The security state is truly powerful when even in failure it succeeds. Even when it slips and proves unable to exercise the absolute power we’ve been taught to fear, we invent convoluted theories to explain how the security state really is all powerful, and how this was part of the plan all along.

In addition to being a paranoid conspiracy theory, this kind of narrative is dis-empowering, and a kind of self-policing. The emperor wears no clothes: government and corporate power is far more flimsy and vulnerable than we’re lead to believe – the only thing keeping it safe is our collective social fear of attacking it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeG_t9abaSU

The probable use of these despicable tactics is to first of all discredit the protests and to make the ‘riot’ the newspaper stories…make it the news rather than the fact that the CDN right wing have managed to dodge the bullet of the robin hood tax. That tax is clearly what people want and would be an easy sell.. NONE of the mainstream press has even enquired of the police whether or not they used undercover cops this way…but they did…as the also simply left the empty police cars in the middle of the street inviting destruction. Makes good news stories. Keeps people in the dark and blind to being robbed by the Conservatives and the big banks…

I think a more useful form of public assembly at this point would be to organize a sort of counter-conference, similar to the FooCamp/BarCamp phenomenon. Peaceful rallies in public areas away from the conference venues could establish a large -scale local presence without *physically* antagonizing the powers that be, and an organized conference could serve to provide more traditional legitimacy by both contributing to the local economy and providing a forum for cogent analysis and discussion. With the proper PR effort, media campaigns could both promote such events, and present their findings to the world at large. Without a large group of people to cover their aggressive actions, ‘assholes’ would then be either marginalized, or incentivized to participate in more rational and productive ways.

CTV got a lot more critical when their cameraman was assaulted by cops, and the (major Canadian network) reporter noted that a surrounded crowd *can’t* disperse.

This is suppression, plain and simple.

To clarify: I’m actually not in favor of summit-hopping. Anarchists around the world are having huge impacts on our communities, and that’s where the focus should be. Anarchists create free food organizations like Food Not Bombs. Anarchists promote community gardening. Anarchists hold skill-shares. Anarchists work on literacy campaigns. Anarchists have helped rebuild New Orlenas, post-Katrina. We’re doing all of the positive stuff we should be. We’re out there making connections with regular people, helping them out when their houses are foreclosed or the police are cracking down on them because of their race or economic status. But we never get any press for that, do we? There’s nothing in a stable, effective bike cooperative providing bikes to poor people that justifies a 30-second loop shown 200 times a day on CNN.

Meanwhile, our enemies, the state and capital, meet in secret to generate plans which frustrate all of our good intentions. Is it any wonder that we protest? And is it any wonder that we wear masks, when the police charge anyone they can name with “conspiracy” because they made a flier or chalked a sidewalk? (Read up on the AETA 4 if you don’t believe me.)

Anarchists are completely justified in protecting ourselves from police attacks, especially when we are on the streets, trying to wake the rest of you up from your slumber.

The American Revolution was a full scale war, fought by an organized and essentially self-sufficient colony in order to establish just such a democracy. A G20 protest is…well…not that.

I was on the fence about protest in general, but some of the discussions I’ve had here have made me reconsider. I think it’s definitely important that people show up to have their voice heard in that arena, although it’s becoming increasingly risky to do so, and often degenerates into violence of one kind or another. I suppose it’s the intent of the protesters that really matters. If everyone shows up to carry our a peaceful civil action, then I think we can all agree that they’re doing things the right way, even if they are unfortunately and unjustly treated violently by authorities. If the original intent is to show up and propagate violence, then their cause is futile. The degree to which anyone who seeks to perpetrate violence against governmental authority is outgunned is absurd (this was not the case in the American Revolution, and I still contend that their cause was categorically different than what G20 protesters seek to accomplish). So, if they seek to act violently, their cause is ultimately and utterly futile.

And even if violent protesters were (miraculously) somehow able to, in your words, “knock it down and chase those bastards out of whatever city they are infesting at the time”, what, exactly would be accomplished then? The only message that would be received by anyone would be that violent radicals had wantonly destroyed the G20 venue. Violence, and only violence, would become the message. Or, to quote a much more skilled communicator:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I’m much more in favor of the kind of activism that Dr.Pasolini has mentioned in this thread, that which enriches local communities and creates positive change by making good things happen.

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that there are only a couple of arenas that matter anymore: your neighborhood, and mass media. That is where we must strive to share ideas and practice justice and peace to show people that our ideals manifest as positive action, improving the lives of others.

Still, I have to believe that an event of sufficient size, with a sufficiently organized, genuinely grassroots social media and PR campaign, occurring in the same city as the event being ‘protested’ would be noticed by the world at large, or at least a few nations. While it doesn’t preclude the possibility of this occurring, I’m unfortunately at a bit of a loss to cite examples of this being done successfully in the past. Anyone?

I hear your argument that large-scale street protests self-marginalize due to anarchist and/or mindless-shit-wrecking contingents. However, from a strategic perspective, I respectfully disagree. I think that moving “legitimate” protest into confined spaces is surrender, pure and simple. If legit/civil protest is moved off the streets, it becomes that much easier to criminalize all street protest, which, I’m sure you’ll agree, would be a terrible outcome.

One solution, I think, is to watch as police get even more heavy-handed: they move from detaining Amy Goodman to mainstream media; they move from detaining non-violent anti-authoritarians to detaining middle-class progressives; they arrest even more passersby. This simply allows the police to delegitimize themselves. This strategy, coupled with *increasing* the amount of non-violent street protest (like Critical Mass and regular, middle-class-progressive anti-war stuff like prior to the Iraq War) allows more people to see street protest as not just the domain of radicals (as you would have it) but of legitimate progressive change. Because that’s what it is: one tool still in the arsenal to unite the left, from the radical left to the partisan Democrats/Labour, for positive change. Let’s not give it up.

You’re describing the “free speech zone” that Toronto police designated at Queen’s Park, 2 or 3 kilometers away from the G20 venue.

Several dozen protesters showed up there, as part of a planned rally. They were rushed and pushed to the ground by several hundred riot police, and many were arrested for disturbing the peace.

More coming my way? Such naive revolutionary romanticism.

Good luck at the G20 meeting in Seoul, S Korea. The police there have long experience with violent demonstrators and, unlike the Toronto police, are know for their enthusiasm rather than their restraint.

The most disheartening thing of all is that the media narrative is always the same. It really does not matter what actually happens, they have eliminated the capacity for public discourse. The cops beat the shit out of people, the elites eat their $10,000 dinners, and some windows get broken… turn on the TV: BREAKINGNEWSPROTESTERSRIOT!!!
“Police say, blah blah blah… And in Celebrity News, blah blah blah…”

I think you are overlooking a motive. Yes traditional provocs use it as a trap to arrest, beat and stomp innocent people. So there is their motive usually, yes. But in this case lets say they had time to think it out. Instead of using 3 men to incite rioting against police themselves they possibly could have used another 3 men but instead of the stupid rock attack they went for VISUAL EFFECT…. As stated above, there really is nothing like having a nice burning cop car to give reason to the beatings and arresting of innocence. Believe me, they have the means and by all means they are going to use any means they feel is needed to not only ensure violence and retaliation but also to ensure they paychecks and toys were paid for.

Here are some things I note.
the cop car should have had a full tank, that should have caused a massive fuel leak/burning/ possibly explosion.
Cops NEVER leave their cars unlocked…….PERIOD.
If the police were in real danger the riot police would have come down really really hard on the protesters possibly even with live ammo, but surely with teargas and the usual shield rush/baton beating. Instead they run? cars unlocked? yeah…
Where are the actual arrests on vandals and not innocent photogs and PEACEFUL protesters…

The simple fact that they did dress up and start violence before means that they are not above breaking the law, nor below acting like criminals and should not be trusted.

I mean how would they justify spending $$$$$$$$$$1,000,000,000.oo if nothing happened. I mean how could they arrest assault and beat hundreds of innocent people without something erupting.

Lastly, lets theorize every single illegal act (by the protestors) was committed by a citizen. Does that give them the right to run full speed into people using the top edge of the shield as a battering ram? Does 1 mans actions condemn the masses? Should a woman be shot with rubber bullets and gassed because some random stranger 5 blocks over started a piggies car on fire? This whole thing disgusts me and im an American.

There truly is no hope for us. I had high hopes for america when this BS started happening in the 70′s, look where we are now.
I had high hopes for you and others who protest for peace, compassion and intelligence. Now I see clearly. We/you have been conditioned to bow to authority at all times regardless the reason.

I thought one day the people would truly stand together and stop everything in its tracks until real change happened. No teachers, no students, no bus routes, no businesses, no tow trucks, no trucking, no labor, no progress until our demands on sanity are met. This will not happen.

40 years ago Americans still had rights and a reason to hold their heads up high and tout freedom and truth and teach their children of Americas greatness. Now what am I supposed to tell my child? Hide from police or they may injure you? Do what your told regardless of right and wrong? Dont peacefully protest for things you strongly believe in?

This is unfortunately all to come for you peace loving canadians. Heck the land we both live on isnt called north canadia, nor is south land called south spain. We are small by comparison but its still called north and south AMERICA. And apparently very fittingly since we now have our failing government encroaching and forcing their control measures onto south america, mexico and canada.
Now we are misinformed by those meant to hold things together, our opinions are formed for us and then forced upon us by government owned media.
I approximate it takes a person of way above average intelligence, say in the 130-160 IQ range to see through all the lies clearly. Which the average person has an IQ of around 100-110 while the average american cop has the IQ of 95, and is required to lack empathy for his fellow man in order to pass the psych tests. If you care about people you will not pass and will not be a cop who deals with people. If you test above 110 you are not a “beat cop” but instead a detective or even any number of 3 initial groups.

Im beyond saddened for this world, apparently hell on earth is now, and the apocalypse wasnt a single catastrophic event or place in time but instead a shifting from reality to whatever it is we all live in now.

I give up, all I want now is a place to die, childless. Its not my mess, I didnt make it, and I sure as hell cant fix it. Its become larger than itself 10 fold, we will all have to wait for it to devour itself for true change to come.

Water=polluted to high heaven
Air=disgusting remnants of nuclear testing and carbon loading, thousands of massive half empty planes flying non stop ever day all day.
Oceans=destroyed, filled with oil and death that will continue for thousands of years, deep fissures in the earth 5 miles down filled with barrels of waste and nuclear ordinance by the tonnes.
Extinction of animals=eminent
Extinction of Humans=probable
Oil=Nearly Tapped- every year we use 3,000,000 years worth of earths oil production, and thats with the best possible conditions.

Checkmate.

Sounds just like what has happened here over the last 3 weeks.

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/jonasnaimark/4739841273/sizes/m/

But a new strategy that doesn’t surrender the streets (as Greenglyph expounds) is certainly a good idea.

However, I remain concerned that violence generally overshadows any other messages that protesters may have, and as long as violent elements are mixed in with peaceful protesters, local authorities will have an umbrella of sorts under which to carry out their suppressive actions, and the public perception of events will remain unchanged. As an example, if you search for ‘G20 protest’, most of the links you’ll encounter in the first few pages refer only to the police tactical response to ‘violent’ protest, and include only the occasional cursory coverage of what any of the protesters were trying to actually say or accomplish. Essentially, all the wrong messages are getting through.

A possible synthesis of the current system of protest with a more organized ‘counter-conference’ style approach might be to continue holding a mass demonstration at or near the event site (with its built in high profile, and unfortunate tendency to degenerate), but hold a linked counter-conference at a completely different location such as the site of the previous year’s ‘live’ event. Video/audio/photo streams could be sent back and forth between the two sites, and collated after the event to more clearly spread the message of the parties involved.

Such an event would certainly take a large degree of organization and cooperation between disparate groups, but might serve to lend an increased air of legitimacy to the endeavor, and help clarify the intended message.

It could also provide a venue in which those whose discretion outweighs their zeal (i.e. squares like y.t.) could participate, without the looming threat of tear gas and truncheons.

Surrendering the idea that our whole country (US or Canada) is a big free speech zone is allowing tyrannical, fascist politicians and cops to destroy public discourse. Don’t move protests into paid, protected and private arenas; move them *all* into the streets!

Wholly positive, peaceful actions by anarchists and their ilk don’t get the press coverage they should. Most people would much rather see anarchists as 1910s-era bombthrowers than people feeding the homeless. It just doesn’t fit the narrative.

A synthesis, as you mention, might be helpful. Perhaps the Social Forum (is there a worldwide one?) could be held in the same location as a previous G20. Or, if announced sufficiently in advance, the group could meet in the same city as the G20 *before the G20* to affect positive change (FnB-style) and build alliances with local communities to avoid local resentment of protests.

When an anti-G20 protest is more than summit-hopping anarchists but includes local communities of color, LGBTQ groups and local progressives, that’s when protests get productive. A coalition of local people expelling the G20 is a productive victory; whereas summit-hopping anarchists smashing things alone is mostly masturbation.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100630033458909