My post yesterday about the criminalization of the 9-11 protest in Brussels aroused antagonism in some unexpected quarters.I’m referring to a post on the SIOE blog. Judging by a virtually identical comment left on my post, the author of the SIOE piece is Steve Gash. Here’s what he has to say:
Some people seem to be spreading some rather unconstructive and even unverified information/rumours about the SIOE demonstration.
This information was published on Gates of Vienna, together with some scary images!
This article on Gates of Vienna has been the most damaging for the Brussels demo yet.
If you were trying to keep people from going to Brussels you couldn’t have done a better job than that article.
Anonymous emails are worthless, they could have come from Thielemans’s office itself.
Threats, like those described in the article here, are even more likely to come from people who want the demo to not happen as those who really support the demo, but are concerned about violence.
The article warns that we should be careful of police or other infiltrators trying to start violence to discredit the SIOE demo and get participants arrested, yet we are expected to believe what’s written in emails!?
Now I’ll go through his post point by point.
Some people seem to be spreading some rather unconstructive and even unverified information/rumours about the SIOE demonstration.
I object to the assertion that my words were unconstructive. I’m trying to be realistic about what is likely to happen.
And obviously my assertions are “unverified”, since they concern events which have not yet occurred. I have made some attempts at informed speculation; as the future unfolds they will be either validated or discredited.
This information was published on Gates of Vienna, together with some scary images!
One image of Freddy — pretty scary, I agree!
Plus two etchings of 19th-century anarchist riots to make the post visually interesting.
This article on Gates of Vienna has been the most damaging for the Brussels demo yet.
I profoundly disagree with this assertion. Based on the comments and email I’ve been receiving, my posts (and articles on other blogs) have served only to galvanize people, to increase their determination to show up and demonstrate peacefully. The actions of the mayor and the expected violence from the anarchists and the police have only strengthened the resolve of the European Counterjihad.
- - - - - - - - -
If you were trying to keep people from going to Brussels you couldn’t have done a better job than that article.
See the above. Based on all my available information, the opposite is true.
Anonymous emails are worthless, they could have come from Thielemans’s office itself.
Who told you any email was anonymous? I know the recipient of the email, and the sender was known to the recipient. Nothing was anonymous, although I took pains to make sure no details were left in what I posted that could identify the sender or the recipient.
Threats, like those described in the article here, are even more likely to come from people who want the demo to not happen as those who really support the demo, but are concerned about violence.
Well, of course the threats of violence are going to come from those who want the demo not to happen. What could be more obvious?
The mayor of Brussels has set his position in concrete. Violence is likely to occur as a result, not as instigated by him, but by people who understand that violence will serve the interests of those who are entrenched in power.
To expect anything else is foolish and naïve.
The article warns that we should be careful of police or other infiltrators trying to start violence to discredit the SIOE demo and get participants arrested, yet we are expected to believe what’s written in emails!?
OK, tell me what you believe. Do you believe what’s written in the newspapers? Or what’s broadcast on television? How well do the publicly-uttered words of a government minister reflect reality?
Yet emails are somehow suspect?
Give me a break.
I’ll repeat my assertion: Because the political establishment in Brussels has set itself against the SIOE demo on September 11th, violence has become more likely.
Based on historical experience, it is very likely that provocateurs — with no incriminating trail leading back to any public official — will be amongst us, instigating violence for which we will be blamed.
Back in the 1880s the Okhrana were very good at such provocation. In some Russian anarchist cells, up to half of the zealous revolutionaries were actually secret police plants. The Nazis and the Communists excelled at the same tactics.
The fact that the media are guaranteed to cover this event in a way which makes the EU establishment look good only increases the likelihood of such shenanigans.
Add to this the fact that the AFA would love to see the police busting “racist” heads, and trouble becomes a virtual certainty. Just think of it from an anarchist’s point of view: the pigs engage in brutality, and the Islamophobes get what’s coming to them.
It’s a twofer! How could they resist?
Not to confront these possibilities does our own people a disservice. A cool and well-informed analysis shows such events to be likely. People with experience in public demonstrations in Europe agree that violence — not instigated by SIOE — is a very distinct possibility.
So come to Brussels with your eyes wide open. Wear a bicycle helmet and be prepared to spend a night in jail if you have to. Only a small number of people will face such circumstances, but it’s likely that somebody will.
As I said before, everything is stacked against us except the rightness of our cause, and our numbers. The more people who show up and let their opinions be known in peaceful silence, the more effect the event will have, regardless of the provocateurs and the police and the media coverage.
Read yesterday’s post: the commenters have many ingenious and useful suggestions about how to leverage all of this to our advantage.
If this analysis is “unconstructive”, then so be it.
Don’t read Gates of Vienna anymore; take the link off your blogroll.
I’m just one voice, and there is plenty of alternative reading out there.
11 comments:
Baron, I have to say I was shocked at the way your article was received. If anything, were I able to attend the demonstration I would be more prone to go now than ever. maybe it's the American in me, I don't know.
I totally back up what you're saying. Being realistic about a situation should not mean for anyone to lose resolve because some AFA pukes or the riot police may bust some heads. Or even the infiltrator idea...I doubt it could work if everyone is agreed to that silent protest thing. If foks aren't out there screaming and making a big fuss, just being visible by the large numbers and the principle of the cause. I would think it would speak volumes more than screaming. and would not be likely that someone would even be able to pull off a stupid stunt without several cohorts.
I digress. The point is that after reading the post, I was more incensed than ever. Not intimidated. Good Job. Keep up the excellent work Baron.
Mjolnir --
Thanks for your support! You and I are in the minority so far, though...
I don't think so Baron. The article was a realistic evaluation. No use trying to lure people unprepared into a expected showdown they didn't see coming...We're old enough to weigh the facts ourselves
À la Guerre comme à la guerre.
the demo should go ahead - but with Baron's article in our minds. i thought that the article was an honest appraisal of the situation and what could potentially happen. it was a wake up call for all us to be less naive.
but the demo has to go ahead.
During my miltary days, I was shot at on several occsions, was shot once in the leg, bombed, hit by flying stones and bottles, spat upon and was involved in some real go at 'em fisticuffs. I don't count the verbal abuse. I boxed for my regiment, got a good hiding or two and dealt a few out.
Brussels police? Bah!
See you all in Brussels.
Baron B. wrote:
Based on the comments and email I’ve been receiving, my posts (and articles on other blogs) have served only to galvanize people, to increase their determination to show up and demonstrate peacefully.
Human psychology is an interesting subject. It is true that I hadn't really considered going myself, until after that article. The whole thing woke me up from my introspective identity crisis.
But Baron, that email that you quoted is all veiled intimidation. It's planted among us to instill fear. But the email describes a fantasy world that doesn't exist. In fact it is laughable. I write about it in my blog.
Also Stephen Gash has made this comment:
Infiltration was always a danger, but certainly not by the police. The accusations that police might be involved with stirring up trouble towards SIOE were put to some Belgian ex-police contacts of ours who laughed out loud. We were told there would be no way Brussels police would do that, mainly because they have a great many rules (EU-style) forbidding them to do it.
Which I completely agree with. The whole idea is ridiculous.
CS --
Actually, as I mentioned somewhere in one of these posts, I think infiltration by Antifa is the likelier possibility. I doubt your Belgian friends would laugh that one off entirely.
BB,
It's obviously not your and mine comments that should be distrusted and considered spurious. It's that very fishy email that you quoted. The mistake by you and me here were in that we danced around this email while describing the negative sides of the situation, without first debunking that spurious email completely.
While the idea of the police being commanded from the highest level to beat the crap out of us, is completely laughable, the risk of Antifa infiltration among our ranks during the demonstration is a very real possibility.
While the idea of the Belgian police as Nazis is a defeatist fantasy, to think of Antifa as some sort of Soviets is along the right line. However, they are mean and dirty, but how effective are they really? They can riot in the streets or put an axe in someones door, but how many records are there of them doing successful infiltration? Quite as we can imagine the horrific terror acts that the Muslims could do, but they almost never manage to do them. Quite the same I ask about the level of intelligence and sophistication among the Antifa. I know they can act as a mob and as thugs, but what are there any records of them acting intelligently?
I simply haven't studied them carefully enough to know. This is why I ask. I simply would like to see some record of them successfully infiltrating before giving this potential threat any stronger focus.
Nevertheless, what we fear is someone in the SIOE lines starting to throw stones at the police. It could even come from an "adrenaline extremist" among our own (someone that shouldn't have been there). The way to deal with it would be they same in both cases. But how to deal with it?
From the start SIOE had difficulty in getting across to enthusiastic supporters of the Brussels demo, the need to keep things simple in order to obtain permission for the march. I received some personal criticism for pointing out the restrictions we deliberately imposed on the march.
However, Anders's, Udo's and my aims and rules were vindicated on 7th August when the Brussels police found no objection to our march. Indeed they praised us for premeditatedly heading off extremists and the expected infiltration from self-styled anti-fascist groups who would masquerade as nazis to discredit the demo.
The police were impressed with our plans for the march and agreed that because of our proposed stewarding, the demo would be no more difficult to manage than previous ones.
We obtained agreement from separatist political parties to not fly certain flags which are very dear to them, which was no mean feat I can tell you.
They saw the big picture and the potential for building up a powerful network of anti-Islamists for future events.
What I found most objectionable about the article posted on the Gates was the assumption that we hadn't considered all of the possibilities. From the start our prime concern was the safety and security of the demonstrators.
We stuck to our guns in keeping our aims and rules which people cricised when they were published and still criticise them now!
They were made precisely with peoples' safety in mind - and for no other reason.
We would have had political parties described by the media as "far-right" marching in the same demo as people of different races. We would have had national groups marching in the same demo as as other groups who oppose them on other matters.
Our rules would have enabled this.
We are neither stupid nor naive.
"We are neither stupid nor naive."
Keep it up, but please remember the coin of the realm: the rule of law; the opponents do.
With Abu JahJah and the AEL being in the mix, there's no question anymore 'if there will be violence', these guys being a club of agents provocateurs who are out for trouble.
Please note however that the Belgian police force are unlike any other. If anything, they'll be sympathetic.
Hope webmaster will finally reward my contribution with publication. If not, tell me what I have to do to get admitted to this private joint. P.S. This is my last effort.
Best!
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.