntv accounts where it had been posted, and told the Ratclifffe media team why we did so. Regrettably the footage was later re-posted by the producers to accounts outside of our control.  Having said that, as of writing, we have been unable to find out any details of the prosecutions and exactly which footage was used.

But as a response I (perhaps naively) thought it might be helpful to try to do consensus/affinity group process with activist film at the Edinburgh climate camp. To kick this off, we showed a sneak preview of END:CIV on the Saturday to a crowd of around 50-70 people which sparked off a good and respectful debate about aesthetic of activist film and the old spiky/fluffy debate about effective action. People came away challenged and thoughtful.

The next day after the action on the RBS HQ we showed the rough edit of it to get feedback and make sure it was OK to put out. It was enthusiastically received but there was also a very forceful verbal attack of “you must do this” “do it now, or you are endangering activists” and a refusal to answer simple questions about “why” in exchanges with one person. Finally, after some bad feeling, I found out that she had seen an “object for causing criminal damage” being held by one person in the film. OK, that is a genuine issue, so I agreed to look at it again. I asked her to show me where it was in the film but instead she rushed off to tell everyone that climatecamptv had refused to remove the “weapon” and that we were putting out films that were endangering activists. This led later to many different groups and individuals coming along to have their say over the next day about how the film should made.

See later where this led.

I had watched the film 3 times during editing for legals, and had shown it to to a number of other trusted people. After we had packed up the screening we looked at the “object” on the video and found it to be a plastic horn not an “object to cause criminal damage” at all. Humm... a storm in a teacup you would think, but read on.

Let's briefly go through it - the film of the action had a few legal issues.

* The pushing on the bridge (possibly assault) leading to the earlier dressing-up sections (unmasked) being possibly incriminating of this possible assault.

* We had no video of the breaking of windows (criminal damage) thus this was less of an issue in the film. Nor did we have film of any identifiable possible perpetrators.

* There was one additional shot which could potentially have been "creatively" used by police to prosecute an activist.

* The bridge-pushing was problematic as all the activists were unmasked, with all the FIT team on the roof and 3-4 corporate media TV/photo actively filming. Many photos/images would be available so on the one hand it was clearly done in the open, and therefore accountable. On the other, if they were charged, our video would likely be used in the prosecution, both for and against the activists. It's an issue we face many times and it unless we know otherwise we have to have to err on the side of caution. Without the opportunity to ask them whether they were accountable thus OK to show it or not, we decided to blur this section – rendering the need to blur the early stuff irrelevant as we now had no incriminating video of this “crowd” action.

The other potentially incriminating shot was removed, at the request of the individual filmed.

After running it past the affinity group made up of CCTV/visionontv crew and some trusted legal support we left it to a volunteer to polish the final edit for showing that evening before putting out to the web. In my experience you can never run a film past an audience too many times before it's finished from both a legal and an aesthetic point of view.

The day of action was very busy, and we were all running around filming. While we were out and about a number of people came in to look at the earlier action video being edited and asked the editor to make changes – he responede to their requests and made a lot of changes to hide and obscure many details throughout the film.

When we saw the film in the evening just before the screening we were shocked. Editing a film by committee is always a disaster and the film was now an incoherent and sinister mess making climatecamp look like a bunch of criminals. We now had a film we couldn't put out. This wasn't our volunteer editor's fault, it was a problem with the process we had begun but were not around to control. To top this, at the end of the day the editor had found the people who were at the front of the bridge-push and they had made it clear that they were unhappy being blurred out as it was the best thing they had done in ages. They were willing to be accountable for their actions, so we didn't need to thus put any obscuring in the finished film.

We now had to re-do the film from an earlier version. It was dark and we were late for the nightly screening, we had one computer to gather all the films up and convert then to the right format and re-edit this film – we decided it wasn't possible to screen the action film and concentrated on showing the other 9 finished but less exciting films we had ready. We started the screening with non-action films to cries of "we want to see the action". So an old version of the action film was rush-encoded and was ready half-way through the screening. Unfortunately this contained the ptoentially incriminating shot we had earlier taken out, and was screened to about 40 climatecampers. NOT good. Another person had a very solid go at us...

What did we learn from this?

Should protesters never trust any video/photo on an action OR should they trust video activists as THEY know what they are doing?

For me, not trusting experienced video activists leads to the very real danger that through bureaucratisation it pushes the working affinity group structure underground and renders it ineffective – the option of bureaucratic/consensus process isn't an option with film which is at its best a skilled creative story-based process.

But now we have to deal with the rumour mill which quickly churned around the "weapon" / plastic horn issue. Rumour has more power than truth when there isn't a functioning media. I heard the misinformation that we had put out footage of window-smashing weapons three times while leaving the camp to get home. And that's why I wrote this post as this rumour could distort the very real pro/anti-media debate in activism which needs to happen in a constructive way.

On the subject of social media and underground/wannabe mainstream film-makers/photographers, there are very real dangers that is the subject of another post.

Average (2 Votes)
The average rating is 5.0 stars out of 5.


A brief history of activism

This is a DRAFT

#Occupy has become bureaucratised and continues as e-mail lists and side projects, not very active.

#ukuncut has become institutionalised. Still active - presser protests in conjunction with NGO's

#climatecamp The anarcho' s left and most of the rest got jobs in NGO's a few continue in other campaigns. It has run its course, the influx of liberals had watered it down till its DNA failed. The healthy ones went onto Ukuncut. Fuckup, not conspiracy sadly. A spattering of global projects remain.

(google trends not accurate)

#submedia still banging the radical drum

#Indymedia failed from the opposite resion the activists excluded other groups in till the weren't a healthy mix left. Then the group dwindled by exclusion and inbreeding till its DNA was two narrow to evolve when it needed to change with the growth of personal publishing. It was replaced by blogs then corporate social networks. Still exists.

The are still some active IMC's would be intresting to look at why some are still working?

#undercurrents burned out of funding then failed to re-new with the fund-raising charity side not feeding into the active political production side. The charity/NGO side then shrank and dispersed. Still exists

(google trends not accurate)

#schnews had some lean times but seem to have survived in the radical project Though clearly fading on this graph of web searches

 

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 4.0 stars out of 5.


The first thing to say is that, as a director of visionOntv, I can reassure people who work with us that these are NOT in any sense the views of visionOntv collectively, and that I personally have serious issues with them.

Let's go through the article. The fact that is called a draft is irrelevant for taking it seriously, as it is in the public domain, and already has several people riled up.

1. "#Occupy has become bureaucratised" - Evidence? You simply cannot make a judgement like that without evidence. "not very active"?. There's a limit to the amount of time you can camp in a public square, The "side projects" dismissed by this author were a positive move after the big occupations, to take the struggle home, into the community and workplace. The BBC feature the London squatted social centre movement last week, much more positively than here. For my part, I featured a programme by the Occupy News Network o our globalviews channel only last week.

2. "#UKUncut has become institutionalised". Laughably, the "evidence" referenced here is to another article by Hamish Campbell, with a similar lack of evidence inside it. Really, these are serious accusations, and need backing up to be made at all.

3. "#climatecamp The anarcho' s left and most of the rest got jobs in NGO's a few continue in other campaigns. It has run its course, the influx of liberals had watered it down till its DNA failed. The healthy ones went onto Ukuncut. Fuckup, not conspiracy sadly." Again this is a highly subjective opiion, with a lot of pure conjecture ("the rest got jobs in NGOs"?) and no evidence. By a more reasonable assessment, the specific mode of protest of climate camp had run its course after 5 years, but similar types of direct action and squatter camps continue to have a big impact today.

4. #indymedia "dwindled by exclusion and inbreeding" - an unnecessarily abusive and very one-sided description. As a founder of oxford imc I can testify to the very wide range of politics within the group. Imcs such as Nottingham were very postiive in their outreach to non-activist parts of the community. My personal preference was for more of an aggregator site (the Open Media Network anyone?), and in fact members of uk imc set up bethemedia.org to be precisely that. The environmental change wrought by corporate social media has negatively impacted on many parts of the open web, not just indymedia. But in its day, indymedia was a beacon project for open media, and should not be described as a "fuck up".

5. Re Undercurrents, Paul from there has aswered this "critique" in detail, and I agree with everything he says. According to the author of this absurd blogpost, Undercurrents has failed to do the "political production side" - successfully and uniquely filming inside an Israeli prison anyone?

6. #Schnews - fortunately for Hamish the Schnews guys are some of the loveliest people you could ever meet. If I were them I would clock him for describing them as "clearly fading".

Projects and people transfrom and move on, often in positive and creative ways. Let's hope that the exciting and ever-changing history of these movements is written by someone with more understanding and accuracy.
Posted on 02/04/13 16:44.
Some clarifications:

#Occupy
Just to keep you in the loop - I was on the first demo that created the UK occupy movement and made 3 video reports about it. I am and have been reading the organising e-mail list for occupy - very insightful of the health and scale of the UK occupy movement. I originally joined and engaged with the occupy mumble (talk network) though I ended up wished I hadn't - think you might have been in on that meeting with the lynching?

We did some good work inside the movement but that was all by personal connection - the needs to be a good right up on activist "process". Yes the are some spin off and legacy - but I think the google trends is a pretty good view of the health of this ones all powerful movement.

Did you not see UK occupy rip itself apart?

#ukcuncut am being a bit sharp on them, but read my original post from 5/31/11 http://hamishcampbell.com/home/-/blogs/the-ecology-of-hash-tag-organising-draft I stand by this as a prediction of what happened after this was posted. They are one of the few groups that are still relevant - am curious to see how they change and mutate. I think, my statement presser groups for NGO's will likely be seen to be true - but open for good surprises as they are a creative lot.

#climatecamp NGO side I could name names on this one but I don't think that would be helpful (: Anarchist side... many burned out at Heathrow and the role declined - the is some write ups about this but no idea where to find it - could name names here too but not helpful. I think the is a very useful thing to learn about the balancing of liberals and anarchist here - so will write more on this.

#indymedia - rich I think you forget that I was at the meetings so I think this isn't an abusive view because it was like that at the time. The 5 year too late bethemedia aggregate was ripped apart by the taking of the indymedia domain? Am sorry but indymedia outcome was well abusive and needs to be written up warts and all. The public email list archives should still be available if you want to check this. Fuckup bit is answer to a question on infiltrators and agent provocateurs - conspiracy or fuckup - I came down on the fuckup side though would be interesting to have a proper history here. Am still on the global, UK and Oxford organising lists – have a look at the archives to judge the health of the project.

#undercurrents http://hamishcampbell.com/home/-/blogs/undercurrents-and-the-birth-of-%E2%80%9Cv­ideo-activism

#Schnews I changed that a bit to clarified what I mean that this is what the graph shows as it clearly dose. It was a surprise for me to see this but after going over in my head my communication with some of the schnews crew over the last 5 years I feel the graph is probably accurate. If you don’t think this is so you could ask them?

On the subject see this post http://hamishcampbell.com/home/-/blogs/is-the-value-in-stirring-up-the-past-
Posted on 02/04/13 19:27 in reply to Richard Hering.
On #Occupy, my point was that its activists have disappeared into other related, often local, struggles, which would not necessarily appear on the #Occupy mailing list, which was specific to the Occupation time and place. My point was that you have nowhere proved, or even introduced any evidence of, "bureaucratisation". This term has a very specific meaning, and is a heavy charge to levy. If it used loosely to generally abuse people, then one person's bureaucracy might well be another person's "being organised" or "administering". Yes, I was in the meeting you refer to, as an active participant, and it was i no sensee evidence of bureaucracy. I enjoyed the meeting, which was about the crediting of Occupy events, ad how Occupy relates to other groups, an issue for which both sides have fair points. I liked very much the way it was held in the open, not at all as bureaucrats like to behave.

"Did you not see UK occupy rip itself apart?" No, nor did anyone else I know. Remarkable, bearig in mind how much that kind of activism puts people under strain.

#UKUncut "They are one of the few groups that are still relevant - am curious to see how they change and mutate. I think, my statement presser groups for NGO's will likely be seen to be true - but open for good surprises as they are a creative lot."

This really is the most extraordinary arrogance. Well, Hamish, I will advise all my activist friends to earnestly seek your lofty advice on whether they are relevant or not!

#climatecamp did not stop because of the balance of anarchists and liberals, but because you can't go pouring resources into the same national event every year without it growing smaller and stultifying. There are other contextual reasons like a double dip recession. Nor was it a failure, but did a huge amount to put global warming issues up front, and prove that non-hierarchical structures can work on a larger scale, and made people feel that direct action could be done by them.

#indymedia I have a very thorough knowledge of the history of indymedia, and no one is happy about the way that UK indymedia fell apart, But when I say I would have preferred an aggregated site of partnerships, I'm also aware that indymedia was maybe what it was, had its very glorious time, and by the time people were fighting, had had its day. So it may have been time to build something else. Facebook would still have existed.

#Schnews "I feel the graph is probably accurate. If you don’t think this is so you could ask them?" No, I won't, and I don't dispute the graph (in this case). The reason I won't ask them is that I have no interest in dissing other peoples' projects. I would say that, after twenty years, it's remarkable they still exist at all, and I take my hat off to them (I really have one!) for being so active for so long, and so funny with it.

In general, what is it exactly that you hope to gain from these highly partial and dubious histories? On second thoughts, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that!
Posted on 03/04/13 00:48.

Good activist media

Lets get positive for a moment What has worked in Alt/radical media?

DRAFT – looking at two contrasting successful activist media strategys.

When indymedia started in 2000 in the UK undercurrents the radical news organisation I was working for had played a role in its founding running a ALPHA build of the server code that the IMC sites were built on in 1999 at the reclaim the streets party in the city of London. A number of the undercurrents crew were involved in the group that setup in the UK IMC site and had its first outing at mayday 2001?

I used the site to upload images and videos on the day. I intaly had my doubts that such a radical experiment in OPEN publishing could work – so was a supporter and user of the IMC project before I became more fully involved – going so far as to found a regional IMC in Oxford. Soon after setting up in London the IMC project exploded around the world leading to the setting up of over 30-40 global sites and numerous IMC projects such as video, radio and print newspapers. Before blogs (and social media) the self publishing idea was a huge global success, oftern rivaling tredtional media on the audiance of the events it covered.

Climatecamp media team were a very nice bunch of people who successfully shaped and shifted traditional media coverage of climate issues in the UK (and around the world) . Rather than spend energy building there own media they focused on playing the traditional media and were very skilled at doing it – most have since gorn onto full time work doing the same for prominent NGO's.

So we have two differing but equal successful strategy for radical media, activists can and do do real affective radical media.

Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.


No comments yet. Be the first.

How do we organise from 19/09/2009

This was copied over from the visionontv process page:

This is the process of the visionOntv affinity group so far (an affinity group is a trust network)

 At the core of any affinity group is a core/periphery relationship and a usheraly unspoken way of moving between them.

 At base, the project is DIY for core crew:

 * For simple changes and improvements, just do it. If you think people should know, e-mail them.

 * For major changes (e.g. changing key text on the front-page), run it past people first, including those who may disagree.

 * There should generally be time to put up everything you can as a draft to the wiki page so others can have input. For really big changes, talk to everyone, and call a meeting if people feel it is needed.

 * If someone keeps fucking up and ignoring the process call a meeting.

 * When the project has grown start a weekly online meeting for people to update everyone on what they have been up to. And as a way into the affinity group.

 Do everything you can in public (ONLY stuff that needs to be is ADMIN only)

 If the trust network breaks down, and they do sometimes, then people should do different projects. And by doing well in their project re-build the trust based on common understandings. Trust is built by doing core things that need to be done and lost by talking about doing things or just taking up time and space with no outcome. If anyone is terminally annoying then in the end they will go away - it's best not to feed the trolls.

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 5.0 stars out of 5.


No comments yet. Be the first.

Thoughts on alt-organising from 2007

Alt-grouping and sustainability

This isn’t a statement of truth more a way to help look at a recurring problem, and to help active participants to mediate the problem to a better outcome.

It is to do with the sort of people who get involved at each stage of an alt-project's development. This is of course a generalization as people do fall into more than one grouping and shift between groupings during the project. Written from 10 years of direct practical experiences of the many different alt-groups that share the same dynamics.

First to look at the terms used:

Getting things done people

Are more interested in things happening than the process, though their process, as far as it goes, tends to be good otherwise they wouldn’t “get things done”.

Working people

Are the unsung heroes who do much of the work but receive little recognition. They are the “sustaining” core of any alt/project.

Bureaucrats

I am using the term in the positive sense to mean those who create and can work in structures. They solidify the project and thus sustain it, but when caught up with the “theorists” (who they are attracted to) and the “life stylist” groupings, they can institutionalize the dysfunctions as much as the original function.

Theorists

Are a troubled “category” in alt-projects. The “consensus decision making process” tends to marginalize them as nobody has a “larger say” than anybody else. So their input, whether good or bad, tends to be submerged into “lifestyles”. Theorists who have come through any of the first 3 categories should defiantly be listened to with positive (but critical) ear. However this rarely happens as, as with the sort of “critical input” you are reading now, they have a tendency to come across as unfriendly to the majority of the project at stage 7 (the gathering) when these voices are most needed.

Life stylists

Grow out of the “hangers on” and are drawn to any open successful alt-project. At their best they “metamorphose” into one of the other categories and sustain the project. A sustainable alt-project has a clear and open way of facilitating this transformation. (or on the other side/more regularly is a functional closed project which also helps to keep the lifestyle drain to a minimum)

Project time line

1) “Getting it done” sort of people with inner drive start a project.

2) Soon mixed with “working people” and the few “bureaucrats”.

3) “Getting it done” people start to specialize into parallel projects. The weight of the project starts to fall onto the “working people” and increasingly the “bureaucrats”. We start to see “theorists” coming out of the first 3 categories and coming in from outside. “Hangers on” start to gather and a pronounced “lifestyle” side to the project begins to emerge.

4) The “getting it done” people start to burn out or move completely onto other projects. The “bureaucrats” start to be central to sustaining the project supported by the “working people’. The “lifestylists” start to form into groups around the “theorists”, and the "working people" are drawn into these groups.

5) The project is at its height but also starting to decay. Hopefully it can stay at this plateau for a period. The core project is the bureaucrats supported by the “working people” who are not fully caught up in “lifestyle” groupings. The lifestyle groups hopefully give as much energy as they take, but they are starting to exclude new “working” and “getting it done” people until the project starts to become dysfunctional.

6) The few remaining “getting it done” people with the longstanding “bureaucrats” and “working people” start to react against the decay, which sparks a debate amongst the “theorists” and “lifestylists” which generally paralyses any affective action to rejuvenate the project. The “bureaucrats” and “getting it done” people, alongside the majority of groups, call for a gathering to attempt to rejuvenate the project.

7) The gathering suffers from “the tyranny of structurelessness”, leading to a renewal of good will, but the consensus of the gathering exclude the “getting it done” and long term “bureaucrats” as they feel they cannot impose their view on the group. The consensus is created by the “life stylists” and “theorists” who have no or little experience of “getting things done”. Thus generally achieves little and refuse to even see the root causes of the project decay.

This process repeats itself with more or less success for a time depending on the particular nature of the project. For only practical action will keep the “bureaucrats”, “working people” and the now distant “getting it done people” engaged.

One of the parallel projects started by the “getting it done” people then draws the “working people” and “bureaucrats” that haven’t burned out into a new cycle. The burn-outs return to mainstream organizing/life.

This has been an attempt to give people a glimpse into the churning activist world, and help them make informed decisions on how sustainable to get involved – I hope it helps in small ways.

Average (2 Votes)
The average rating is 5.0 stars out of 5.


The role of "blocking" in horizontal projects

Mannequins dancing to barely visible strings (DRAFT)

This is an attempt to understand how blocking is used to stop/slow positive social change. By blocking I mean many things, refusing to address core issues, pushing everyday agenda’s to hide more systematic issues, and confusingly using big issues to distracts and fog everyday needed changes.

Outcome-driven horizontal projects are hard to sustain. I understand climatecamp process ossification better now - there is a strong blocking to process change - the continuing pushing of the needed change is blocked thus the change gets harder (more vertical) until it ossifies and becomes non-functionaly strong enough to break the block (thus breaking the horizontal process it is trying to achieve). End up with a broken structure that cannot move or change.

So the issue is "blocking" which largely is a psychological fear of losing non-existent certainty - ie. the false consciousness (cf Marx) of capitalism - Thus the moniker "stupid individualism". The root out of this is to work a way round this "stupid individualism".

Rainbow Gatherings manage this - by forcing scarcity, in visionontv we don’t have this option, in Rainbow you are moved into a world where all the normal options are simply are not there - thus change HAS TO HAPPEN - it's an intentional community. "Stupid individualism" simply becomes too dysfunctional in this situation to stop change. This is at the heart of rainbow process. In our situation, on the internet, in media there is no scarcity, so “stupid individualism” reigns supreme and unstoppable. 

An issue is that many people will self-define what I am saying at this point - BUT will not engage with it - The writer is being a "stupid individual" and this would be the case if the writer was not actively engaged in a real social project.

"Trust networks" are the solution to "stupid individualism". With this understanding I have a more sympathetic view of climatecamp process. The derided “process people” suffered from ossification as much as the wider camp. And I am arguing that this is a re-occurring issue, so the individual who were left pushing a empty agenda are less at fault than the systematic issues that they haven’t addressed. 

Its important NOT to take personal responsibility for this as the is a dead end block in using this as a solution to this problem. Maybe more useful to seeing us as mannequins dancing in a circle twitching to barely visible strings. And the circle we are in - is not the right one. We need a new circle with some different strings (some of them more visible) and to start a new dance.

The blocks: what participants feel are the tangling of strings, the process they are trying to unravel so as to make a new circle to dance in. We are all attached to strings, so get untangling. It's the strings NOT the messenger that stops you. Help is needed trying to untangle and re-set some strings, perhaps the messenger is trying to help? try not to shoot

In this post I attempt to untangled a string (climatecamp process wasn’t as bad as i thought it was). Which string are you going to untangling? "Stupid individualism" is the trap we have to avoid, but we are getting more and more snared in it - on all sides.

The danger is that we are talking about parallel things and more tragically - thinking along parallel divergent lines - "stupid individualism" is strong and kicking and the more we kick the more entangle we become - leaving little hope of a new dance - by the way dance is a metaphor for process and strings are a metaphor for the very human senses of belonging that we need for society to hold together.

Does it end well I wonder - it never has in the past, but one can keep coming at a problem from different angles. Maybe this time it might. Thus am NOT taking any personal responsibility - just seeing us as mannequins dancing in a circle twitching to barely visible strings. And the circle we are in - is not the right one. We need a new circle with some different strings (some of them more visible) and start a new dance.

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 4.0 stars out of 5.


Were do I come from politicly?

Thinking were we come from... mainstream bohiminasm, hippy drop-out culture, Greenham, CND, vagabond, labour party, student, squatting culture, protest camp culture, DIY community group organising, undercurrents, internet utopian's, Anti-GM direct action, coupuratewatch, risingtide, indymedia, summit hoping, anti-war direct action, mainstream alt-tv, rescuing/ running a community centre, European social forum/SWP, visionontv, climatecamp, Rebelus Media Confunce, occupation movement...

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 4.0 stars out of 5.


Collective statement from some individuals affected by recent infiltrations Various 2011-03-02

This statement has also been published at http://dysophia.wordpress.com

A group of people involved in radical action around the environment and other social struggles who have been involved with and been affected by recent exposes of infiltrators have come together to create a joint statement on how the issue has evolved and been represented in the media.
We are issuing this statement in solidarity with all those, in the UK and beyond, who are facing charges or have been affected in any way by the work of the undercover agents recently discovered.
We are a diverse group of individuals who have been involved in radical action, including actions based around the environment, for close to 20 years. This has included organising the Stirling Eco-village, the Camp for Climate Action, Earth First! Gatherings, anti-GM decontaminations, as well as many other forms of social struggle. We have been up trees, down tunnels and on the front line. We have taken beatings from the police and received convictions for the pleasure, and we make no apologies for our belief in direct political action.
The media frenzy that followed the collapse of the second Ratcliffe trial was met with an equally frenetic flood of articles and comments in the alternative media. Many of these were infuriating and/or very depressing, particularly as all the anti-media comments posted on Indymedia seemed to conveniently forget the fact that the site was one of the main sources of information used by the journalists covering the story.
It is difficult to convey what we feel without falling into the same contradiction. Many of us who were very close to the situation wished to remain anonymous and refused to join in the flood of opinions and speculations. This was an attempt to avoid or at least not to feed into the media (and Indymedia) craze. This refusal to take a public position seems to have been interpreted as acceptance or even active participation in the media strategy.
Historically we have always tried to rise above the 'society of the spectacle' and it is has proven to be an important strength. We hope that comrades in other countries can comprehend the complexity of networks and political positions within the UK, and understand that the very public position taken by a few individuals in no way represents us all.
The environmental movement is not the only network affected by the recent exposures. We are all involved in different struggles beyond environmental concerns. Many movements, from animal rights, to migrant solidarity struggles have been targeted. Marco Jacobs was connected to the No Borders network, Lynn Watson to the peace movement. Mark Kennedy began to make connections to the animal rights movement, and had a ongoing interest in anti-capitalist struggles within the UK and across Europe. These are just some examples.
Despite this diversity, there is a tendency to refer to 'the Movement' without distinguishing that there is a broad range of social struggles taking place in the UK and elsewhere. These struggles often overlap, as is the case with our own activism. It is a mistake to suppose that the environmental movement is capable of representing all of the other social movements that have been targeted by the police in this case, and there has been little recognition of this by the people dealing with the media. This has shown not only a lack of solidarity with these struggles, but has explicitly played into the rhetoric of 'good' and 'bad' protesters.
Now that the sensation seems to have died down, we are making this statement in the hope that it will undo some of the damage that has been done.
How the ecological movement is being portrayed in the mainstream media We feel that self-selecting individuals and groups have gone to the media with a strategy that presents a movement of gormless idiots, that is totally ineffective and of no threat to the State, in order to argue that the placement of undercover officers is 'unjustifiable' and 'over-policing'. This is a very dangerous position to take as it facilitates the repression of those who are being identified as a genuine threat.
Regardless of the intention behind them, the statements that have been made in the mainstream press appeal to a narrow sector of middle-class, left-wing liberals. Downplaying our radical tendencies is not a way of broadening the appeal of radical environmental demands. If anything, the very opposite is true, as anyone who has done stalls in the street is able to tell you.
[Indymedia does blah. Content is good, and free to use for non-commercial purposes under the Open
Content license. if you have questions, email someone.]
1
We are angry at the way the movement we have been so involved in has been portrayed, with such a profound lack of basic political understanding. We want to be clear we that are not trying to make things 'a little bit nicer' or tweak the system, we are challenging capitalism and the dominant ideology as being responsible for the ecological destruction of the planet.
The very nature of what we aim for is in direct opposition to the system, and it is therefore no great surprise that the State and corporations target us. The more economic damage that is done, or the more successfully the dominant paradigm is challenged, the more inevitable infiltration becomes.
As anarchists, we believe in solidarity, and autonomy. When we take action, we do so because it is an appropriate response, a valid tactic. We reject, therefore, the way in which several individuals have presented their 'story', in connection with infiltrators, as having been persuaded to act by them.
State informers have been used for hundreds, or even thousands of years. We have been dealing with and exposing police and informers as long as our movements have existed. Our aims are radical, and repression from the powers-that-be has always been expected and dealt with. We object to the way history is being re-written.
Relationship with the mainstream media We are concerned that the relationship with the media is coming to define the eco-defence movement and its actions. It is clear that the media has been given preferential treatment on access to materials
and this is breeding distrust (as clearly demonstrated in recent clashes on Indymedia). We reject the notion that the likes of
The Guardian and The Independent newspapers can ever be part of the solution to the problems we face.
Our story is strong enough that we will get the media attention regardless. We do not have to change who we are to satisfy
the wishes of these for-profit companies and their advertising agendas. High profile liberal journalists are not our natural
leaders or spokespeople. While the media is (at times) an important tool for activism, pandering to it is a dangerous spiral to
ineffectiveness, damaging the integrity of the movement in the long term for shallow, short-term goals.
Relationship with the police and the State The tone of many of the statements made to the press implied the need for
'reforms' or better regulations for undercover policing. We would like to stress that we do not want 'better' or 'more ethical'
police infiltration.
Some groups and individuals have used the mainstream press to call for police reform. However, in reality, the actual
result is an ongoing consolidation of power within the Metropolitan Police who have taken control of the 'domestic extremist'
units, including those which ran various of the infiltrators. The police exist to protect the State, private property and profits. To
do this they use infiltrators and sleep with militants to get information. They also beat people in police cells, and frame people
for crimes they didn't commit, etc. etc. Superficial reforms will never change that. Even if a public relations battle has been
won against the police and other infiltrators, they will no doubt regroup and continue their activities. Pretending that they can
be reformed is not just dangerous but serves to legitimise their on-going existence.
The victories of our movement will not
be won through The Guardian nor in the plush offices of civil liberty NGOs. They will be won on the streets, in our
communities, in the fields and in the forests. The ecological defense movement and the other struggles we are involved in
have grown strong because they have stepped outside the political campaigning/lobbying box and sought change from
multiple directions, such as working directly with communities, taking direct action and causing economic sabotage. Today,
lobbyists with very different agendas from our own, are using the space we forced open, and we should stop helping people
co-opt our work.
“Those most affected” The press and others have placed a morbid emphasis on sexual relationships in these cases. This
totally ignores the complexity of human interpersonal relationships and the range of emotions and experiences involved
here. We have all had different kinds relationships with one or more of the undercovers recently exposed, and feel very
uncomfortable by the assumptions made in statements and actions that took place in the wake of the media frenzy. Attempts
by third parties to define the abuses of trust experienced by the people who were close to these infiltrators (often in the name
of 'solidarity') have been extremely disempowering.
Unfortunately, some people (not just from the UK) have put pressure on people to act and to talk to the media without
considering their own personal well being, and the impacts this could have on others. We call for practical solidarity through
awareness; respecting everyone's individual boundaries. We want to discourage people from talking publicly (or encouraging
others to do so) about relationships (again, of any nature) without considering the wider implications for others who are also
[Indymedia does blah. Content is good, and free to use for non-commercial purposes under the Open
Content license. if you have questions, email someone.]
2
dealing with this. We request that people make no assumptions and only talk from their own experiences.
Moving on This has been a difficult time, but it has also made us aware of how lucky we are to know so many people who
continue to act with dignity and integrity, and to be part of networks of resistance which stretch across the globe. The process
of the wave of exposures has revealed many false unities in respect to our politics. We call for solidarity and respect across
networks, we need to consolidate our allegiances and to support each other. The State will continue to use surveillance and
infiltration, and we hope that valuable lessons are learnt from this process, and not forgotten.
Notes [1] This statement was put together through a collective process that involved approximately 15 people, the majority
in the UK but a number across Europe as well. It includes people who were close to the exposing of various police infiltrators.
The point of contact is dysophia@riseup.net - comments & feedback can be sent to this address.
[2] For more background on the story as it appeared in the Guardian see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/mark-
kennedy http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/surveillance http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/activism
[3] There are many threads on Indymedia relating to this, however, some key 'debates' are at
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466477.html
http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/2011/01/472102.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/471865.html
[4] BBC coverage of Ratcliffe trial & interviews http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDttEnl8r34&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsr-V5Bqt9E http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753
This statement has also been published at http://dysophia.wordpress.com/
 

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 3.0 stars out of 5.


Why aren't more people using animoto to tell there stories?

Its strange that more campining groups havent been useing animoto as its a perfict way for non-filmakers to tell a story with video as can be seen by this letter to the met film which when't viral with over 40K views which is a lot for an actavist video.

Find out how to do it your self http://visionon.tv/photo

Average (1 Vote)
The average rating is 4.0 stars out of 5.


Round up of intresting comments I have found on climatecamp winding dowen

02.03.2011 00:08

Climate camp had success with its first three camps, but then its logic became ... the root cause of climate change is capitalism, so we take on capitalism. They completely ignored that many and vastly more powerful groupings have attempted to take on capitalism and failed. So with this hubris, they beat their heads against a wall they could not possibly effect and unlike the situations at Heathrow and Kingsnorth where they had positive engagement with local people, they did it on their own. Hence, they produced no real effect over the last couple of years. Neither are they good at being honest. Over and over again have they attempted to spin failures as successes. Deep down people knew that they were failing.

Old Socks 

 

02.03.2011 03:12

@ bullshit: More or less right, I think. 

@cynic: The Camp for Climate Action was started by people with a background in the road protest movement and others which followed it, such as RTS, but they were replaced by the people @bullshit calls "bourgeois little squirts". I think we have now seen the limitations of the latter and their (middle) class-based politics and media obsessions. Yes, the objective political situation has changed but they have no new or re-invigorated perspective on the climate crisis. What this amounts to is the mainstream media is now looking elsewhere, so we're off to where the lenses are pointing and / or where we can build careers.

Stroppyoldgit

 

Average (0 Votes)
The average rating is 0.0 stars out of 5.