Gangsters in Blue

As I wrote in an essay a few months ago, the best way to view the imperial nature of the U.S. government is to view it as an empire controlled by the city-state of Washington instead of as a broadly American phenomenon. Indeed, the territorial U.S. differs from Iraq and Afghanistan only in the sense that our occupation is a less volatile one. This allows the resemblance of “civil society” that supports and approves of the occupation, and rules out the need for the frightening displays of force that other people around the world endure at the hands of U.S. armed forces. Generally speaking, we chalk this relative lack of open violence up to our status as a “free people”.

However, as we plunge deeper into financial crisis, that may change. Soldiers fresh from counterinsurgency operations in Iraq are deploying for missions within the U.S.. With the unrest likely upon full-blown collapse of the currency and the economy, Bush retains the prerogative to declare martial law and institute what is, in effect, military dictatorship. Essentially, the imperial managers of Earth in D.C. are deciding whether or not we need a surge - not in Iraq, but right here in the territorial United States.

Part of the process of taking back our freedom entails a sober analysis of our present political situation. There is no real difference between a free society under a government and a military occupation - each exists merely as different zones on a sliding scale of repression, which government dials up or down based on “conditions on the ground”. Until we understand that we live in occupied territory, we will always be able to say “well, we got it better than Iraq” without realizing that the same dynamics are at play, at home and abroad.

I cover A.L.L.y William Gillis’s contribution to the RWC press conference at leftlibertarian.org:

William’s willingness to personally speak out, not just against the brutal, self-destructive police state, but also as an unrepentant and bold advocate for anarchism at a time when adherents to that peaceful philosophy are being singled out as terrorists, is nothing short of heroic. We all owe William a debt of gratitude, for I’ve never felt more proud of my opposition to the criminals and serial sadists of the state as I did watching him speak.

Over and over again, law enforcement demonstrates that they are not only interested in forcing their alien vision of “law and order” on the people they’re supposed to “protect and serve”, but that they are actively hostile and sadistic towards the protestors. We’ve seen this before, like in Miami’s ‘06 FTAA protests:

The resentment has come out full force, now. On Democracy Now!, the arrested journalists told how the police would tighten restraints when detainees complained about how tight they were. The psychology of the human beings in law enforcement is becoming a serious menace and is being actively promoted in their training:

The police brutality that we’ve seen in Denver and St. Paul this week is the result of ongoing indoctrination of the police against protesters, especially any protesters of the left-wing stripe. Local police departments have been militarized to deal with protesters, with much of this militarization happening during the Clinton administration. After 9/11, local police were further turned into anti-terrorist organizations, with the effect that they see their work as fighting terrorists. Local police are also bringing home the terror tactics that the U.S. has been using in dozens of countries around the world for the past century.

The war on terror has escalated into an increased war on the “rabble” of America, most significantly protesters and anarchists. This doesn’t surprise us, because the U.S. government has always been at war with dissidents of many kinds.

We do not have any hope that the police will change their attitudes or their ways. The purpose of the police is to act as the violent arm of capital and the state. The only way for the people to stop the police is to stand up to them, abolish the police and build a different society which needs no police.

Indeed, this jives with my own research: police are being trained to see civil society as their zoo full of mere animals to keep in line, and many are adopting an abusive relationship with their “wards”. Witness their open sadism in St. Paul:

The sad part about all this is that these attitudes towards the public are going to make the jobs of officers who genuinely want to get along with the public much more difficult. While many officers may look forward to the police state as their chance to beat up hippies (see the end of Daniel Clowes’ Like an Velvet Glove Cast in Iron for a perfect portrayal of this attitude), I’d advise them to take a good look at Iraq. The officers there are targeted by insurgents and are never safe, on or off duty. It’s easy to be a bully when you can still go home to your family in relative safety - a police state turns street protestors from prey into predators. Moreover, it was arguably the attitudes of American soldiers (including cops in reserve units) that turned the people against them and their police. Not only are these attitudes quite similar to those displayed by cops in the twin cities, the attitudes may even be brought back by soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan to new careers in domestic law enforcement.

If cops want to militarize their jobs, they need to consider the down side for themselves, their families, and their communities. There’s a lot more civilians than soldiers and officers, and continuing abuse - including the branding of activists as terrorists - just threatens to push Americans over the edge the same way Iraqis were pushed. If civil society is lost, cops may look back fondly on the days when the public merely committed minor property damage.

Although the Monty Python skit resemblance is more than a function of the accents (the timing is amazing), this is an honest-to-God a believable portrayal of a typical politician here. Are these the people we need to worry about? Part of me feels like the way you deal with a police state is by ignoring the politicians, who after all never lift a finger to do anything, and attacking the apparatus: the police. Whether politically, legally, or extra-legally, it seems to me that if we’ve genuinely passed the point of no return, it’s not the politicians we need to bring in line but the people who execute their will.

UPDATE: This is not a real interview. Hat tip to Roderick Long for the smooth catch. Serves me right for just parroting what a friend wrote in an email forward!

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve been witnessing a huge leap forward towards a police state over the past week. In addition to the preemptive raids, extralegal break-ins, illegal detentions, disappearing citizens, news media harassment, and general displays of unprovoked violence by law enforcement, we’ve witnessed a very aggressive strategy of mass arrests. Here’s some choice documentation on their strategy for trapping and processing as many people as possible - protestors or not.

While apologists for cops may represent indiscriminate arrests as necessary, it’s actually incredibly sloppy police work. They just declare a “national security event” and suddenly there is no need for self-discipline or judgement whatsoever. Why should people take cops’ authority seriously when they prosecute their jobs so carelessly? If national security is truly at stake, why sweat a few broken windows?

Imagine if this was their response to any suspected crime: just arrest everybody near the scene! Why not just arrest everybody in the city, or the state - surely if everybody’s under arrest, there’s nobody to get in the way of the convention. Cities are a lot safer if you get rid of the people, law enforcement seems to think.

Yet isn’t this the modus operandi of any totalitarian state? By denying everybody freedom and granting police maximum prerogatives to detain, surveil, and otherwise harass citizens, a government blurs the distinction between being under arrest or being free. People under despotic governance experience a sliding scale of captivity, to be moved up or down at the discretion of unaccountable bureaucrat/captors.

It is important to correctly recognize this trend towards a police state. The myths of freedom, civil rights, and the rule of law must be maintained. So instead, the government institutes the police state on demand - invoking it when necessary, and then dispersing it without a trace and shrugging, “what fascism?” You’re never free, really - you just enjoy perpetual probation until the next time the government flips the switch. Under arrest? That’s a relative term; just check the threat level.

This is exactly how police states arrive historically - in easily ignored, irregular spurts. Those are perfect opportunities to train officers in their new attitudes towards citizens, gather data on the effectiveness of tactics, and experiment with new strategies for oppression. The trick is always for the people to wake up before the slow metamorphosis passes the point of no return.

Sadly, it’s clear to me that we’ve probably missed our last chances to reverse these trends. With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act granting the legal cover for whatever our rulers want to label as “terrorism” and impenetrable secrecy about anything else, there’s no recourse in “the system” for citizens to air legitimate grievances. Meanwhile, any direct action is dealt with in the most brutal manner possible (yes, they could be more brutal - but that would impact the efficiency of their actions).

So if we’re in a police state now, what do we do? Obviously, there was a point at which the citizens of Germany in the ’30s gave up on speaking out. There was a point at which the Soviet citizens stopped protesting the Bolshevik treachery. Throughout history, people who found themselves under a totalitarian government had to face a terrible fact: that the modes of democratic society were no longer tenable.

But to admit to yourself the horrible truth, that we have lost our country, that is the truly difficult thing. Keep in mind, however, that it has always been through denial, self-deception, and lack of honesty on the part of the people that totalitarianism has gained a foothold. We must be courageous, pragmatic, and most of all careful. The rules have changed, and if we’re going to play this game we do well to use our time-outs to strategize, not simply to feel sorry for ourselves. In other words, as much as I hate to say it, we’re going to have to unlearn the bad habits of citizenship in a democratic republic.

The silver lining in the police brutality at the RNC this week is really that the activist movement might finally see themselves on the other side of the rubicon. As John Robb explains:

Very cool demonstration from Minnesota of how police forces have been militarized. In addition to the five fold growth in SWAT forces since the 90’s, there’s been a shift in attitude. All likely due to a misdirection of GWOT Homeland security $$ and thinking towards domestic protest. The side effect: the heavy handed approach here will cause a quick shift protest to the open source/disruption model if things deteriorate. Protest is dead. (my emphasis)

It’s time for the activist movement to modify their tactics to reflect the new environment. Flaunting our outrage in the hopes of media attention and citizen backlash has failed. Throwing our bodies on the gears of the machine has not slowed it, let alone stopped it. Protesting every violation of our rights just demonstrates in spades how vulnerable and dependent we are. Demonstrating and organizing just provide easy targets for agent provocateurs, infiltration, and extralegal, preemptive harassment.

Protest doesn’t work in a totalitarian police state. Acknowledging that condition is the first step towards fixing it. Whatever we’re going to do, it’s time to start doing it underground. It doesn’t have to be violent, but it does have to be realistic about the threat.

Here’s how you don’t fight injustice occurring right before your eyes:

…the crowd of 50 or 60 students, outraged at the police’s ongoing assault, and doing nothing about it other than yelling at the cops and indignantly demanding their badge numbers—apparently in the fantastical belief that a The Law is somehow going to protect them from violence at the hands of its own rampaging hired goons.

Luckily, there are some heroes in the twin cities who are willing to take things into their own hands:

You could argue that I don’t know the full story, but by now police have simply discredited themselves in my eyes. When in doubt, I go with the non-professionals.

It takes a deep historical awareness to recognize the legacy of revolution in this country. Modern American society worships at the feet of a god called Stability, and both American revolutions are painted as quaint relics of a time before antibiotics, mass production, and automobiles. The idea of people like you and me standing up to the greatest empire in the history of the world, let alone successfully seceding from their dominion, is a frightening thought for most people.

But it’s also a very confusing concept, given that at the start of the 21st century it is “us” who are the world power, the globe-trotting empire on which the sun never sets. With a military deployed in hundreds of countries throughout the world, ultimate control over international finance, and a culture of images, packages, and plastics that is readily exportable, it’s hard to reconcile our agrarian, decentralist beginnings with what we’ve become. Now that U.S. foreign policy has expanded from mere internationalism to preemptive warfare, the myths of American exceptionalism and goodwill are becoming more hollow, which causes the blowhards of national politics to bellow them with ever increasing shrillness. It’s as if a country founded on individual liberty and restricted government has paid its dues and is now allowed to be what Britain in the 18th century couldn’t pull off.

And yet, our national story is still strong enough to pay tribute to that humble but bold spirit of 1776. At least, that’s the story when it serves the purposes of the politicians in Washington, D.C. It’s as if, contrary to the warnings of the founders, the now safely distant revolution already worked, and that’s the end of any of this revolution nonsense. An ancient event bequeathed upon us a constitutional government and guaranteed us rights; to many, that’s the end of the story. Any serious talk of independence in this day and age is likely to get you a ticket to Guantanamo Bay amid vague references to “national security”.

What is the nature of this supposedly free, sovereign nation in which we find ourselves? What relationship does this government have to that desperate compact of gentlemen who were willing to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor? And how do we reconcile our foreign policy with our domestic heritage? Or does our whole approach to this dissonant national endeavor need retooling?

I think it does. Is the lobbyist-driven agenda of corporations, special interests, and political culture really any less distant than U.S. foreign policy? Do we have any authentic control over the decisions in our society that affect us? Or are we just treated as fungible units of polity that have only to be deftly mobilized by public relations wizards in pursuit of an agenda fundamentally alien to us? What, in other words, is the difference between our powerlessness within the borders of the U.S. and the powerlessness endured by the residents of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Instead of contrasting our experience under our government with that of its foreign victims, we might do well to compare the experiences. We’ve been taught from a very young age to distinguish American citizenship from that enjoyed by citizens of other countries, chiefly by virtue of our unique institutions of governance. But it is these same institutions that are being built in Iraq: a democratic, constitutional government with corporate control and obedience to international capital, with an established U.S. military presence to ensure “stability in the region”. These features are proving just as confounding to their freedom as their American counterparts are for us.</p

Through overwhelming military force, claims of moral privilege, and alleged threats - not unlike the P.R. which allowed the U.S. to conquer the west and the south in the 19th century and frame it as “liberation” - the U.S. government is imposing a democratic government and a market economy on an unwilling people. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is also continuing to ratchet up the police state at home even as it practices martial law in Iraq. Just as there were Tories and other people loyal to the crown during the American Revolution, the federal government finds plenty of lackeys in the fifty states, Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed throughout the world to do their dirty military or paramilitary (law enforcement) work. Legislative creep and sheer audacity constantly expand the scope of lawful authority, defining down the degree of liberty an individual can expect to enjoy. Participation in the decisions that affect us is framed as a set of predetermined choices provided by the establishment rather than a direct say at the local level. And all of these features bring more and more of the world under direct control of Washington - both the world within U.S. borders and the world outside them.

For it is into Washington, in the District of Columbia, that all the spoils of these policies flow. The D.C. metro area is among the fastest growing in the nation, despite having no productive civilian industry to speak of (except perhaps I.T., but no more than any other city if you discount government contracting). Not only is it the seat of governance for the country, it is the clearing house for the international policy of most nations. By enticing Americans to “work within the system” to influence policy, citizens legitimate the process by which power and authority are steadily concentrated. An entire lobbying industry has sprung up from the need to have some say in this process; doing business in the empire has a high cost of entry, and once you get a seat at the table it’s plunder or be plundered. As more people see D.C. as the place where decisions are made, rather than local governments or foreign capitals, the amount of money and people pouring into the city will continue to grow, while localities and other countries become bureaucratic appendages of D.C. policy.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t people outside D.C. who cannot benefit from its decisions; in fact, plenty of people throughout the world ally themselves with federal policy for their own particular advantage. But to that extent they are not really citizens of the localities they just happen to occupy, but favored subjects, emissaries of the Washington government. They think of their interests in terms of, and as dependent upon, the federal government. Local consequences of national policies are of secondary concern. This political class of policy wonks, politicians, media chumps, businesspeople, military leaders, etc. have internalized D.C.’s political mechanics so deeply that they intuitively behave in ways consonant with its bureaucratic worldview. Even their disagreements with the status quo are framed in terms which never undermine the primacy of the federal government’s authority. These people, disconnected from the human-scale, particular communities that used to be the picture of America, are merely the functionaries of imperial control in their regions. They serve national institutions, assemble their interests according to federal politics, and benefit accordingly from the growth of Washingtonian power.

This dynamic is exceptionally interesting for a country that claims to be a constitutionally limited republic. The parallel trends of stronger government and centralizing government dovetail with other imperial powers in history. In all cases, these successful empires of yore succeeded in building a hierarchical but distributed system of decision making while maintaining the chief prerogative to exercise power at the top. As power continues to aggregate in the spaces between Virginia and Maryland, one must begin to wonder whether D.C. is the capital city of a federation of states or, rather, a city-state that controls a vast empire.

But it’s not just that Washingtonians rule over an overseas empire; it’s that domestic U.S. territory is increasingly treated as part of the conquered territory, rather than as the source of state legitimacy. Sure, we have elected representatives we send to D.C. from all over the country, but experience shows that only in the rarest of occasions do they not adopt the Beltway outlook of going along to get along with the system. Instead, they “play the game” to bring home as much of the spoils of empire (taxation and government contracts for further imperialism) as possible. In the process, they cease to represent their constituents in D.C., preferring to represent the Washingtonian agenda in their respective localities. They become little Paul Brehmers, advocating policies that promote the more effective rule of the domestic and foreign empire. They measure success in terms of how they can coax or coerce the locals into compliance with necessarily foreign interests.

If it is policies in Washington, D.C. that are changing this country into an empire, it is inaccurate to label the empire “American”. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans are not participating in it, but are merely “preferred subjects” in territory as occupied as that in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are magnanimously allowed to have self-rule to the extent that it does not conflict substantively with the imperial agenda, similar to Palestine under Roman (and, arguably, Israeli) control - indeed the organization of states, congressional districts, counties, etc. constitute a ready-made hierarchy for imperial governance. D.C. can even be quite generous in granting autonomy once the locals internalize the imperial identity and start seeing themselves as citizens of the empire. But all of our local governing institutions are as enmeshed in federal money and authority as the Iraqis’.

If the decision-making bureaucracy, military might, and economic clout are all based in Washington, doesn’t it make sense to call this system the Washingtonian empire, rather than conflating it with the disenfranchised subjects in the fifty states? It’s no more an American empire than it is an Iraqi or Afghan one. By labelling this as an empire based in the city-state of Washington, D.C. rather than in America, we can tacitly establish several arguments:

• America is a subjugated land, regardless of institutions of self-governance. The outrage of rights violations is to be expected, not to be wondered at.
• Federal policy is that of a rogue state, and not the result of any sort of legitimate assent from the American people.
• American domestic territory differs from foreign conquered land only by degree, not by any essential or special feature. Institutions of self-governance are only allowed to the extent they reinforce foreign control.
• One’s identity as an American is finally and completely severed from obedience to the government in D.C. Resistance to empire becomes a matter of the same patriotism the federal government has been promoting for its own uses.
• Resistance to empire abroad is unified with resistance to domestic tyranny, instead of attacking foreign policy and domestic policy on different grounds. Examples of abuses abroad are directly applicable to the day-to-day lives of Americans.
• A foreign occupation makes resistance to D.C. rule more urgent without the necessity to articulate exactly what the alternative would be, which is a common rejoinder to libertarian critiques of government.
• This urgency also promotes broad, inter-ideological cooperation among a variety of movements, groups, and people (see Iraq for an example of how such a resistance has potential to build coalitions out of disparate political tendencies).

The Washingtonian Empire is the largest, richest, most powerful, most hierarchically distributed, and most subtly maintained in history. It is so successful that it has even managed to proceed with its agenda without much notice as to its true nature. We should stop trying to get people to take responsibility for the decisions of a foreign city-state, because this only encourages the conflation of their American identity with an alien one.

By drawing on our revolutionary, anti-colonial legacy, we can frame the American political experience as one of historically consistent subjugation. We can then find common ground with other victims of American imperialism while articulating an authentically decentralist agenda. While we need not achieve the full independence we originally sought from the crown, no reconciliation can occur without a large degree of autonomy and an end to Washington’s imperial designs. The sooner we adopt an approach to our political condition that treats our country as occupied territory, rather than unwillingly benefiting from occupation elsewhere, the sooner we can build a radical, populist, extra-electoral American movement that works against the system rather than feeding it.

So let’s stop arguing whether or not America is an empire,and start figuring out what we’re going to do about the city-state of Washington, D.C. and it’s worldwide dominion.

Via Rad Geek I found some great footage that demonstrates just how difficult it can be to be silent in the face of aggressive police tactics:

When this guy tried to remain silent, the cop threatened arrest for “impeding an investigation”. It’s important to know that cops can lie. Legally, they are under no obligation to be honest with you in any way, shape, or form. So how are you possibly going to be able to negotiate with these people?

Remember, you live in occupied territory. Your country has been conquered by a foreign power from the city-state of Washington, D.C. These cops are the troops. The sooner you stop depending on the government, the police, or any institution outside yourself for your safety and the protection of your “rights”, the better prepared you will be for these kinds of encounters.

A freedom based on myths of rights and liberties upheld by strangers is no freedom at all. If you want to be free, build your freedom in the real world: on your ability to choose your attitude, to control yourself, to select your values, to opt-out of the system to the extent possible, and to pick your battles. Don’t blow it trying to showdown with the occupation authority, especially when they have the upper hand.

One more thing: it may seem like a contradiction for me to say that, while you should operate as if none of your rights will be upheld, you should exercise your right to remain silent. I don’t think you should remain silent because you have the right. Stay silent because:

1. They are unlikely to compel you to talk. If they torture you, obviously nobody would blame you for talking. And yes, that probably won’t happen - but this is what I’m talking about: retooling our expectations to reflect our actual experience, not our theoretical rights.
2. Stalling the cops is the safest and simplest way to interrupt their occupation activities. Why should you not “impede their investigation”? By holding the cops up at the scene, you’re doing the community a small favor - the amount of time you delay them keeps them off the streets causing possibly worse trouble.

It’s in that same spirit of passive resistance that I’m considering following a rule of refusing to sign any future traffic tickets. Of course, signing a traffic ticket is not an admission of guilt; it just means you’re pledging to show up for your court date. The alternative to signing is going before a magistrate, which means arrest. If you can possibly afford the inconvenience, it is one way to drain the occupation force’s resources.

What other ways can we passively resist and gum up the administration of the American occupation? I’d be interested in your thoughts.

I think that Obama’s recent statements about poor people clinging to guns and God are being blown out of proportion. Certainly there’s a sense in which oppressed people of any sort tend to fall back on tradition; firearms and religion are our traditions. But it’s not that I think Obama is, on the whole, correct; it’s just that he isn’t out of line with the elite opinion of his class: the politicians. It’s unfair to criticize him for speaking an opinion all his adversaries hold.

But it’s not unfair to criticize him for having a contemptible, elite opinion that looks down on popular sovereignty, and John Médaille does an excellent job. Though I’m not Catholic or a member of any organized religion, I think those paths to God are certainly valid - they’re not themselves good or bad (they are, however, human institutions which must be approached with the same discretion and self-knowledge that any important activity requires). And even if they weren’t, I’d still defend the freedom of people to follow them.

But he absolutely nails the gun issue:

As for guns, we cling to them for another reason, a reason that his little to do with the arguments about the second amendment, arguments which few of us really understand, least of all myself. No, we cling to them precisely because the know-it-alls tell us not to. We live in an age when “experts” give us no end of good advice on subjects that are none of their business, and when each new day brings new headlines about what we should or should not be doing. Be it cholesterol or sex, God or guns, children or politics, there are endless experts to tell us what we are doing wrong. These professional naggers really have our best interests at heart, and the more so the more removed they are from us.

…

The real reason we cling to guns is that they are ours. And even more, they were our fathers. Ownership of guns is something that distinguished the New World from the Old. In the decadent aristocracies of Europe, guns were largely for the landowners, and “poaching” was punishable by flogging or worse. In the New World, every frontiersman had a gun, and it was an essential part of feeding his family and declaring his liberty. We no longer need to feed our families by hunting, but we still need to assert our liberty, and especially our liberty from the army of experts who claim to know what is best for us.

I hope he’ll forgive the selective quote; the whole post is enlightened, but this was just such a great statement on an issue I hold dear. As for whether or not we’re “bitter”, come on: it’s not just the white rural poor.

A very well presented summary of the ways in which the U.S. government is taking the steps other totalitarian governments have throughout history.

What is happening right now is a corporate state conspiracy, pure and simple. Whatever that means to you, be prepared to respond to it when it crosses whatever threshold of human dignity you’ve decided upon.