USA: Property Destruction Is Not Enough

  • September 10, 2019 4:26 pm

from Anarchists Worldwide

After Ori Feibush’s house was vandalized in late July, conversations sparked again in Philly about whether the attack constituted violence whether it was justified. Feibush – the widely-hated founder of OCF Realty, who for many years has been shamelessly spearheading the gentrification of Point Breeze – has few defenders, which presents the opportunity for one of the better dialogues communicating why targeted property destruction might be happening and why it might be effective.

The conversation about this latest OCF vandalism – in which most people commenting online reacted positively to the news – was heartening. It suggested that something has qualitatively changed in how people are understanding property destruction and why it makes sense. In the long battle over this topic in this country, which from my vantage point has been raging since Occupy Wall Street, perhaps we have finally gained some ground.

But if we’re gaining ground in one battle, it’s probably because we’re quietly losing in another, more important one. If we’re finally winning the conversation about property destruction, maybe it’s partly because it is no longer relevant.

Before the Trump era – especially during the Clinton and Bush years, when the world seemed to have reached a global consensus that capitalism and the nation state were awesome – property destruction was especially dangerous to power in that it disturbed the social peace, serving as a reminder that things were not in fact awesome at all. As Trump took hold of the state, grassroots white supremacists also gained power, and anti-authoritarian struggles became focused on countering their presence in the streets. This has made discussions of physical violence relevant again for the first time in decades. Yet give the opportunities this has presented for us to put forth various ideas about violence, it seems like we’ve accomplished disappointingly little regarding this important topic.

Instead, we’ve arguably lost some ground by ceding the conversation to “self-defense” justifications of physical violence and by discussing violence almost exclusively with regard to people whom internet leftists like to call “Actual Nazis.” It is not a radical discussion to think punching a nazi is okay, and it is not a victory that after much internet discussion we’ve gotten many people to take up this non-radical position. While conversations about why and how we’re fighting white supremacists are important, the exclusive focus on discussing violence against grassroots racists is conveniently derailing us from talking about what kind of violence might be necessary and appropriate against the people who are actually in power.

Today power is in a state of crisis that I have not seen in my lifetime. Global capitalism is in search of a lifeline it may not find; the climate is already spiraling out of human control, with genocidal consequences. We have a president who is unprecedentedly unpopular with at least half of the population, which in turn reflects the increasing polarization of the country between left and right as capitalism and the state increasingly fail us all. As things become more extreme, this means we and other people who lean anti-authoritarian will be up against racist militias, who are often military-trained and organized to respond to crisis scenarios. Right now it’s hard to imagine our side winning such fights, and we need to talk about how to do more to move towards not being immediately crushed by white supremacists in a crisis or collapse scenario.

And what about the kind of violence, death, and destruction that will likely happen in the course of liberation? It seems like many people genuinely think that radical electoral politics will gradually move us closer to revolutionary transformation. Others – maybe some of the same people – believe that mass social movements will develop to such an extent that physical violence will be negligible in the revolution they will eventually produce. These outcomes seem highly unlikely, if only because the state seems willing to do almost anything rather than lose power. But those of us who want to get rid of the state – and all kinds of power over others – rarely discuss, whether ethically or practically, how we imagine dealing with the kind of violence that will be necessary for an insurrection or revolution to spread or succeed.

It is especially rare that this conversation leaves the realm of ethics and enters into practicalities. Anarchist attempts to take up physical violence against power have a long history, including in this country – from assassinating presidents to shooting up corporate bosses. What can we learn from the strategies and tactics of the past? And what about other people who get caught up in the crossfire of insurrectionary violence? Avoiding such conversations in order to appeal to liberals and leftists isn’t doing us any favors – it just adds to the impression that many of us do not really want to deal with the problems involved with enacting violence.

As anti-authoritarians, we often get stuck in dialogues with other that keep us stuck in limited, reactive mode – for example, all the conversations in which we are asked to defend our vast and unrealistic critiques of the system. How can we be more intentional about what we want to be talking about and what ideas do we want to be spreading? Let’s not be afraid to challenge the questions themselves and change the terms of the conversation – which like everything else are convenient for power.

Let’s also consider what we’re capable of and what we can each contribute to stopping this system of power – or at least parts of it – before its genocidal effects make these hypothetical questions about violence posed to anarchists completely irrelevant. Some of us may focus on attack; some of us might focus on developing skills and infrastructure that will keep each other safer and healthier as attack succeeds and/or the system we’re fighting deteriorates. Let’s point our skills and passion towards liberation.

Responses to any of the questions or ideas brought up in this opinion piece are welcome! Write to anathemaphl(at)riseup(dot)net

(From Anathema Volume IV Issue V, September 2019)

Note from Anarchists Worldwide: The photo accompanying this article was randomly sourced from the internet and is used for illustrative purposes only – it did not accompany the original version of this article.

Statement of the hospital and the refinery.

  • September 9, 2019 10:47 pm

from Philly IWW

We, the Philadelphia General Membership Branch of the Industrial Workers of the World, condemn the eventual closing of Hahnemann Hospital in Center City, Philadelphia, as well as the safety and environmental negligence that led to the explosion at the Energy Solutions Refinery in South Philadelphia on June 21st.

The assets of Hahnemann Hospital have been gradually stripped away by a private equity firm, which did not seek any improvements or reinvestments in the hospital. Patients in the United States continue to deal with private insurance companies that do not cover the total costs of their clients’ health care. Real estate developer Joel Freedman bought the hospital and has plans to sell the building for the development of high-cost real estate. Hahnemann Hospital provides care for many low-income and unhoused patients; these patients are to be moved to other area hospitals, which may burden and disrupt Philadelphia’s healthcare networks and the working class people they serve. Hahnemann employs doctors, nurses, cleaning staff, record keepers, security guards and other workers to maintain the hospital and provide care for patients; these workers will lose their jobs and livelihoods in the event of a closure. We support the efforts of unions such as the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, or PASNAP, along with other unions and supporters in taking action against the closing of the hospital. The Philadelphia GMB, however, is wary of politicians that promise to stop the closure, or who use the cause to strengthen their campaigns. This is only one of many hospital closures in urban and rural areas in the United States for similar reasons.

The explosion at the Energy Solutions refinery in Southwest Philadelphia was partially caused by the company’s neglect of basic safety and environmental standards. The company should compensate both the community members affected by the explosion and the hazardous chemicals that were released, and the workers who will be made jobless due to the destruction of the plant. The Philadelphia IWW GMB calls for the company to liquidate itself to pay for these damages, and rejects calls for the plant to return to the hazardous fossil fuel industry. The workers in these industries, including those who formerly worked for the Energy Solutions Refinery, should be retrained to work in less hazardous industries.

Both of these closures represent a glaring failure and the inability of the capitalist system to meet the needs of the people and workers. The price of healthcare necessities has risen unchecked and basic safety precautions in a potentially deadly plant are phased out as too costly, all while CEOs and the stock market make record profits. These are not isolated incidents: this is the logical outcome of a system that demands continuous growth. This system must be stopped and the workers themselves, not politicians or NGOs, are the only ones with the power to do so. We must organize now for the abolition of wage slavery and the preservation of what is left of our environment.

Anathema Volume 5 Issue 5

  • September 8, 2019 7:52 pm

from Anathema

Volume 5 Issue 5 (PDF for reading 8.5×11)

Volume 5 Issue 5 (PDF for printing 11×17)

In this issue:

  • Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? (Antifa)
  • Anti-Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism
  • New Trends In Anti-Development
  • Property Destruction Is Not Enough
  • What Went Down
  • Vaughn 17 Birthdays
  • Standing Rock Interview
  • World News
  • Solidarity With El Tripa
  • Nazi Scum Got Run

Question of Forces: Interview on Community College Labor Struggle in Philadelphia

  • September 3, 2019 7:05 pm

from It’s Going Down

Anarchists in Philadelphia conducted an interview with a teacher at a community college following a successful contract fight.

In April, the union of teachers and staff at the Community College of Philadelphia won an important victory: a contract fighting off many of the years-long attacks from the administration.

Administrators had been pushing aggressively for higher workloads for teachers while at the same time attacking healthcare for all employees at the college. The Faculty and Staff Federation (AFT Local 2026) mobilized and pushed back, ultimately preparing for a strike. In response, the administration threatened to cut health insurance for all employees -an attack on the most vulnerable workers at the college and a transparent attempt to divide and conquer.

But the impending strike brought admins back to the table, and a new contract was signed. In the compromise that followed, the union won a workload reduction and the administration backed off a number of threatened healthcare cost increases, as well as agreeing to a pay increase for staff. But the union victory was partial. For example, Yusefa Smith notes in the union’s press release:

We didn’t win on class-size. I’m still teaching 36 students per class … At Montco and Bucks [other Philadelphia area community colleges], it’s 27-28 students per class. But we did win some workload reductions, which is a victory for our students. But we will keep fighting on class size.

The following is an interview with a union activist member of the full-time faculty at CCP. They wished to remain anonymous. We asked what lessons other campus workers can learn from the union struggle at CCP.

Can you summarize some of the important background regarding the recent CCP union struggle?

Sure thing. Before we get started, though, I should say upfront that I’m not an official union (or college) spokesperson, and the views I’m expressing here are solely my own.

Our union represents about 1,200 workers at Community College of Philadelphia and is composed of three bargaining units: the full-time faculty unit, the part-time and visiting lecturer faculty unit, and the classified employees unit, which includes many of the non-faculty workers at the college.

The collective bargaining agreement at CCP has historically been a pretty good one thanks to the work of our union going back to the 1970s. In recent years, the upper administration of the college and the board of trustees have sought to chip away at it. The most recent contract negotiations, which began around 2016, represented a continuation of that trend.

The college administration began negotiations by proposing that we accept several deeply concessionary proposals which would have negatively affected educational quality and made it more difficult to attract and retain a diverse faculty, among other things. The administration’s demands were wide-ranging and would have affected workload, joint governance, pay, and benefits. The admin basically wanted us to give up significant past victories in all those areas and more. The admin’s opening proposals would have meant some of the lowest paid workers at the college would have remained woefully underpaid. They also would have seriously undermined shared governance at the college, to the detriment of our students and everyone who works at the college. We were able to fend off many of these proposed changes but unfortunately not all of them.

In the last few years, teacher strikes have been kicking off, with an important rank-and-file power making itself felt within them. How do you see faculty/staff struggles at colleges fitting into that bigger picture of teacher strikes? What can we learn? Why is it important to struggle for worker rights on campuses?

This is a great and complex question, and I’m not sure I know the full answer. But there are some things I see in common when I look at labor action by education workers, whether they are early childhood educators, K-12, or higher ed workers.

First, I think it’s important to recognize that “education workers” means more than just teachers. At CCP our union represents faculty members, but it also represents the non-faculty workers who help the college run. This is one of the things I like best about our union.

Second, I think the struggles of education workers are inextricably tied up with the struggles of our students. We want schools that are good places to work and to teach, and our students deserve schools that are good places to learn.

Third, I think victories for education unions are important for the economy as a whole. Each one helps shape the labor market we all work in, and the labor market our students work in or will work in.

On a related note, I think the struggle we’re seeing between education workers and those who would try to control us is related to the question of the purpose of our schools. Are our schools going to be places where students learn the bare minimum of the basic skills they need to serve corporations and governments? Or are our schools going to be places where students are able to really develop themselves as whole people, meaningfully reflect on history and the present, and begin to develop solutions to the problems that are important to them? If it’s the latter (and I think the future health of our society depends on it being the latter), that’s going to take resources, and I think, unfortunately, it’s fallen to education workers, students, and community allies to have to fight for those resources.

I think the root cause of a lot of the strikes and other discontent I’m seeing among education workers is the result of government underinvestment in public education as a result of neoliberal austerity and the related rise of the notion that “schools should be run like businesses.” This is particularly salient and pernicious in institutions that are supposed to serve historically underserved populations.

I think the response is for education workers, students, parents, and community members to demand full and fair funding of all of our systems of public education. I would like to see education workers’ unions at the forefront of that.

What strategies did you see the administration using against the workers/union in recent months/years? What were some of the more effective ways campus workers responded?

Even people who had been at the college for a long time said this was the most inflexible and unreasonable they’ve seen a CCP administration be in negotiations. The administration’s tactics ranged from the sort of typical corporate anti-union crap you’d expect, to the sometimes bizarrely petty, to the really despicable threat they made to cut off the health insurance of everyone who went on strike.

The threat against the health insurance of anyone who went on strike I found especially odious. The administration made it against people who, in some cases, were making less than $15 an hour and who qualify for public assistance for food. We have union members who are on chemotherapy or who have family members on chemotherapy. We have members with high-risk pregnancies. We have members whose children have disabilities that require ongoing treatment. For the administration to threaten to suspend these people’s health insurance in retaliation for striking I found to be really disgraceful. I’m not sure what the college administration’s plan is now to try to come back from that and credibly claim to be leaders of the college, other than in an authoritarian way.

Our union’s response to this threat was to help our members understand how they could remain insured through COBRA or by purchasing their own health insurance. But I think this also underscores the importance to future labor struggle of universal government-provided health insurance.

For the years these negotiations were going on the administration spent I can only imagine how much of the college’s money on an outside law firm to represent and advise them. They also did strange things like order our union posters taken down from college bulletin boards. While we couldn’t outspend the administration on lawyers, since, you know, we were spending our own dues money instead of taxpayer and student dollars, the union does have a negotiations and strike fund and a lawyer of our own. As far as the posters being taken down: Well, there are more of us than there are of them, so we just put them back up.

The administration did other things, too. My understanding is that there was an agreement to keep the exact content of negotiation sessions mostly private, but the administration seemed to not fully abide by that. They’d cherry pick what they thought were the best parts of their proposals and put them out in public and email them to all the students. They’d use this to try to further their narrative that the union was being unreasonable. I think a good response to this for next time would be to have open bargaining.

Another thing the administration tried to do was to drive wedges between our bargaining units. Like I mentioned, two of our bargaining units represent faculty members, while the third one represents non-faculty workers at the college. I think the administration tried to take advantage of this in several ways. One thing they did was focus very intensely on proposals they had for increased workload for faculty. Faculty fought back against this, and I think the administration then tried to say, or at least imply, to the non-faculty workers something along the lines of, “See, the faculty are holding up your contract by fighting us over workload.” I can’t speak for everyone, but I think this sort of “divide and rule” tactic was pretty transparent, and in the end we stuck together and signed three contracts together, as we traditionally have. I think maintaining and increasing solidarity, communication, and camaraderie between and within the three bargaining units is going to be important for our union going forward. I think an important part of that is going to be committing to making our union a more actively anti-racist union, as there are different racial demographics in the different bargaining units.

What worked best in your struggle? What do you think were the most effective strategies and tactics?

I think the foundation of the most successful elements of our campaign were organizing conversations. These are conversations where union members volunteer to talk to other union members about what they’re thinking and feeling and what they’d like to see happen with our union. I think these are important for so many reasons. They build trust and relationships, and they allow union leadership to understand what members want in an in-depth way and make decisions accordingly.

Another important part of our effort was making it clear how what we were fighting for would be beneficial for students and the larger community. The Bargaining for the Common Good Network does a great job of describing this method of campaigning, and we used a lot from their framework in organizing our own efforts.

We received some political support from some members of state and local government, but when it came down to it, it was our demonstrated willingness to strike if needed that caused real change at the bargaining table.

What role did students play in the strike? How crucial are students as a support system for education workers struggling on a college campus?

From my perspective, students played a huge role.

First, on a personal note, I was deeply touched by how supportive my students were when I told them we might go on strike. I was worried they might see a potential strike as a betrayal on the part of their teachers, but almost none of my students seemed to think about it that way. Obviously, we all wanted to avoid a strike if we could, but my students were really clear that they’d be in support of me and the union if it came to a strike. I can’t fully describe how much that meant to me, just on a personal level.

Secondly, the possibility of a strike meant there was a lot of discussion on campus about strikes and unions. Some of this was between union members and students. Some of it was students talking to other students. Some of this was in class. Some of it was outside of class. But, all in all, I’d say the possibility of a strike led to a greater awareness among the students about unions and their power and importance. I remember one of my students saying something in one of our class discussions like, “Wait, so you can just say ‘no’ to what your bosses want to do? We gotta get a union at my work.”

Some students became actively involved in support of our contract campaign, contacting local politicians, the college president, and the college board of trustees. Some showed up at our demonstrations. Some talked about running for student government and trying to address the same issues with the college that the union wants addressed regarding things like funding, resources for students, and class sizes. It was really inspiring and touching for me to see our students become aware and active around these issues like many of them did. I think this may have been one of the best aspects of the contract campaign for me.

What main lessons do you think other education workers struggling in Philly and beyond could learn from what’s been happening at CCP recently?

So much happened. I think I am still processing and learning from everything that happened. But right now, these are the things that stand out as lessons I learned:

The importance of ongoing one-on-one organizing conversations between members as an organizing strategy that builds solidarity, camaradiere, and communication.

The importance of using a Bargaining For The Common Good framework where the union makes clear how what the union is fighting for will benefit the greater community. In our case, this was things like fighting for full funding for the college, smaller class sizes, more resources for students, and a more diverse faculty at the college.

Start organizing and preparing to strike early. Like years early. Our current contract ends in three years, and we have already begun our campaign for the next one.

Don’t underestimate how much work it is. I didn’t formally count, but I am sure our contract campaign required literally thousands of work hours.

At least in our situation, the negotiating at the bargaining table seemed to be more about power than debate. It didn’t seem to really matter whether we had reason, logic, evidence, and well-crafted arguments for our proposals. It seemed to come down to whether we could demonstrate enough power to force the other side to have to change their position. As an academic observing negotiations at an academic institution, I found this particularly disappointing, but I guess here we are in late capitalism.

Political allies are nice, but it’s the threat of a strike that is the source of your power.

I hope this is all helpful information.

17-17-17 by Dwayne “BIM” Staats

  • August 12, 2019 9:08 pm

from Support The Vaughn 17

On October 17th 2017, 17 prisoners were indicted for allegedly partaking in the uprising that occurred at James T. Vaughn Correction Center in Smyrna Delaware on February 1, 2017. This miscellany of individuals would eventually be given the moniker “Vaughn 17.”

Contrary to our charge of “conspiracy,” prior to this case many of us had never interacted with one another before. As far as myself I only knew 3 of my co-defendants on a personal level. I believe this unfamiliarity exacerbated the tensions that arise while one is engaged in a struggle for life, freedom or truth. Ultimately our triumph hinged upon surmounting psychological barriers that were buttressed by our diverse array of ideologies, idiosyncrasies, experiences, maturity levels and ways of life. Out of all that, there still remained a sad but proven reality that weighed heavily on our minds. There’s 17 co-defendants — the odds are in favor of at least 4-6 opting to cooperate with authorities to secure some type of leniency for their cowardice. With that being the foremost concern, me and Jarreau “Ruk” Ayers approached individuals and recommended that they first consult with us, if they found themselves pondering thoughts of compromising. Being though the vast majority wasn’t privy to or knowledgeable of any specifics concerning the takeover, we would of provided them with details pertaining to our actions, so they wouldn’t concoct fabrications about anyone else. Figuratively speaking we’d accept being stabbed in the chest to present others from getting stabbed in the back. Only one person gave the proposal any consideration. More than anything he was frightened of the maliciousness of the deputy attorney generals, and felt vulnerable against the power they wield. Imagine going to sleep at night with 4 years remaining on your sentence, then morning comes and your greeted by 3 counts of murder, 3 counts of assault, 4 counts of kidnapping, 1 count of riot, 1 count of conspiracy. Internally a lot of my co-defendants were grappling with this abuse of discretion, but they never expressed any desire to seek a pseudo refuge in anticipation of the metaphorical slaughter that some thought was inevitable.

During these preliminary stages it definitely appeared as though the prosecutors had everything rigged to ensure our guilt. The department of corruption aided their accomplice. By keeping us sequestered in living quarters conducive to the deterioration of one’s mind. Some of our adversaries disguised themselves as court appointed lawyers. The system “tried” to box us in on every level. For the first 8 or 9 months the only discovery (evidence) that “some” of us received was co-defendant statements, DNA analyses, and other reports that were deemed paltry. Any material critical to our defense specifically, information alluding to why we were charged was held under a protective seal by a judge’s order. The cumulative effect of these hinderances (tactics) provoked one of my codefendants to contemplate “throwing in the towel,” somehow he rationalized that pleading guilty to something he had no involvement with was a viable solution towards evading the barrage of mental intrusions. Their schematic design became so overwhelming that it nearly infringed upon his sanity. To a degree, all of us were on the verge of psychological exhaustion. Instead of mentally collapsing, it caused us to start making conscious efforts to morally support each other. This was around the time my motion to go pro se (represent myself) was granted. I filed a subsequent motion stating that I be issued a laptop and be given all the discovery discs that the lawyers were entitled to. My request was granted with the stipulation that I adhere to the rules and regulations of the protective order. Which basically meant that I share nothing with my co-defendants. “Yeah Aight!” Once I started receiving the material “we” began analyzing it. Simply saying that we immersed ourselves within this case would be an understatement. I never witnessed a group of individuals move with such a synchronized mind. “Due diligence” is why truly empowered our collective. After sifting through the discovery, which amounted to 7 boxes of documents and about 45 discs. There was no physical evidence, no surveillance footage, or forensic evidence. It all came down to our 17 against 41 lying snakes.

The results: Me and Ruk was found guilty, for basically admitting to our levels of involvement. Deric Forney, Kevin Berry, Abednego Baynes, and Roman Shankaras were acquitted. John Bramble and Obadiah Miller had a hung jury on a few of the charges, but a retrial would not be pursued. Cory Smith, Luis Sierra (Abdul Haqq), Janiis Mathis, Robert Hernandez, Jonatan Rodriguez, Alejandro Rodriguez, Pedro Chairez and Lawrence Michaels all got their cases dismissed. R.I.P. to Kelly Gibbs who took a plea during jury deliberations of the first trial. He committed suicide the night the verdicts returned.

This narration of events was shared to provide a fundamental basis to delineate another nuance of “Vaughn 17.” Like I mentioned, we were essentially strangers comprised of different races, affiliations, motivations etc. Some of my co-defendants had real beefs on the streets. We are a microcosm of the prison population, which reflects society as a whole. I just want to put emphasis on how our discrepancies became inconsequential after the true enemy was identified. If the 17 of us along with our comrades and supporters could unify to deliver a blow that caused the political landscape in Delaware to implode imagine what 1,700 or 17,000 strong can accomplish….

The power is the people.
-BIM

Anathema Volume 5 Issue 4

  • July 23, 2019 5:29 pm

from Anathema

Volume 5 Issue 4 (PDF for reading 8.5 x 11)

Volume 5 Issue 4 (PDF for printing 11 x 17)

In This Issue:

  • Freedom: An Introduction to anarchist principles
  • Water
  • The Coming Recession
  • What Went Down
  • Police Blotter
  • Willem Van Spronsen’s Final Letter
  • New Translation: “Letter in Solidarity with Compañera Anna” by Féminas Brujas and Insurrectionalists (Mexico)
  • World News
  • Reimaging Anarchist Culture: A Review of On Subculture
  • Vaughn 17 Birthdays
  • Deaf Republic Poems

NJ Boneheads Tried to Cause Trouble at Philly I.C.E. Protests

  • July 6, 2019 12:47 am

from Idavox

L-R, Dan D’Ambly of the NJEHA and Ron Sheehy

Ron Sheehy and Dan D’Ambly led a crew of four people to harass members of the Jewish community and their supporters protesting Trump’s concentration camps. Gee, whatever got their dander up?

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Neo-Nazis, two who were readily identified as participants in the 2017 “Unite the Right” Rally in Charlottesville, were seen at an anti-ICE protest at Independence Hall today.

Jewish-American organizations across the country organized this week to be a national “Never Again Week of Action,” and are holding similar marches across the U.S., linking the current immigration enforcement tactics employed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the Holocaust. “As Jews, we’ve been taught to never let anything like the Holocaust happen again,” the Facebook event page reads. “Now, with children detained in unacceptable conditions, ICE raids targeting our communities, and people dying at the border while seeking safety in the US, we are seeing the signs of a mass atrocity. We refuse to wait and see what happens next.”

During the march, four White men identified as neo-Nazis were heckling the passing protesters with anti-Semitic language. Of the four, two were identified because of their notoriety. Dan D’Ambly of the New Jersey European Heritage Association (NJEHA), raised the Betsy Ross American flag while shouting at passers-by, while Ron Sheehy, once of the Advanced White Society joined him while videotaping those he was heckling on his cell phone. According to a since deleted post from his “Tremley” account on Stormfront, the other two were members of NJEHA.

Sheehy also said the four of them later attempted to lay a wreath emblazoned with NJEHA decals on the grave of Ben Franklin but was met with opposition. “We all paid $3 each to get into the Cemetery, and we asked if we can lay a Reef (sic) on Ben Franklin’s Grave Site so we can take a Picture,” he wrote. “(T)hey said ok, but once we did, 2 queer guys who worked there flipped out and tried taking the Reef (sic) away from us. A lot yelling back and forth with them calling us White Supremacist and stuff, so we left after that.” Sheehy also went to an anti-I.C.E. protest earlier this week at the offices of Rep. Tom Malinowski where he heckled the protesters while videotaping them. It is not known at this time if anyone joined him there.

D’Ambly is best known for attempting to hold a rally in Princeton, NJ but failed to show once the residents learned of his plans. The NJEHA seldom, if ever, hold public rallies, opting instead to post flyers on telephone poles in various cities around the state. Sheehy has been seen often at anti-immigration events over the past decade in the New York City area, and just like D’Ambly was photographed at the rally in Charlottesville which cost this life of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, who was killed when White Supremacist James Fields plowed his car into a crowd of protester. D’Ambly was also identified as one of the participants of the “Unite the Right 2” rally the following year in Washington, DC, with his NJEHA organization.

Dozens of protesters were arrested during the Fourth of July Parade while marching through demanding those being held in what has been referred to as concentration camps be removed from such establishments, one of them being in Berks County, PA.

Slouching Towards The Ethnostate: Inside The American Identity Movement

  • July 5, 2019 1:34 am

from Unicorn Riot

[Philly Anticap note: This post only contains the sections of Unicorn Riot’s article about Philadelphia. To read the entire post visit the link above.]

While [American Identity Movement] exact plans have not yet been announced, recent actions by the American Identity Movement’s core members provide a likely template. In May 2019, a few members of AmIM targeted crowds at a baseball game in Philadelphia, and brought a vinyl banner celebrating Kate Smith, a former singer of the National Anthem at the Philly stadium whose statue was recently removed due to her history of making racist comments.  The small group of white supremacist activists brought the banner into the crowd arriving for the game, and managed to entice several unsuspecting passerby into posing with them in footage later released in a propaganda video.

A message in the American Identity Movement’s private online chat for members, posted by ‘Konrad-MD,’ requested donations to recoup costs paid out of pocket to pull off the small media stunt.

Kurtis Buckingham aka ‘Konrad’ solicits donations for racist activism in the American Identity Movement’s MatterMost chat server.

Unicorn Riot has identified ‘Konrad’ as Kurtis Bailey Buckingham, an active member of AmIM’s Maryland chapter who appears at most of the group’s national actions. Buckingham is one of the newer hardcore members of the group, with leaked Discord logs showing that he joined Identity Evropa in August 2018.

Kurtis Buckingham aka ‘Konrad-MD’ at the white nationalist American Renaissance conference in May 2019.

The Philadelphia Proud Boys: An Introduction

  • June 22, 2019 9:44 am

from Dox Your Local Proud Boy

Remember, Gritty is always watching.

Philadelphia Proud Boys- 1. John Lombardo, 2. Joseph Ruff, 4. Tom Moermann, 5. Nicholas J. Magner, 9. Sonny Sullivan, 10. Donovan Chiarlanza, 11. Zachary Rehl, 13. Stephen Hartley, 14. John David Williams
More Scum- 2. Tyler Yamaguchi, 5. Jason Wiltsley, 6. Sean Curran, 7. John David Williams, 8. Mark Anthony Tucci, 9. Stephen Hartley, 10. Nicholas J. Magner

Philadelphia’s chapter of the Proud Boys has existed since mid-2017, though they have for the most part tried to remain out of the public eye and off the radar. Their attempts to hide however, have been decidedly ineffective.

So what is the point of exposing a group with no real public presence or visible effect on the world? The real question one should be asking is why wait until this group has caused harm to act? The Proud Boys on a national level have very clear intentions and are responsible for a rash of violent incidents across the country, like gang beatings in New York, and Portland. They are founded on carefully coded white supremacist and misogynist rhetoric, bigotry that makes them rotten to the core and often flares up among individual members despite PR efforts by the group as a whole to simply appear as conservatives. By willingly accepting the name and associations of the Proud Boys, this Philadelphia chapter has made their intentions clear. They have seen what the group has done across the country and decided that they too wish to be a part of that. They have made their clear and conscious decision, a decision that makes their state of mind and eventual goals apparent, and they should be responded to accordingly. Why wait until they’ve committed violence?

The first mentions of this chapter were in the spring of 2017, when prospective members began to organize on reddit. Among the initial organizers were president Stephen Hartley and vice president Tom Moerman, who began mentioning their membership on social media around this time. The group steadily gained numbers behind the scenes throughout 2017 and into 2018. Almost all of their activity up to this point was social in nature, consisting mostly of drinking outings and outdoors activities like rafting or boating. During this time, members like John Williams and Stephen Hartley cavorted with prolific national personalities in the far right like Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulous, and Sal Cipolla, attending national Proud Boy events like parties in New York, or their music festival, West Fest.

 

Some of the Philadelphia Proud Boys on a rafting trip with other chapters

They began to intersect with other portions of the Philadelphia Far Right, namely the group Sports, Beer, & Politics (On facebook, Sports, Beer & Politics II), led by Zach Rehl and Sonny Sullivan. Sports, Beer, and Politics and their connections to other Far Right groups has been outlined before http://archive.is/8CIpg. Zach and Sonny first began to appear as known members of the main chapter of the Philadelphia Proud Boys in the Summer of 2018, though how long they had interacted before this is unknown. It should be noted that another group, the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, was active in Philadelphia and is considered an offshoot of the Proud Boys. Members of this group organized closely with Sports, Beer, and Politics in 2017 and provided the personal security detail of Neo Nazi Augustus Invictus in Charlottesville. The Alt-Knights have not been very active in quite some time and their associations with the main group that refers to itself as the “Philadelphia Proud Boys” is unknown.

For the Philadelphia Proud Boys, their public debut was at the “We the People Rally” in Philadelphia, on November 17th, 2018. Zach Rehl, one of the members, was one of the main organizers of this event and welcomed Proud Boys both local and national, with open arms. While Proud Boys initially openly pledged allegiance to this event, they quickly backpedaled after the negative press that came out after a weekend of violent incidents and arrests in New York and Portland. They were instructed not to show up in their distinct uniform of Black and Gold Fred Perrys, and not to appear in any organizational capacity, but just as “patriots”. The still referred to themselves as Proud Boys in the security organizing chat leading up to the event though. Such duplicitous behavior is a trademark of organizer Zach Rehl. Indeed many of them showed up to the rally on the 17th, thinking they could disguise themselves in Plain Clothes. Several of them are seen together at a cigar bar after the rally, some of them apparently having changed into their Proud Boy uniforms. After a concerted doxing campaign on twitter, many of them panicked and went quiet and it seems the ranks were shuffled a bit. Zach Rehl would attempt to organize several fascist rallies in the Northeast, with a rogues gallery of boomer militias, meathead goons like Alan Swinney, and hardcore fascists like American Guard. All of these events fell through due to a mix of infighting and extreme incompetence on the part of everyone involved. Nonetheless, small crews of Philly Proud Boys would show up to various events in Philly later in the spring, with a contingent of them showing up to harass protesters outside a speech by Candace Owens at UPenn, and another group of them showing up to an anti-abortion rally. Most recently, Thomas Savasta seems to be rising through the ranks, even attending a national event where the Proud Boys declared a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC. Their most recent appearance was at Philadelphia pride- ostensibly for the purpose of participating with their gay members and appearing nice and liberal and tolerant. Of course, this is all a trick of optic’s sake- don’t be fooled. They are still working with the same base material of a group founded in bigotry, no matter how much they try to deny it. A polished turd is still a turd.

This attempt to manifest publicly was alarming and set in motion a concerted effort to root out and expose the members of this group, as a counter to their attempts to remain out of the spotlight. They will be dragged into it. Knowing who is organizing this group and who is involved in it allows us to defend our communities from any violence they may commit or invite in the future.

In general, their ranks seem to be drawn from men in their late 20s-early 40s, with most of these ‘boys’ being in their mid 30’s (Imagine calling yourself a ‘Proud Boy’ at that age… absolutely pitiful). Almost all have an inclination towards right-libertarian politics. This chapter appears to be much more optics conscious than other chapters, trying to maintain a sanitized image free of overt bigotry. This is done to the point of even being regarded as “liberal” by other members of the far right across the country. Indeed they only let their bigoted views loose in settings they believe are private or unwatched, or under different names. They love to play the game of plausible deniability, watching their tongues carefully to try and prove they aren’t racist. It must be remembered that joining into an organization with White supremacist roots, that is heavily laden with hardcore white supremacists, bolsters their actions and violence, and makes you complicit.

One strain of bigotry that seems to run consistently through the group and on the surface is Islamophobia- considering the massive spike in Islamophobic violence since Trump got elected, it is reasonable to assume that this group is a danger to Muslims in Philadelphia. Many of them seem to be drawn from the Pop Punk/Metalcore/Easycore/Metal fandoms and people who actively participate in those are warned to keep an eye out for them.

Please note that addresses given are, as a result of the data collecting method used, not confirmed as entirely true unless there is some form of on the ground evidence that that person resides there.

So who are the known members of the Philadelphia Proud Boys? Some of the key figures have provided a glut of information on their lives and activities, while others are more halfhearted about their dedication to the group and their public image, so of course there is a lot more information on some rather than others.

Anathema Volume 5 Issue 3

  • June 22, 2019 9:31 am

from Anathema

Volume 5 Issue 3 (PDF for reading 8.5 x 11)

Volume 5 Issue 3 (PDF for printing 11 x 17)

In this issue:

  • Powerplant
  • Racist Cops
  • Sinkhole
  • What Went Down
  • Youth Migrant Jail
  • Talking Repression
  • A-Space Conflict
  • Giannis Escapes!
  • American Sonnet

Anathema Volume 5 Issue 2

  • May 22, 2019 5:09 pm

from Anathema

Volume 5 Issue 2 (PDF for reading 8.5 x 11)

Volume 5 Issue 2 (PDF for printing 11 x 17)

In this issue:

  • What is a Collective?
  • Tactics Innovation Update
  • What Went Down
  • Whither the Insurrection II
  • Representation is Indirect Action
  • Galleanist Centennial
  • Vaughn 17 Update
  • In Memory of Mauricio Morales
  • World News
  • Immanent Immigration Arrests
  • Go-Gurt Reportback
  • Whereas (Poem)

RED: Breaking Ground

  • May 16, 2019 11:32 am

from Facebook

Check out RED’s latest zines: https://radicaleducationdepartment.com/zines/ “RED: Breaking Ground” includes our manifesto, an account of our emergence and objectives, a conversation with our comrades at Cutting Class, and an assessment of our first year of work.

[For reading online For printing]

Vaughn 17 Trial Begins for Roman Shankaras: Mastermind to Puppet Master, Depending On Who’s Describing Him

  • May 10, 2019 10:11 pm

from Support the Vaughn 17

The third trial in Delaware’s prosecution of the Vaughn 17 began on Monday, May 6th, 2019. This time, Roman Shankaras is a solo defendant, fighting the same charges that fifteen of his co-defendants also faced — conspiracy, felony riot, assault, kidnapping, and murder — for allegedly participating in the February 2017 prisoner takeover of C-building at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware (two additional prisoners were also indicted on the same charges except murder). What’s changed is that at this point, the state has been unable to successfully convict five of them, and subsequently dropped their case against another six defendants. Another co-defendant, Kelly Gibbs, died under suspicious circumstances after writing a dying confession to the murder that also named the state’s star rat, Royal “Diamond” Downs. The question is, why does the state continue to pursue a bunk case built on the lies of prison snitches?

In opening statements, we learned that the prosecution is relying on Delaware’s accomplice liability theory in order to convict Roman for the entire uprising. The state doesn’t have any physical evidence related to Roman, aside from two “kites” (prison notes) written from Roman to Royal Downs, who Roman had not known was already collaborating with the police. Although even the state acknowledges that Roman never held a weapon and remained in his cell the whole time, they are trying to hold him responsible for everything that happened during the uprising — including the death of a cop — by alleging that he helped plan the takeover.

So far the prosecution has called in various police investigators and correctional officers to testify against Roman, but the only witness who claimed to identify him was Royal Downs. For anyone who has been following the trials, his lies this time clashed significantly from his previous testimony. Multiple times he identified another defendant, Lawrence Michaels (a.k.a. Smoke), as doing things in the takeover that, during the first trial, he testified to seeing Jarreau Ayers (Ruk) do. The coincidence is not lost that Michaels never had his charges dropped, and his trial is scheduled for October 2019.

Downs also previously claimed to have smuggled the kites out in a visit with his sister, and he is now testifying that he mailed it out in a card. He is no longer claiming for the jury’s benefit that testifying is the hardest thing he’s ever had to do and that given the chance he wouldn’t do it again, after that strategy failed under cross-examination in both the previous trials.

So far media has been silent on the major fallacies and inconsistencies of the case, attempting instead to rile up the public by reporting on new evidence recently found at Vaughn, which is irrelevant to this case.

Meanwhile, for the first time over the course of the three trials in which they’ve testified, both Lieutenant Charles Sennett and Detective David Weaver cried (obviously fake) tears while on the stand in order to influence the jury. The state is desperate, and this time they are resorting to tactics of red herring evidence and emotional play in addition to outright lies.

The state argues that the two kites show that Roman helped orchestrate the prison takeover and that therefore he is legally responsible for everything else that happened during it. So far, Diamond has testified that other Vaughn 17 defendants who’ve said they helped plan the takeover — Dwayne Staats and Jarreau Ayers — were in Roman’s cell during the uprising and consulted with Roman, Lawrence Michaels, and several others to make key decisions. On Wednesday, Diamond characterized Roman as the uprising’s “puppet master,” but the details of Diamond’s testimony indicate that major decisions about hostage negotiations were made spontaneously over the radio by Diamond and Staats in a different room, not in Roman’s cell.

Moreover, the state’s interpretation of the letters themselves is in question. In his opening statement, Roman’s lawyer — Patrick Collins — noted that, as we’ve heard in previous trials, what was planned for February 1, 2017, depends on who you talk to. Some inmates planned to stay in the yard as a nonviolent protest, while Diamond says he’d learned there would be a takeover but that he never heard that violence would be involved. Another plan was a coordinated violent takeover. But it’s still uncertain which prisoners intended to participate in which plan.

This means that the state would first have to prove that Roman’s letters unequivocally show that he helped plan a takeover of C-Building, as opposed to a nonviolent protest, and then also prove that Roman intended the takeover to be violent. In the language of Delaware’s accomplice liability law, they would have to show that Roman planned to commit an “unlawful act” with others in which the assaults, murder and kidnapping was “reasonably foreseeable” as a possible outcome, even if he never personally held a weapon. It is unclear how the state would decisively prove this based on Roman’s letters and the snitch testimony they’ve presented so far — which is supposed to be the strongest part of their case. As Collins pointed out, under the standard of reasonable doubt, even the jury thinking Roman is “probably guilty” is not enough to return a guilty verdict.

The state’s entire case against the Vaughn 17 has been based on snitch testimony, and it’s important to note that the two kites that the state is presenting as hard physical evidence in this case were written in communication with a snitch. In cross-examination, the defense has already established Diamond’s extensive influence in the prison as someone with time, and these letters seem to be a sting set-up.

So far, the state has failed to secure any convictions in its entire case against the Vaughn 17 except for what the defendants personally attested to having done. In the fall, Dwayne Staats was found guilty on all charges but intentional murder after he explained to the court that he had helped plan the uprising, knowing it could turn violent. Jarreau Ayers, also serving a life sentence, was found guilty of conspiracy, riot, kidnapping and assault based on his own testimony that he helped facilitate the takeover once it began. Deric Forney (called Twin) maintained his innocence and was found not guilty.

Following the second trial, in which all four defendants maintained their innocence, the jury found Abednego Baynes and Kevin Berry not guilty on all charges and came to no decision on a few final charges for John Bramble and Obadiah Miller, effectively acquitting them as well. The state has since quietly dropped those final charges for good.

After the second trial, the state also dropped most of the remaining defendants’ cases. Lawrence Michaels and Alejandro Rodriguez-Ortiz are still facing trial in October of this year.

Having completed his sentence soon after the uprising, Roman should have already been released from prison. Instead he is still being held on $2.8 million cash bail pending the outcome of this trial.

The seven Vaughn defendants who have already stood trial, along with an additional four whose charges were dropped, have since been moved to different prisons in Pennsylvania. After more than two years of state retaliation and abuse, they are all still being held in solitary and denied privileges, despite almost all having been exonerated by Delaware’s so-called justice system.

Roman’s trial will resume on Monday, May 13, at 9:45am in Room 8B of New Castle County Courthouse in Wilmington and will be in session every day for the rest of this coming week except Wednesday, May 15th. Court support is welcome and encouraged!

For more information on the Vaughn 17.

Analysis of Action Following the Police Shooting of Kaleb Belay in West Philly

  • April 27, 2019 4:11 am

from It’s Going Down

A collection of texts from Anathema, an anarchist publication out of Philadelphia, about anarchist action and analysis following the police shooting of Kaleb Belay in a rapidly gentrifying area of the city.

It’s well known that West Philly is rapidly gentrifying. Developers and more moneyed renters and buyers continue to successfully take more space from poor and working-class Black people. In this process, one of the few negative consequences these newcomers might experience is getting robbed in the neighborhood. In January, the number of robberies in the heart of gentrifying West Philly shot up, in the area between 41st and 49th streets (from east to west) and between Ludlow and Cedar avenues (from north to south). At least eight robberies were reported during that month, according to a University City District (UCD) report. Four homes on Hazel and Larchwood avenues between 49th and 51st streets were also burglarized during this time.

In response, a few of the more unapologetic gentrifiers not only reported the incidents to the police, but also attended a “community meeting” hosted by the police. Following the meeting, the Philly police announced that they would have an increased police presence in the area, including foot patrols specifically in the area between 48th-52nd streets. Sure enough, residents have noticed a lot more cop cars as well as cops on foot in the area since.

On Wednesday, March 6, this increased cop presence and paranoia culminated in the cops shooting a young Black man who live near 49th and Hazel — exactly where gentrifiers had been complaining about burglaries and robberies taking place. Claiming that they had been called to the scene in response to a “stabbing incident” (no stabbing victim was found at the scene) and that he was holding a knife outside a house on the street, the cops shot 25 year old graduate student Kaleb Belay six times (three in the chest). As of this writing he is stable condition at Penn Presbyterian Hospital.

It’s never worth it to call the police over some lost property — and we personally won’t call them to deal with any of our problems. The high 40 and low 50 streets are undergoing intense gentrification. Know that the police’s role is to attract more gentrifiers and push people originally from the neighborhood out. That’s what happened when University of Pennsylvania cleared out an entire neighborhood (what was once called the Black Bottom) of West Philly in order to move the school there decades ago — that’s why UCD security roam the neighborhood.

The police are just looking for an excuse to roll in and further the dispossession and extermination of Black people from the neighborhood.

Resistance Following the Shooting of Kaleb Belay

The night after the police shooting, a group of 20-30 people marched down Baltimore Ave with a banner reading “Fuck the Police.” At least two new buildings on the ave between 50th and 48th streets, all with gentrifying new architecture, had windows broken, and one had “Fuck Cops” written on it. The Mariposa Co-Op, which has been a beacon of gentrification in the neighborhood for a long time (known for calling the police on panhandlers), had red paint thrown at one of its surveillance cameras. Anti-police tags and stickers were put up. After the police arrived, things calmed and the march went to the hospital where Kaleb is recovering before dispersing. Throughout the march many passersby and drivers shouted “Yeah, fuck the police!” and other words of encouragement. There were no arrests.

On March 8th, opportunists Refuse Fascism/Revolutionary Communist Party held a candle-lit vigil for Kaleb near the site of the shooting. This event was poorly attended and seen by many as an attempt to use the grief and anger around the shooting to recruit for their organization.

On March 10th, the Philadelphia Ethiopian Community held a debrief and discussion at the Ethiopian Community Center in West Philly. Kaleb’s lawyer and his boss/family friend gave updates on his situation. Next steps to assist Kaleb and his family were planned. Over the weekends of March 16-17th and 23-24th there were fundraiser events for Kaleb at the Ethiopian Community Center.

A march demanding justice for Kaleb went to the district attorney’s office on April 6th. Simon Haileab, Kaleb’s attorney, reports that Kaleb is recovering slowly; he is out of the intensive care unit but remains at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center. Police are charging him with aggravated assault, simple assault, and possessing an instrument of crime. Anyone interested in donating money to Kaleb can do so by visiting his gofundme here or dropping off money at Bookers Restaurant at Baltimore Ave and 50th St.

An Analysis Of the Anti-Police March Following the Shooting of Kaleb Belay

When some discontents spray-painted and smashed windows after the police shot an immigrant graduate student in Cedar Park, many were quick to condemn the attacks. These criticisms did not target the anti-police and anti-gentrification sentiment behind the attacks, but rather their choice of targets. The thing about anger and revolt is that it strikes out at what is perceived as oppressive.

No uprising has ever surgically delivered anger to the doorstep of only the most oppressive and powerful, while excluding the lesser contributors of a stifling society. Not everyone is going to track down the head honcho of this or that realty company when they see an example of gentrification around the corner.

In relative terms, what happened to the businesses on Baltimore Ave is calm; police violence has sparked much more devastating responses in other contexts – like the burning of entire neighborhoods.

It also bears mentioning that at the time of this writing, despite many critics suggesting better targets for vandalism (the police, University of Pennsylvania, money lenders, banks, etc), none of these targets seem to have been vandalized. These critics seem content to suggest how others express their anger and direct their rebellion without doing so themselves. If these people are waiting for the ideal targeting of the proper institutions and yet they do not plan on going after them themselves, they are simply waiting. When people start to condemn all but the most pure and correct actions, they climb the stairs of an ivory tower.

Will arrogance about how others struggle move someone closer to freedom? It seems more likely to lead to further separation from those who are struggling and making concrete their rebellion, to create a roadblock for feelings of solidarity. Throwing paint at the expensive Mariposa Co-Op grocery store and breaking the glass door of a fancy-looking new apartment building along Baltimore Ave, some of the actions during the demo that were later criticized by others, targeted small businesses whose gentrifying impact is felt in this particular neighborhood where police shooting took place.

It is gentrification that led to the increased police presence in this neighborhood, which inevitably led to a black man getting shot. In addition to wanting to push back against gentrification in this area, those who criticize colonialism, or ecological destruction, those who hold nihilist perspectives, and even the less discriminating among the anti-capitalists may see the destructive actions on Baltimore Ave as a step in the right direction. We don’t all imagine liberation in the same way, but it should be understood that a dramatic transformation of society is necessary, so when we see that taking place on a small scale as destruction we can understand it to be part of that liberatory transformation even if you would go about it that way yourself.

“There are many who await the hour of liberation impatiently, but how many work to bring it closer?”

Anathema Volume 5 Issue 1

  • April 15, 2019 11:12 pm

from Anathema

Volume 5 Issue 1 (PDF for reading 8.5 x 11)

Volume 5 Issue 1 (PDF for printing 11 x 17)

In this issue:

  • Manifest Gentrification
  • Update on the Shooting of Kaleb Belay
  • What Went Down
  • Save on Septa and Get a Free Pizza!
  • Hearing the Calls
  • Dockless Scoots and Bikes
  • Campus Organizing
  • Assessing Risk
  • Ongoing Infrastructure Scars Across the Land
  • Whither the Insurrection?
  • Identity and Power
  • The Revolution Will be Messy
  • International Solidarity
  • Super Happy Fun
  • We Can Fight Gentrification
  • Revolutionary Letter