For me, it seems incredibly obvious that GR Screamer should only list and promote DIY all-ages shows at non-club/non-bar venues. The punk that I have gotten the most excited about in the past fifteen years has been the punk music that is played at warehouse shows, at collectively-run venues like The DAAC, in squatted spaces, in basements, at hall shows, and the like. It’s the punk scene where passion and communication are more important than the division between audience and “performer.” It’s the punk that provides the soundtrack to street battles with the cops, collective projects, cooking with Food Not Bombs, and folding zines. It’s the punk that provided the inspiration for countless days and nights of bike riding, digging through dumpsters, riding trains, and figuring out how we can create a life of meaning in a world built on alienation. It’s the punk that encouraged me to embrace the DIY ethic, fixing bikes, making my own food, or whatever. It’s the punk that is in total conflict with everything that exists in the outside world.

In contrast, the world of 18+/21+ and bar shows is representative of everything that punk should be fighting against. It’s a world that automatically excludes large portions of the punk scene (or potential participants) by virtue of their age. It’s a world that places the needs of commerce over communication. It’s a world that means having our ideals and subcultures marketed back to us by hip capitalists who are interested in attracting  the punk demographic to enhance their bar’s (in other words their “brand”’s) appeal. From their stench-filled drop ceilings to the creepy dudes who think they have a right to other people’s bodies, bars are some of the most depressing spaces in society. They are institutions built on the fact that our lives are so miserable that we need to escape reality through intoxication. Ultimately, bars are for the punks that gave up.

DIY all-ages venues and shows provide a pretty clear alternative and rejection of bar shows. Their a way of looking at the world and responding positively. Sure, they aren’t always perfect—but at least there is always the possibility of something more. We can always make our shows and scene more inclusive, more radical, more sustainable, or more whatever. The key is that we—the punks who care, those who want something better—control our own spaces. We’re creating our own infrastructure, we’re saying no to the bar owners, no to the misogynistic/sexist media like Recoil, no to the booking agents, and no to the corporate labels—we’re doing things ourselves.

There’s no doubt that our way of life can’t last. If you chose to look, the signs are everywhere: large scale species extinction, ecosystem collapse, and global warming – just to name a few of the most obvious. We are literally changing the way the planet works and millions of years of natural processes are being reversed so that we can drive across the country. It’s more or less inevitable that at some point in the near future, our way of life will end: there simply aren’t the resources to keep it going indefinitely.

You would think that in light of this, we might be talking about making changes to make this transition a little less catastrophic. But of course the system doesn’t work like that and for those with power in society – and the great majority of us who benefit from this way of life – that conversation isn’t going to happen. Sure, you might see some talk of increased “energy efficiency,” “alternative fuels,” or “green capitalism” in the news or from left/liberal groups, but that’s about it. And no amount of caulking, insulation, or solar panels are going to be able to “save” this way of life.

When confronted with the reality that there are a finite amount of resources that need to support a way of life that is built on the myth of infinite growth, those with the most in society have turned to increasingly insane ideas:

FRACKing: Across the United States, many folks depend on natural gas for heating. It’s often portrayed as a “clean” energy technology (after all, “natural” is in its name). But like all of the resources industrial civilization is built on, it exists in limited quantities. For years, geologists have known about natural gas resources trapped in rock formations (such as shale) but have been unable to extract it. In the past few years, energy companies have come up with a new process – hydraulic fracturing (also called “FRACKing”) – that makes it possible to extract the gas. The process involves pumping millions of gallons of water (withdrawn from water sources people and animals depend on for drinking), sand, and chemicals underground and blowing apart the rock to release the natural gas. Each time the rock is blasted, 4 to 9 million gallons of water are pumped into the well (with each well able to be blasted 10 to 12 times). This water is mixed with chemicals and the industry isn’t required to say specifically which are used, but many known to be used are carcinogenic (one study found 95% of the chemicals had adverse effects). The waste water used in the process frequently seeps into the ground water thereby threatening whole ecosystems and in other cases the waste is stored in giant pits above the ground. You can read more about FRACKing at  HYPERLINK “http://frackaction.com/”http://frackaction.com/ FRACKing is done in Michigan and you can read more about statewide efforts aimed at stopping it at  HYPERLINK “http://dontfrackmichigan.com/”http://dontfrackmichigan.com/

Mountaintop Removal Mining: Perhaps because pumping water and toxic chemicals into the ground isn’t immediately visible, manypeople can ignore it (at least until the toxins in their water give them cancer). Another highly destructive process that has begun is Mountaintop Removal Mining. The process is used to extract coal from mountains in Appalachia to fuel power plants that provide people with electricity. Mountaintop Removal Mining begins with the “clearing” of the mountaintops: clearcutting treess, removing vegetation, and removing topsoil. Next, millions of pounds of explosives are used to blow the tops off mountains (sometimes as much as 500 to 800 feet) to expose the coal seams. The coal is then removed using a massive machine called a dragline (it’s 22 stories high) that coal companies prefer because it eliminates the need to hire hundreds of workers. As the digging is completed, waste from the mining operations is dumped into adjacent valleys burying streams and contaminating water sources. The coal that is extracted from the mountains must be “washed” and cleaned, generating considerable amounts of wasterwater and sludge which is stored in flooded valleys behind earthen sludge dams. These dams have a tendency to leak and further pollute the water. Moreover, in areas where Mountaintop Removal Mining takes place, there is increased flooding. Not surprisingly, regulations and laws aimed at requiring coal companies to “reclaim” the mined area tend not to be enforced and companies are frequently given exemptions. You can find out more at  HYPERLINK “http://ilovemountains.org/”http://ilovemountains.org

The Tar Sands: The largest industrial project in human history is currently underway in Canada. In Alberta, oil companies are mining the Tar Sands to extract oil from sand and clay located beneath the boreal forest. The oil is bitumen – a substance that looks and smells like tar. Unlike traditional oil reserves, the oil doesn’t flow and it must be gouged and steamed out of the ground. Producing a barrel of Tar Sands oil generates between 2-3 times as many CO2 emissions as traditional oil refining. Moreover, it’s been estimated that for each barrel of oil invested in extracting Tar Sands oil, only 3 are generated (compare this to Iraq where for each barrel used, 100 are obtained). Additionally, as many as five barrels of water are used for each barrel of oil produced. Tar Sands oil extraction is driving the second highest rate of deforestation on the planet. Along with the destructive oil extraction process, Tar Sands oil is driving the expansion of a network of massive pipelines from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico designed to transport the oil. The pipelines will (and in many cases already do) run across vast portions of the United States and put much of the country at risk for oil spills (witness the 2010 spill near Battle Creek, that was Tar Sands oil). Tar Sands oil is more corrosive than traditional oil and is mixed with natural gas and pumped at a higher temperature and pressure, increasing wear on the pipelines. For more information  HYPERLINK “http://oilsandstruth.org/”http://oilsandstruth.org/

Needless to say, none of these projects are going to stop themselves. While particularly stupid, they are logical within the context of this system. The system has needs (growth, resources, etc) and it will do whatever it has to satisfy those needs. No government, law, regulation, or environmental nonprofit is going to stop them. Instead, something much more is needed.

“Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.” – Derrick Jensen, Endgame

Whenever I get in one of those moods, I like to think of the song “Up The Punks” by Ghost Mice

Check out a video with the lyrics below – it’s a great song for anyone that feels frustrated

Lyrics:

What have we done?

What have we done?

Are we making any changes or just having fun?

What have we done?What have we done?

Is this more than just music?

Is it more than just a club?

Are we making any difference?

What have we done?What have we done?

What have we done?

Well just take a look around and I’m sure that you’ll agree

That we’ve done a lot of things to improve community

Like organizing protests and serving Food Not Bombs

Sending books to all the prisoners that’ve been locked up for so long

Throwing bricks through all the windows of the evil corporate shops

Supporting mom and pop and standing up to the murdering, racist cops

Seems like we’re always talking about the things that we do wrong

But let’s not forget to talk about the things that we’ve done

I know we’ve got our faults and I must say that I agree

But punk rock music saved my life, I can sing it honestly

Sometimes it may seem like we haven’t done anything

But I think that we made it a little bit better than it was

That’s why I sing and I’ll ask you to sing with me

Up the punks

Up the punks

Up the punks

Up the punks

Up the punks

Of course, there were great inequalities at the time of this country’s founding: slavery, the ongoing genocide of Native Americans, and the exclusion of women from politics – but those are largely minimized. Rather than focus on this, the standard narrative acknowledges this inequality but paints the history of the U.S. as one that changes for the better over time: the Bill of Rights adds basic freedoms to the Constitution, slavery is abolished, women are given the ability to vote, immigrants are welcomed into the country, the Civil Rights movement “ends racism,” the women’s movement of the 1960s “ends sexism,” etc. The U.S. is portrayed as a country that is constantly responding to the needs of the people and extends more freedoms and protections to oppressed groups in response to social struggles. The main thing to understand is that the arc of progress is constantly on the move and that the U.S. is in the business of becoming more and more democratic and egalitarian.

Needless to say, this is at odds with reality. Just a cursory look at the social and political landscape of the United States shows overwhelming inequality: pervasive racism, consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few, political means of decision making dominated by corporations, homophobia, patriarchy, homelessness, etc.

Interestingly, in response to the current situation, some folks on “the left” claim that somehow the original democracy and promise of egalitarianism got skewed. They point to a handful of Congressional acts or changes in government: recent removal of restrictions on corporate giving in elections, the Supreme Court ruling that gave corporations the same rights as people (“corporate personhood”), the power of corporations, the current disparities in wealth (the average CEO now makes 343 times more than the average worker), etc. to argue that the United States has diverted course from its democratic promise. It fits into the liberal and leftist view that the state can fix the current situation. It holds that a few “bad apples” – or bad laws – are responsible for the inequality and misery that characterizes everyday life for the majority of folks living in the U.S. The problem isn’t the state and an economic system that oppresses people; instead it is a matter of regulation and tweaking the status quo. To back up their opinion, people holding this view accept the founding myths of the U.S.

But there is no point in U.S. history to return to when oppression, misery, starvation, and meaningless drudgery wasn’t the reality for large portions of the population. This is especially true of the revolutionary era. Despite the rhetoric of freedom and the lofty ideals articulated by some revolutionary leaders, the Revolutionary War essentially shifted ownership in society from the British to wealthy colonists. In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, there was considerable class conflict between those with money and those that had nothing. At the time of the revolution, 10% of the population owned half the wealth of the colonies. The new system of government and the revolution did nothing to change this. The social and class standing of those at the bottom didn’t really change: indentured servitude continued for whites and slavery continued for Africans. The struggle was more about who would rule: the new wealthy colonists vs. British old money than “the people” vs. “the rich.” Small landholders achieved some benefits, but poor working white people and tenant farmers’ remained near the bottom of society.

The rhetoric of revolution was used by the wealthy to attract the participation of colonists – especially those of the middle ranks – in the war. The resulting government protects the interests of the wealthy, but provides just enough for small property owners, middle-income merchants, and farmers, to build a base of support. These folks in turn act as a buffer against black people, poor whites, and Native Americans. The Bill of Rights added to this by giving impression that the government cared about the rights of ordinary folks. However, the new government was written by the rich, for the rich. Charles Beard’s book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution is the classic book on the subject, showing that the majority of those who drafted the Constitution came from the wealthiest ranks of society and that they sought a strong federal government to create favorable terms for business.

The structural realities of how the government was setup reflect its role in protecting the interests of the rich. African-Americans were excluded from the government and the overwhelming majority were enslaved (slaves made up one-fifth of the population). Native Americans were seen as an obstacle to further conquest and consequently had no voice in the government. Women were excluded from voting (and did not gain the right to vote until 1920). Even many white males were excluded from participation in the new government. Ten of the original thirteen states restricted voting to those that owned property. This greatly undermined the rhetoric of “democracy.” For example, in Maryland 90% of the population was excluded from voting by land ownership requirements. Even if participation of greater numbers of people would have been allowed, the government was (and is) structured to give elites – whether they be government officials or wealthy landowners with access to power – a barrier against the wishes of “the masses.” The government is a representative republic where representatives are elected to make decisions on behalf (or for) the rest of the population. State governments were allowed to determine how elections to the House of Representatives would function (for example, setting property requirements), state legislators elected the Senate which was designed to limit “popular” rule (Senators were not directly elected until the early 1900s), the Supreme Court is appointed by the President, and the President itself is a position chosen by Electors in the Electoral College and not a straight popular vote (providing the theoretical power to overturn the results of an election).

The United States – while using the rhetoric of freedom and revolution – was founded on great disparities in wealth, slavery, genocide, and patriarchy. While particulars have changed over the past two-hundred years, the government essentially serves the same role it was designed to at the founding of the country: it creates a favorable climate for business, offers just enough concessions to preserve order and “social peace,” and allows the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. There isn’t a point in U.S. history where the government didn’t serve this function: its goal has always been to preserve the rule by the rich at the expense of the great majority of folks who have nothing. Sure, the way this plays out changes over the years – but the essence remains the same. So for example in the 1950s, an era that many liberals will cite as an example of when the government cared about “the people” – African-Americans were living in poverty and as second-class citizens – while white workers were given higher wages, access to home ownership, etc., in exchange for their unquestioning participation in the system (at the time most major labor unions cast aside their goals of empowering all workers and instead restructured to protect the interests of only the workers they represented). Similarly, the New Deal – another favorite example of liberals – was a series of concession aimed at undercutting radicalism and revolutionary potential by doing just enough to help people to regain their faith in the system (for example job programs). There was no time when the government acted in the interests of “the people,” it has always been about balancing interests to keep power in the hands of the few – and it will never do anything else.

What’s interesting is that these movies tend to be set in the future, rather than in the present. Why envision such a state of misery in the future when we’re already there?

At this point, the Earth has largely been destroyed by insane technologies. Forests are clear cut (literally removed so that nothing is left) and turned into lumber for buildings. Hills are leveled, valleys are filled, rivers are rerouted, and more for an endless stream of developments – from shopping malls to roads. Much of the Earth’s population can’t live without oil and it is pursued to devastating ends, whether it is drilling anywhere and everywhere or the relatively steady news of oil spills and leaks. Humanity’s thirst for energy has lead to all manner of destructive practices such as coal mining and nuclear power. We blow the tops of mountains and destroy entire eco-systems to obtain these products and to fuel the “economy.” We’ve developed an entire “industrial food system” in which the food most people consume – food that was once grown on the land on which they lived – is shipped across the world. Much of it is “created” in laboratories via genetic engineering, rather than found in the “natural world.” Animals are ripped from their natural habitats and forced into laboratories where they are experimented on (read “tortured”) over and over.

Perhaps the real marker of insanity when it comes to measuring the destruction of the Earth is that its abundantly clear what is happening, but nobody really seems to care. Those with power in the world – governments, folks living in countries such as the United States, etc – are quite aware of this. If you read the news every day, there is a relatively constant number of news stories describing global warming, massive shifts in the environment, extinction, and so-called “unexplainable” changes in how animals and plants have lived for thousands of years. At the same time, over and over again people find out that the chemicals and technologies that we’ve “created” to make life “better” are killing us. And what’s the best we can come up with to reverse the tide? A series of reforms, regulations, and what have you that will be ignored by those most responsible, because it isn’t really possible to regulate these things, as our entire lifestyle is based on – and indeed requires – the destruction of the Earth. More often than not the solutions offered – both by those in power and the so-called environmental movement – are technological solutions: “green” power that still depends on the same destructive system, or pumping pollution into the earth to prevent its release into the air.

In the realm human interaction, there have been massive changes in the way humans relate to each other. Even looking at the past ten years, changes have happened at an almost dizzying pace. The widespread adoption of cell phones has ushered in an era where everybody is “connected” at all times: you can be reached wherever you are, there is nowhere (except for a few isolated areas where it hasn’t been “economically beneficial” to extend cell phone service) where you are unreachable. People are expected to be able to answer at all times: just look at the anxiety many folks get when they can’t get a hold of someone. Now walking down the street, it is far more common to see people use their phone to say “hello” to someone in a distant place than to the person that passes them on the street. Go in any confined area – a bus, a store, a concert, wherever – and people are often more in tune with what is going on over their phone than what is around them. Similarly, these phones are becoming more and more powerful, making it more likely that they further transform how we relate to each other.

The Internet transformed society, but it will be widespread Internet access via phones that will make the most lasting impact. If you read the writings of those who trumpet these new technologies – the business press, computer company CEOs, etc – they talk about how mobile technology will transform how we relate to the physical world. Point your phone at a building, an object, or even a person, and software will eventually give you more information about that particular entity – a restaurant review, a list of your “friends” on a social networking site, etc. Walk into a crowded bar and an “app” will alert you if a “friend” is there – even before you get a chance to scan the room with your eyes. For years, technologists have been talking about the time when computers and the Internet are no longer an object that we “think” about, rather they are just “there.” Some people write about the time when the difference between a thought process and a Google search will be almost nonexistent because we have come so integrated into “the network.” Sadly, we’re approaching that time. Things like “the cloud” – networked computers that exist “out there” to store documents, photos, profiles, etc – are becoming reality and will be accessible from a wide variety of devices. Needless to say, all of these technologies usher in a surveillance society whereby it is easier than ever to categorize, sort, and watch everyone’s every move.

Moreover, these changes just keeping coming – and it can be overwhelming just to keep up with the simplest of them, let alone what is on the so-called “cutting edge.”

A key to understanding how technology works is understanding that it doesn’t function as a sum of unrelated parts. Instead, it’s an interlocking system. Some theorists who write about and study technology (what a job), argue that technology has an inertia of its own: it is a system that advances itself without regard to what humans and other non-human animals need. Similarly, technology has its own value system: “progress,” “innovation,” and “newness” are the underlying values. Therefore, technological “advancement” or “progress” isn’t based on what are commonly considered “needs”: reduction in labor time, streamlining of tasks necessary to live, quality of life, safety, etc, but rather tends towards a continual advancement of new technologies that may have little benefit for everyone or anyone. They exist simply because they can.

Most technologies exist to separate people from the Earth. For hundreds of thousands of years, people live in close relationship to the land on which they lived. People knew which plants could be eaten, which plants had healing properties, how to build shelters, how to live in the wild, etc. There was an understanding that their existence was directly tied to the land on which they lived. Unlike the present, people very much lived in reality – there was no virtual world, there were no cities that were dependent on the extraction and importation of resources from abroad, etc. None of this is meant to gloss over difficulties faced by folks in these societies – life was no doubt hard from time to time and living off the land is always a gamble (ask anyone who gardens and watches the yearly and seasonal shifts) – but a joyous or safe life is hardly a given in the modern world and I’d argue isn’t even a possibility for the vast majority of the world’s population.

Thinking of technology as something with its own inertia and its own value system is key to understanding that when it comes to technology we can’t simply go back to a time before a particularly egregious technology existed, but rather, the whole system must be abolished. For example, I hate the way cell phones have transformed human interaction in the past ten years, but removing all the cell phones from the world – as great as that would be – wouldn’t solve the problem. Technology would be constantly pushing up to that point and would be demanding such devices, whether we want them or not. We can’t manage or regulate technology – for example reforming out the bad parts – it exists as a sum of its parts, take it or leave it.

In that spirit, I want to talk this month about another aspect of 9/11 that’s largely forgotten. 9/11 was the endpoint of a significant upsurge in anarchist organizing and activity. At the turn of the century, anarchists were getting wild. Starting with the sounds of shattering glass at chain stores at the Seattle WTO Summit in 1999, to the tear gas engulfed streets and open street fighting with the police in Quebec City at the FTAA Summit in April 2001, and on through a host of other actions—the Prague IMF/World Bank Summit in 2001, the Genoa G8 Summit in 2001—anarchists presented themselves as a force to be reckoned with. Everywhere these various gatherings of capitalist elites took place, people were protesting and taking direct action (i.e. disrupting meetings, physically preventing them from taking place, etc).

The “movement” that coalesced around opposing these summits was a motley crew. It contained the aforementioned anarchists, folks from the various communist and socialist groups that exist (the majority of which split off from each other due to bizarre theoretical differences: i.e. did Trotsky say this or that in 1921… or was it 1922?), various independent “leftists” (a term that traditionally designates folks to “the left” of a left/right political spectrum, with “the right” being the most conservative), members of the Green Party, various representatives from non-profit organizations (think “fair trade” groups), unions, Democrats, and more. Needless to say, the movement was a hodgepodge of ideologies—many of which contradicted each other (for example: the anarchists wanted to do away with the whole idea of an economy while the liberals wanted a “more fair” economy). Despite this, the movement gained a lot of ground: trade agreements that usually went through with no debate became the subject of intense debate, bankers and officials that spent their whole careers behind closed doors had to face their critics, and numerous media outlets began talking about the “new” challenges to capitalism. Most importantly, victories were won: the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) (which would have extended NAFTA-like trade rules throughout the Americas) was seriously delegitimized and would ultimately collapse and the Doha Round of the WTO fell apart.

Beyond the actions on the street, the activity surrounding this movement would inspire a turn towards more participatory forms of political work than had existed in the United States for decades. Rather than the typical top-down nature of organizing, the movement favored anarchist-influenced forms of decision making: whole protests were organized using decentralized and temporary structures that made use of consensus, there was a respect for political differences, and strived for ways to involve everyone on an equal footing. The movement nurtured a respect for a “diversity of tactics” whereby folks could participate in actions combating these summits in a variety of ways: there would be space for direct confrontations with the forces of the state (i.e. the street fighting of the black bloc anarchists) and for those that favored more traditional forms of protest. While these differences often resulted in intense debates and differences, folks were surprisingly willing to try to understand others’ perspectives. Sure, there were some sad examples of disagreements—for example when a group of activists tried to prevent some anarchists from smashing the windows of a NikeTown store in Seattle—but for the most part the debate was carried out in a respectful manner. Along with actions outside of summits and organizing around those, countless anarchist collectives and radical projects started up across the country inspired by the movement.

Moreover, the movement seemed to keep making strides. Even after a seemingly endless series of convergences (protests), people kept coming. When protestors were shot at in Gotenburg, Sweden at an EU Summit, people still showed up at the Genoa G8. When a protestor was shot in the head by police in Genoa (see the song “Carlo Giuliani” by Conflict for more info), people remained defiant. Rather than turning away from more confrontational tactics, it seemed that more and more people were considering militant forms of resistance. Talk leading up to the fall IMF and World Bank meetings in DC in 2001 was very militant—and groups were planning to try to disrupt the summit as they had in Seattle, Quebec City, and elsewhere.

But before those actions took place, the terrorist attacks of September 11 happened. The attacks effectively destroyed the coalition that had formed to protest the various trade summits. Almost immediately, the more mainstream groups started to pull out of the demonstrations—in many cases fearing that they would appear “unpatriotic.” Others felt that the time “wasn’t right.” Still others believed it was inappropriate to confront police after what had happened on 9/11. At the same time, other sectors of “the left” that had participated in the protest movement tried to shift the movement’s energy towards anti-war activism (first against the invasion of Afghanistan and then later Iraq) rather than against capitalism. The 9/11 attacks opened up the differences between groups and the always tenuous coalitions fell apart.

At the same time, the government mounted a fierce counter-attack. Various attempts to criminalize and undermine dissent were taken, ranging from legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act that made surveillance of political groups easier, to renewed investigation by law enforcement, and increased budgets for militarized police forces under the guise of “fighting terrorism.” Moreover, massive PR campaigns launched by the government with cheerleading by the media resulted in a new wave of patriotism that caused many folks on both “the right” and “the left” to re-cement their allegiance to United States. Meanwhile, the government was able to launch invasions of Afghanistan (in 2001) and Iraq (in 2003) without any serious consequences from the public. While many folks protested those wars, the resistance had no teeth and many of the groups engaged in self-policing efforts that limited their tactical choices and thereby their power. The majority focused on appealing to authority rather than directly challenging the state’s capacity to wage war.

Many people involved in the anti-globalization movement were surprised by just how fierce the counter-attack was and the lengths to which the United States would go to maintain its hegemony. For anarchists, this wasn’t news. They already had a critique of state power. They understood that the capitalism couldn’t be “reformed” into “fairness” and that its very function was to pit people against each other and preserve the status quo. When the government began attacking citizens and labeling them “terrorists,” anarchists were familiar with these tactics—whether it was through the framing of innocent anarchists such as Sacco and Vanzetti in the 1920s, the destruction of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in the 1910s, or the efforts to label animal rights activists “terrorists” in the 1990s—they knew that the state has no respect for those that dissent. All talk of “rights” and “freedom of speech” is pointless when one looks back on history of the U.S.

Still, like many of their allies, anarchists weren’t able to sustain the pre-9/11 momentum and many stumbled. It’s understandable, but disappointing nevertheless. There was a lot of internal division and debate and once anarchists were effectively isolated, many pulled back. The “anti-globalization movement” effectively died on 9/11. While there would be a few additional attempts to revive the momentum—such as the 2003 FTAA Summit in Miami—they would largely fail. Moreover, anarchists more-or-less retreated into their own subculture and scene. Hopefully folks will bust out of that soon—the ten years after 9/11 have been a constant reminder of why folks need to stand up and fight back.

Most of us will interact with the police at some point and it won’t be a pleasant interaction. Whether it is the cops busting a party, closing down a house show, stopping punks on the street, or at a protest—dealing with the police is never fun. Even if you didn’t do anything wrong, you can be sure you will be left feeling intimidated, disempowered, rattled, and confused. I remember one time being stopped by police on the way to a protest in Detroit who threatened to make me “disappear” if I didn’t answer their questions. They said that nobody in Detroit would care if I never came back. Would they deliver on their threat? It’s hard to say, but facing down four cops from the gang unit with arms bigger than your torso has a way of making you believe them.

In light of their power to intimidate, it’s worth taking some time to learn about the rights that you do have when dealing with police. The number one rule to remember is that you are NOT required to talk to them. You can—and should—remain silent. No matter what the police tell you, you do not have to talk. They are trained investigators and are trained how to threaten and coerce people into talking (for example, saying that they are going to subpoena you or get a warrant). Regardless of what the situation is—from an investigation into political activity to asking about whether you have seen a lot of people going in and out of your neighbors’ house—it is always best not talk. Simply state, “I have nothing to say to you. I will talk to my lawyer and have her/him talk to you.” Even if you don’t have a lawyer, you can get one later.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a very good overview of what to do when interacting with the police (it’s also available as a printable card that you can carry with you). Given the everyday role of the police, I think it’s very important reading:

YOUR RIGHTS WHEN DEALING WITH THE POLICE

• You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
• You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
• If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
• You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
• Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES

• Do stay calm and be polite.
• Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
• Do not lie or give false documents.
• Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
• Do remember the details of the encounter.
• Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING

• Stay calm. Don’t run. Don’t argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
• Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
• You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
• You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may “pat down” your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR 

• Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
• Upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance.
• If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
• Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.

IF THE POLICE OR IMMIGRATION AGENTS COME TO YOUR HOME

• If the police or immigration agents come to your home, you do not have to let them in unless they have certain kinds of warrants.
• Ask the officer to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window so you can inspect it. A search warrant allows police to enter the address listed on the warrant, but officers can only search the areas and for the items listed. An arrest warrant allows police to enter the home of the person listed on the warrant if they believe the person is inside. A warrant of removal/deportation (ICE warrant) does not allow officers to enter a home without consent.
• Even if officers have a warrant, you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to speak to the officers, step outside and close the door.

IF YOU ARE CONTACTED BY THE FBI

• If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you do not have to answer any questions. Tell the agent you want to speak to a lawyer first.
• If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an interview, you have the right to say you do not want to be interviewed. If you agree to an interview, have a lawyer present. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will only answer questions on a specific topic.

IF YOU ARE ARRESTED

• Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
• Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don’t give any explanations or excuses. If you can’t pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don’t say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
• You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.
• Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.

IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED

• Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don’t physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
• Write down everything you remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
• File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
• Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling.

For additional information, check out the excellent pamphlet If An Agent Knocks from the Center for Constitutional Rights. It’s a detailed—but very readable—overview of police powers and the ways in which the police work to stifle movements for social change. Even if you aren’t doing political work, it elaborates a lot on the powers that police have and what rights the rest of us have.

“Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat. To date, extremists have been responsible for more than 1,800 criminal acts and more than $110 million in damages. Currently, we are investigating approximately 170 such extremist incidents across the country.”

The FBI consistently identifies animal and earth liberation activities as a “threat” and labels the activists as dangerous. They do this even though they know quite well that no animal or earth liberation activists have ever harmed a single person. In fact, the action guidelines of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)—the most well-known animal and earth liberation “groups” (groups in quotation marks because it has no formal membership and works through autonomous “cells” that have no communication with each other) specifically prohibits harming of human and non-human life:

“TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.”

Contrary to what the FBI might lead folks to believe, groups like the ALF and ELF are mainly interested in pursuing economic damage to industries and corporations that exploit animals and/or the earth. They aren’t interested in direct violence towards individuals. Instead, they hope that their actions can take a financial blow against companies that will have the result of making them cease their activities. Along with that, they also believe that their actions can have an educational effect on the public. In practice, this has meant that animal and earth liberation activists have undertaken a campaign of sabotage that has included methods such as arson, property destruction, vandalism, animal rescues (freeing caged animals), documenting conditions in labs/on farms/etc, and generally making it harder for animal and earth exploiting companies to go about their business.

In response, the FBI (along with folks in the animal/earth exploitation industries) have waged an extensive public relations campaign aimed at convincing folks that animal and earth liberation activists are dangerous terrorists. Even when they know that their crimes are non-violent in nature, they have worked hard to label activists as “dangerous.” This has led to a number of things including increased prison sentences for those convicted of animal/earth liberation crimes (for example, Marie Mason received 22 years in prison for an arson in which no humans were harmed), the SHAC 7 were sentenced to 3-6 years in prison for running a website (not for committing any violent or non-violent actions), increased targeting of “above-ground” animal and environmental activists who use traditional “protest” tactics (leafleting, civil disobedience, picketing, etc), and new laws that make it easier to target activists (especially those who are effective in their work).

However, one of the most egregious acts committed by the government in recent years was one of their self-labeled major “successes” in its campaign against eco-terrorism: the prosecution of Eric McDavid. In 2008, the FBI wrote on its website:

“In early 2006, eco-terrorist Eric McDavid and two associates met in a secluded cabin in Dutch Flat, California to discuss making improvised explosive devices and to choose targets to bomb. Soon after, they began casing the targeted facilities and buying supplies to make bombs. But before they started mixing the ingredients, we swooped in and arrested them.

How did we know what McDavid was up to? How were we able to prevent attacks that could have caused thousands or millions of dollars in property damage and possibly harmed people?

In a word, intelligence.

Our intelligence—which included the use of an FBI source who was actually with McDavid and his associates inside that California cabin—allowed us to piece together the entire plot ahead of time.”

Needless to say, the FBI is leaving a lot out of Eric McDavid’s story. Sure, there was an informant there. However, the FBI doesn’t say that the informant was paid by the FBI to spy on anarchists (she met McDavid at a convergence organized by CrimethInc). The informant—who used the name “Anna”—was paid $65,000 for her work that resulted in the arrests of three individuals for McDavid’s “crime.” The only problem is that no “crime” actually happened and it was entirely manufactured by the FBI informant. Instead, “Anna” spent a year and a half guiding the group along: she helped pick the target (a dam), provided the materials, and egged the group on when members considered dropping out of the plot. All the while, she carried on a romantic relationship with McDavid, resulting in all manner of messed up dynamics that clouded his judgment.

As a result, McDavid received nearly twenty years in prison (the other two decided to cooperate with the government and testify against him) for a “crime” that didn’t happen. McDavid ended up being charged with “conspiracy,” a fairly nebulous crime that means someone merely has to think of a criminal act and take some action in furtherance of that act—it’s a charge that has been used repeatedly over the years to target activists. Even for the U.S. “justice” system—which is plagued with racism and exists in many ways to protect property interests and police large segments of the population—Eric McDavid’s case stands out as an exceptional example of the lengths that the government will go to against those whom it perceives of as a threat.

Reading their columns seem pretty representative of everything that women have told me about their experiences in the punk scene and how it tends to reinforce a culture of male privilege. I have been thinking about this a lot over the past several months, both since I initially read Lauren’s piece in Maximum Rock n’ Roll and after attending several shows over the past few months. Sadly, conversations on this topic sometimes tend towards the unproductive—and definitely not because of the women who bring up male supremacy and privilege—but because men in the punk scene can’t take responsibility for how their actions reinforce patriarchy and react defensively, dismissively, or simply say “right on” but then keep doing the same thing. Quite plainly, it’s the dudes fault and it always will be until we own up to our actions and how we carry ourselves. Moreover, men need to understand that we can’t just think we got it all figured out, that we’re “anti-sexist” because we’re “political” or because we talk about sexism on a website. Challenging patriarchy is an ongoing process and in needs continuous work and conscious effort. It’s necessary if we want the punk scene to be at all different than the mainstream and it’s necessary if we—as men—want to live full and meaningful lives. While we can certainly—and often chose to—be content with the privilege that we have and slide by in life while oppressing others, our lives will be much fuller if we understand the ways in which patriarchy harms everyone, including men.

I have been thinking about how patriarchal values manifest themselves in the punk scene. Lots of folks see them just as the residue of mainstream culture or somehow indicative of the misogyny and male supremacy that exists in U.S. society. And while that is certainly part of the problem, a lot of it also has to do with punk itself. The punk scene teaches a lot about what it means to be male and in my experience as a white male who came into the punk scene in high school, a lot of what was taught to me about masculinity by the punk scene was pretty terrible. Because so many people get involved in punk during their teenage years, it arguably has an impact on male punks’ conceptions of masculinity. Of course, patriarchal attitudes aren’t often directly expressed in the punk scene, but the accumulation of experiences tends to reinforce patriarchy and teach men that male dominance is OK.

I got into punk in the mid-1990s, first getting into pop-punk and ska bands (stuff like Mustard Plug and Screeching Weasel). I traded music with folks and bought records for a few years before I went to shows and once I was able to pretty much went to any show I could find, whether they be at rented halls or houses. The scene I was involved in wasn’t very political and I listened to relatively few bands that had political lyrics for the first few years I was into punk (the exceptions were pretty much Propagandhi and Against All Authority).

Needless to say, the scene didn’t offer much by way of thinking talking about sexism (see a previous column of mine titled “Pop Punk to Nowhere” for more discussion of this). In my first few years of going to shows and listening to punk, almost no women played in the bands I listened to or went to see. It was pretty much all dudes with the occasional woman doing “backing” vocals. When women did play in bands, they were “cute” and it was a novelty. Similarly, it was pretty darn common to hear people say they “don’t like women’s vocals” (or even “chick vocals”). To be sure, this was due to the crap I listened to, but lots of folks got (and still get) into punk in the same way. The majority of folks who went to shows were men. It’s been a while, but I’d argue that it was probably an 80% male-bodied dominance. The women who were there were largely assumed to be there because they were someone’s girlfriend. Consequently, they were rarely seen as active participants. There were always exceptions to be sure, but I’d say that this is generally what the scene taught me. This was reinforced by lyrics that tended to reflected heterosexual male viewpoints, that fetishized and objectified women involved in punk rock, and occasionally spoke derisively of women. I definitely felt that the punk scene taught that it was OK to view women as objects of affection for men. At the same time, the scene told me a lot about what was considered appropriate male behavior. We were supposed to slam dance, to run wildly into people (all people) without consideration, it was OK to be aggressive in the pit (not doing so was “weak” and or meant I just “couldn’t take it”). Occasional fights were to be expected and nobody saw anything really wrong with it. We (men) should be up front yelling the words, we should be in the bands writing the words, and we should be doing the shows. The punk scene taught me this. It pretty much taught me that it was men running the show (often times, quite literally). Similarly, sharing our feelings and emotions—beyond song lyrics—was generally frowned upon and often mocked as being “emo.” At the same time, when women did assert themselves or identify with feminism, one was taught to think that they did so because they were associated with riot grrrl, were political because their boyfriend was (always assumed to be a boyfriend, a reflection of the heteronormative nature of the punk scene), or felt strongly about feminism because they were somehow anti-male and/or had been “wronged” in some way by men (but never with the perspective that maybe they were sick of the patriarchal crap present in the punk scene everyday). I would argue that all this unaddressed sexism and male privilege created a rape culture, but the topic was never really discussed (nor was there any analysis about the role men play in building a rape culture). Needless to say, it wasn’t a pretty picture. Lots of what I feel was taught to me was pretty disturbing and I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I (sadly, but probably not unexpectedly) absorbed a lot of it and shared similar thoughts. I was a teenager and my initial involvement in punk didn’t really make me all that different than the average teenager who was brought up on Soul Asylum or Alice and Chains.

After a couple years, I started to get into more socially aware and/or political bands—as did a lot of my friends—and my experience with sexism and punk changed. Some of the new bands I listened talked about sexism, patriarchy, and punk. It was a huge leap forward. Eventually, I was able to recognize—largely by listening to women discuss their experiences in punk—the ways in which sexism and patriarchy manifested itself in the scene. As I got more into the DIY scene and the political scene, things seemed a heck of a lot better. There was a substantial difference between my experiences going to see The Suicide Machines at a rented hall and seeing Kungfu Rick in a basement. Whereas there was overt sexism and male supremacy in action at the former, they manifested themselves in smaller ways in the DIY scene.

But it was still there, no doubt about it. Less men express outwardly sexist views in the DIY scene, but the scene is still overwhelmingly male. Men still dance aggressively at shows, still take up more space than they should (both physically and conversationally), still play in the majority of the bands, and are still heard more than women. Women are held to a different standard and often have to work harder to be heard and taken seriously. The political activity (especially in the late 1990s/early 2000s) that was glorified as the union between punk and anarchist politics tended to be aggressive actions such as those undertaken by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF), or the black bloc. Of course, violent actions aren’t the exclusive province of men nor are they inherently masculine, but a lot of what was held up as the most exciting actions were those undertaken by men. There were also several aspects of male privilege that are taken for granted: men never need to worry about getting/to from a show space safely, men can take their shirts off, men will never feel numerically isolated, and by and large men will always, always have their voices heard. Moreover in the DIY scene, men can choose when/if they want to think about patriarchy and sexism and can choose when/if they want to call other men out for their actions and inactions. That does not create a community where challenging patriarchy is taken seriously. When patriarchy and sexism are discussed, it is often in a narrow way: for example as part of a “special” issue of a zine or a record on the topic—it’s always the product of some kind of particular effort (i.e. out of the ordinary) rather than a topic of everyday conversation. It’s also my opinion that for men, it’s fine to talk about sexism or patriarchy as it applies to “the scene” generally, but when it gets down to the specifics (including how our own actions support patriarchy), there is a lot of hostility, defensiveness, and reluctance.

These are my experiences with what the punk scene taught me about masculinity and patriarchy. Other men’s experiences will no doubt differ, even those who came up in the same scene. However, I’d say that for most men, the punk scene teaches them a form of male supremacy that ultimately upholds patriarchy. It’s our job to take responsibility for our actions, to identify ways in which our own behavior upholds patriarchy, and to call other men out for their actions (and inactions).

This past month I had the privilege of attending a number of great lectures by some dedicated and inspiring radical feminists. Understanding the ways in which patriarchy functions in the world is an ongoing process, especially for those like myself who are the direct beneficiaries of male privilege. No matter how much so-called anti-sexist men claim that they “get it,” we should always strive to seek out opportunities to learn more. Most often this involves learning from the women in our lives and/or reading and thinking about how patriarchy works.

These talks were all great and they got me thinking about the many ways in which patriarchy manifests itself in world. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain, but sadly many folks chose not to identify this privilege. Obvious examples of male privilege (and there are many more) are the fact that we are consistently paid more than women for similar work, our opinions are automatically taken more seriously, we can walk down streets at night without fear of being raped, our bodies aren’t used to sell everything from car washes to rubber gloves, we aren’t constantly judged for how we look, we aren’t cat-called, etc. Male privilege affords us (men) with a host of benefits, including the benefit of being able to choose to ignore sexism and patriarchy because it doesn’t oppress us on a day-to-day basis.

One thing that has always struck me is that it is pretty easy to cringe at sexism in so-called mainstream society, but it’s difficult to look inward into our own subcultures and lives. In the various subcultures/counter-cultures that I have been a part of (punk rock and anarchism), it’s been pretty common to define our opposition to sexism in terms of what we see in the mainstream while upholding the idea that our subcultures are free of sexism, sexist views, and that male privilege isn’t a reality. Especially in the punk scene, we seem to collectively cling to the idea that we are all “equal” (which ignores the fact that different folks have differing amounts of privilege depending on their gender, physical bodies, race, etc) and that if we don’t like something that we can just “do it” and change it. We reject the most obvious manifestations of sexism (few punks would say that women are inferior to men or consciously try to limit women’s participation), which is seen as good enough (by the men in the scene at least). A lot of the male privilege that exists in the larger world exists in the punk scene. Despite this, many punks still cling to the idea that men involved in punk are somehow “better” just because they are involved with punk. Pretty consistently men in the punk scene have gotten offended when women call this traditional wisdom into question and respond in all manner of trivializing ways.

The other day I was reading Maximum Rock N Roll and there was a letter by a man who wrote to complain that a woman in his local punk scene was criticizing the “bro-punk” male domination of the bands and the scene as a whole. The letter was full of ridiculous statements: questioning the woman’s ability to have an opinion based on the number of shows she attends, saying that the woman could just start something new if she didn’t like it, etc. The person who responded to the letter (I regretfully didn’t see a name) trashed the kid’s close-minded attitude. They also included an essay by Lauren who plays and sings in the band The Measure [SA]. It’s a really good discussion of sexism in the punk scene so I’m reprinting it below. Men like myself need to hear this stuff (especially the stuff about being accountable and recognizing our privilege) so I’m sharing it here:

I’ll start off by saying that I’m a white cis-female in her late 20’s who identifies as queer, feminist, radical and punk.  I’m speaking from my experiences being a part of a largely DIY poppunk scene for the majority of my life and in a touring band for over six years. A large part of the time, I feel welcomed, supported and accepted within the “punk” circles that I’m a part of.  However, nothing makes me more angry then hearing someone, men specifically, say that the scene isn’t sexist, “because we’re all punks and obviously that’s not cool.” I am far from the only woman-identified person in the room who would like to call bullshit on that statement.  While yes, most of my friends and the spaces I go to do not tolerate obviously sexist, homophobic, racist, able-ist, etc. speech, saying those concepts do not exist in our community is just flat out wrong.  What offends me is not always just the action itself, but the excuse that if you wear the “punk” label that you’re absolved of having done anything wrong because you “didn’t mean it that way.”  I can’t think of a rationale so unproductive.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of guys don’t understand the things that women find threatening because it’s not obviously dressed as a sexist act.  What I think of when I imagine a scene without sexism is a scene where we consciously make an effort to create a safer space for everyone, no matter who they are.  So while we might not be saying “you can’t be in a band or go to this show because you’re a girl”, there are plenty of other things that go on that I consider to be sexist, because they’re blatantly not considering what would make women in the scene feel safe.  So, for those who might not know what I’m talking about: you know what makes me feel unsafe? When you’re the only guy in the pit who doesn’t get the message to not fly full force into someone half your size or strength.  When you take your shirt off at a show.  When you ask me if I’m “IN the band or WITH the band” after a male bandmate says the four of us are all IN the band.  When you tell me I play guitar well for a girl.  When you say that all the guys want to fuck the girl in that band.  When you make a rape joke. When you use the word bitch or call someone a slut.  The list doesn’t end there.  Now do you think the scene isn’t sexist?

One benefit of being in the punk scene for me, even where these things still happen, is having people around who also don’t think these things are okay.  We’re responsible to call each other out if we’re doing things that make each other feel unsafe, myself included.  No one is perfect, and I don’t expect that.  What I do expect, however, is the ability to be held accountable for your actions, to apologize and hear everyone’s experience as valid. If you’re doing something that makes me feel unsafe at a show, I don’t care how long you’ve known me, or your history interacting with women, or how much you love Sleater Kinney.  If you can’t be held accountable and apologize, then none of those other things really make a difference to me.  This applies to anything from jokes in poor taste to sexual assault.  Just because we’ve all known someone for years at shows doesn’t change them calling me a cunt, or assaulting their partner.  Once people stop making the excuse of “we’re all on the same page” and start being honest with each other, we start creating real, physical, safer spaces for everyone, not just women.

Overall, I do feel good about my involvement in the scene and most of the people I associate with (of all genders). I think if we’re talking about sexism, we should also really be talking about acknowledging male privilege, which I think is the root of a lot of what I’ve mentioned.  I’m tired of being asked why an all female-fronted show might be helpful for women, why creating women-only spaces is productive, why some of us call ourselves feminists.  They’re “not being macho assholes.” “Our scene is past that.” They “feel alienated by it.”  Well, in the words of Kathleen Hana, “I’m so sorry if I’m alienating some of you. Your whole fucking culture alienates me.”  If people stopped nervously laughing that one off long enough to think about what it actually means, we could have a real conversation and then maybe one day I could stop feeling like sexism exists in my scene.