Each farm could have at least one person with the task of regularly keeping in contact with the other farms (for purposes of trade and general updates about any variety of projects or activities). Additionally, small primitive camps could be established within the forest for other understood purposes related to it's defense.
Each farm community would likely have its own character and work on slightly different goals. Some farms could be almost completely off the radar in terms of activity (engaging in very little illicit activity), while others could establish a base for the sabotage of deforestation equipment. One farm might house a politician for the local city council or even a secretary for the logging company. Another might host a weekly farmers market or a vegetable stand. One might offer a public face in terms of hosting people curious about permaculture or forest activism -- while others may not be in favor of any guests at all.
The communication and coordination between the farms could be great or small depending on their individual natures and/or the projects they are currently working on at any given time. The above-ground public farms could defend the actions of anonymous eco-saboteurs with various forms of propaganda while another could be ready to provide shelter in the event of a raid or harassment. When someone gets arrested the farms could coordinate fund-raisers to help pay for legal assistance (or they could have other contingency plans to work for any individuals freedom).
Some farms would offer friendly public outreach while others would seem pretentious, curt, and dismissive towards outsiders. Establishing effective networks and habits of security culture would be essential at all times. Wanting to know about illegal activities could often even be discouraged if the details of a project are sensitive.
This is not to say that all participants in this network couldn't or shouldn't be friendly and open with one another! On the contrary! But everyone should understand any potential limitations of their current role at any given time as a member of any particular farm.
The locations of the permaculture farms should be spread out in such a way that the most actively militant community should not be situated right next to the other 2 militant underground farms.
By means of assorted propaganda, the subtle idea of networks such as this could be spread discretely to others in the surrounding area who may be sympathetic. This could include outreach to groups or individuals who are still in a highly urbanized area. One farm could be established to observe potential candidates for "work" on other more radical farms.
Above-Ground and Underground Activities
The state is merciless and vigilant. Even you if you are merely using your supposed right to free speech, serious criticism of the government and big business will eventually draw the attention, ire, and wrath of both. Most people have no idea how harsh and brutal the government can be because they've never really done anything to challenge or oppose it. When violations of personal freedoms occur, even grievous violations, the general public is unaware and/or unconcerned. Even relatively mild and unknown radicals face a wide variety of persecution and harassment techniques. It is, in part, the above-ground radical's responsibility to make these things clear.
In many ways, the public radical must be more cautious than the underground radical. Pushing the limits of free speech is only one of her responsibilities. But, especially if working with others, she must be cautious to never violate security culture or reveal the subversive and illegal activities of other radicals -- unless they explicitly want to be associated with those activities. Not everyone wants all of their solidarity actions to be widely known at all times (even if they are public, above-ground radicals). With that in mind, communication networks must be maintained with discrete caution.
Underground radicals must be especially cautious about the friendly associations they have and the networks they involve themselves with. It may behoove the most militant to avoid getting on any lists or discussing serious politics publicly at all (and I would consider electronic communications to be, essentially, public). It's a fine line to be sure, and one may go unnoticed being on the mailing list of a mainstream organization like the ACLU, Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Adbusters, but regularly visiting some of the more radical websites & forums, or attending overtly radical public meetings, will inevitably bring you some unwanted attention. Underground radicals who are engaged in illegal activities may be less likely to get discovered if they are discrete, but if they get caught they face more certain and extreme retribution.
Some risks need to be taken in an effort to restore freedom and protect the environment -- but it is important to factor in some key variables to decide upon what actions to take. The first thing one perhaps ought to consider is... how likely are you to get away with any particular illegal radical action? The more likely you are to get away with it, the less significant the action needs to be. On the other hand, it's a numbers game of probability. If you are constantly flaunting the law every day, you increase the chances of eventually getting caught (even by things like a random police stop -- or the mailman noticing something fishy). So... an effective radical should consider the impact of any particular action. The impact can be very tangible (e.g., the lumbermill is dismantled or the funds are appropriated) or the impact may be largely symbolic (as when an effective tactic like tree-spiking or washing out a logging road, for instance, can be made public and then be emulated by others).
The police forces and their directly related suppression of the general public are likely to expand in scope regardless of any particular action. This is facilitated by the demonization of things like non-violent consensual crimes (e.g., drug dealing and use). It very well could be that the drug laws are not wholly established because of some puritanical objection to drug use so much as that pretense provides a cover for the build-up of the massive police forces which are now in place. The state has an interest in keeping some level of thoughtless crime continuing because it can use the same built-up police forces (which were ostensibly put in place to fight petty crimes) for the more political use of suppressing dissidents. The same thing goes with public surveillance systems.
With draconian punishments and brutal police responses... the punishments start to blur. It likens to a poverty-stricken "third strike" ex-con who is facing a life sentence. This person may decide, for economic reasons, to smuggle drugs in large quantities because the punishment is the same for dealing a kilo as it is for dealing a gram. If being stopped, for even the pettiest crime, this person may resist arrest with reckless violent abandon since, either way, he's going down hard if caught. So, for example, if dissent in a public forum starts to get you in as much trouble for shutting down a strip mine... you might as well shut down the strip mine (if you're just as likely to get away with it). The point is... potential punishment, and the necessity for the action, should be considered along with the likelihood of getting away with any particular illegal activity. And, often, you can do as much damage to the system by sometimes using less regulated tools (for example, causing water damage as opposed to fire damage can sometimes be just as effective while not posing as great a legal risk if caught).
The bottom line is that you need to put yourself in a position where you can tear the system down effectively, symbolically and/or physically, with little chance of getting caught and, ideally, with as little punishment as possible if you are. It's as simple and as complicated as that. If the system continues to progress as it has, we are all going down hard anyway.
Mistakes I've made and things I've tried to correct...
Each farm community would likely have its own character and work on slightly different goals. Some farms could be almost completely off the radar in terms of activity (engaging in very little illicit activity), while others could establish a base for the sabotage of deforestation equipment. One farm might house a politician for the local city council or even a secretary for the logging company. Another might host a weekly farmers market or a vegetable stand. One might offer a public face in terms of hosting people curious about permaculture or forest activism -- while others may not be in favor of any guests at all.
The communication and coordination between the farms could be great or small depending on their individual natures and/or the projects they are currently working on at any given time. The above-ground public farms could defend the actions of anonymous eco-saboteurs with various forms of propaganda while another could be ready to provide shelter in the event of a raid or harassment. When someone gets arrested the farms could coordinate fund-raisers to help pay for legal assistance (or they could have other contingency plans to work for any individuals freedom).
Some farms would offer friendly public outreach while others would seem pretentious, curt, and dismissive towards outsiders. Establishing effective networks and habits of security culture would be essential at all times. Wanting to know about illegal activities could often even be discouraged if the details of a project are sensitive.
The locations of the permaculture farms should be spread out in such a way that the most actively militant community should not be situated right next to the other 2 militant underground farms.
By means of assorted propaganda, the subtle idea of networks such as this could be spread discretely to others in the surrounding area who may be sympathetic. This could include outreach to groups or individuals who are still in a highly urbanized area. One farm could be established to observe potential candidates for "work" on other more radical farms.
Above-Ground and Underground Activities
The state is merciless and vigilant. Even you if you are merely using your supposed right to free speech, serious criticism of the government and big business will eventually draw the attention, ire, and wrath of both. Most people have no idea how harsh and brutal the government can be because they've never really done anything to challenge or oppose it. When violations of personal freedoms occur, even grievous violations, the general public is unaware and/or unconcerned. Even relatively mild and unknown radicals face a wide variety of persecution and harassment techniques. It is, in part, the above-ground radical's responsibility to make these things clear.
In many ways, the public radical must be more cautious than the underground radical. Pushing the limits of free speech is only one of her responsibilities. But, especially if working with others, she must be cautious to never violate security culture or reveal the subversive and illegal activities of other radicals -- unless they explicitly want to be associated with those activities. Not everyone wants all of their solidarity actions to be widely known at all times (even if they are public, above-ground radicals). With that in mind, communication networks must be maintained with discrete caution.
Underground radicals must be especially cautious about the friendly associations they have and the networks they involve themselves with. It may behoove the most militant to avoid getting on any lists or discussing serious politics publicly at all (and I would consider electronic communications to be, essentially, public). It's a fine line to be sure, and one may go unnoticed being on the mailing list of a mainstream organization like the ACLU, Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Adbusters, but regularly visiting some of the more radical websites & forums, or attending overtly radical public meetings, will inevitably bring you some unwanted attention. Underground radicals who are engaged in illegal activities may be less likely to get discovered if they are discrete, but if they get caught they face more certain and extreme retribution.
Some risks need to be taken in an effort to restore freedom and protect the environment -- but it is important to factor in some key variables to decide upon what actions to take. The first thing one perhaps ought to consider is... how likely are you to get away with any particular illegal radical action? The more likely you are to get away with it, the less significant the action needs to be. On the other hand, it's a numbers game of probability. If you are constantly flaunting the law every day, you increase the chances of eventually getting caught (even by things like a random police stop -- or the mailman noticing something fishy). So... an effective radical should consider the impact of any particular action. The impact can be very tangible (e.g., the lumbermill is dismantled or the funds are appropriated) or the impact may be largely symbolic (as when an effective tactic like tree-spiking or washing out a logging road, for instance, can be made public and then be emulated by others).
The police forces and their directly related suppression of the general public are likely to expand in scope regardless of any particular action. This is facilitated by the demonization of things like non-violent consensual crimes (e.g., drug dealing and use). It very well could be that the drug laws are not wholly established because of some puritanical objection to drug use so much as that pretense provides a cover for the build-up of the massive police forces which are now in place. The state has an interest in keeping some level of thoughtless crime continuing because it can use the same built-up police forces (which were ostensibly put in place to fight petty crimes) for the more political use of suppressing dissidents. The same thing goes with public surveillance systems.
With draconian punishments and brutal police responses... the punishments start to blur. It likens to a poverty-stricken "third strike" ex-con who is facing a life sentence. This person may decide, for economic reasons, to smuggle drugs in large quantities because the punishment is the same for dealing a kilo as it is for dealing a gram. If being stopped, for even the pettiest crime, this person may resist arrest with reckless violent abandon since, either way, he's going down hard if caught. So, for example, if dissent in a public forum starts to get you in as much trouble for shutting down a strip mine... you might as well shut down the strip mine (if you're just as likely to get away with it). The point is... potential punishment, and the necessity for the action, should be considered along with the likelihood of getting away with any particular illegal activity. And, often, you can do as much damage to the system by sometimes using less regulated tools (for example, causing water damage as opposed to fire damage can sometimes be just as effective while not posing as great a legal risk if caught).
The bottom line is that you need to put yourself in a position where you can tear the system down effectively, symbolically and/or physically, with little chance of getting caught and, ideally, with as little punishment as possible if you are. It's as simple and as complicated as that. If the system continues to progress as it has, we are all going down hard anyway.
Mistakes I've made and things I've tried to correct...
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
