You are viewing bradhicks

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sick Sad World
I got extraordinarily lucky when one particular person offered me a ride home from St. Louis's Archon science fiction convention, and here's why: she is a very smart person who has just spent the last year under a near-total news blackout. No internet access to speak of, news mostly restricted to sports except during (of all things) the argument over the debt ceiling. And that's how it happened that I got asked to explain, in five minutes or less, how in the hell Occupy Wall Street even happened. Not what it was about, not what it was standing for, not what I thought was going to happen; she was interested in those things, but the one she really wanted to know was "why now and not three years ago, and how did it happen?"

I don't think I flubbed my answer. I've now had a couple of weeks more to think about it, and I'd give the same answer. But the more I think about it? The more I want to write this down and send it to historians in the future. And the more certain I am that they won't believe me.

Here's my understanding of how it came about:

It all started with a possible US war crime in Iraq, and, more importantly, with the cover-up by people who were acting like they thought it was a war crime. A bored sysadmin at a US facility in Afghanistan, with not enough to do, went browsing through his users' files and saw the video showing US air cavalry in Baghdad shooting up a journalist and the Iraqi civilians he was interviewing, then shooting up the family of four who stopped, in their van, to try to take the wounded to a hospital. So he did what you're supposed to do under those circumstances: he took it up his chain of command. Who punished him for asking about it, for not leaving it up to the JAG officers. That annoyed him so much that he took advantage of the cypherpunk whistle-blower support website WikiLeaks, sending them the evidence that the JAG corps and his chain of command declined to investigate.

But WikiLeaks was already under pressure from governments around the world, including ours, so he gave them one more thing to use in their defense. It was a "nuclear option," something so big that even they wouldn't really want to release it, but that they could threaten the US government with: go after us on (what came to be called) the "Collateral Murder" video, and we'll pull the trigger on this: over half a million classified State Department internal memos, downloaded from SIPRnet. The US government apparently thought that WikiLeaks wouldn't do it, or thought they could stop them, or something: they put pressure on banks all over the world to cut off payments processing for donors to WikiLeaks, over the Collateral Murder video.

This was, frankly, nuts, since "Collateral Murder" was a murky and not terribly interesting story. No matter how much anti-war activists wanted to portray it as My Lai in Baghdad, it was a mistaken identity case made worse by adrenaline rush; all it had in common with My Lai was that the chopper pilots who were eager to gun down the people evacuating the wounded were guys who'd lost friends to insurgents in that area, who were gunning for revenge, but that happens in every war zone. It was a very brief news story, already well on its way to being forgotten, but the government went ahead and ordered the banks to punish Wikileaks for their part in it, just because they could. Which the banks did. And so Wikileaks pulled the trigger on "Cablegate."

Cablegate had a lot of minor effects, most of them predictable, but nobody could have predicted one of them, because it was just that weird.

Despots all over the world have always told their subjects, "Everybody else in the country agrees with us, the despots. You're the only one who has a problem with it. Well, you and (some much-hated minority group). Which just goes to show, there's something wrong with you." In places where the despots have control over the media (which is most places there are despots), they get away with this, because for all most people know, the despot-controlled media is telling the truth about that. Maybe they and their friends really are the only ones who have a problem with it; how could they prove otherwise?

One of the absolutely least interesting, least important State Department cables in the whole "Cablegate" SIPRnet dump was a routine report from the US embassy in Tunisia, that said something that would surprise nobody anywhere in the free world: as the Tunisian dictator freaked out more and more about one thing or another, and got more and more brutal about it, lots of individual Tunisians were seeking out US diplomats and saying, "hey, I'm not okay with this, is it just me?" People from all walks of life. You're shocked, right?

Let me add something else, something that seems to have gone completely over the heads of the people of Tunisia: lots of stuff in the Cablegate dump is pure bullshit. Nothing in the Cablegate dumps should be taken at face value. There are brilliant, well-educated, deeply culturally embedded foreign-country experts in our foreign service. There are also one holy hell of a lot of dim-witted partisan political hacks who can barely read their own language at a 3rd grade level, let alone the language of the country they've been sent to. They both file reports to the Department of State that got dumped onto SIPRnet.

But I guess nobody pointed that out to the Tunisian people. The Cablegate "bombshell" that many Tunisians, not just al Qaeda, were angry at the Army and the dictator of Tunisia arrived right in the middle of an army crackdown, and emboldened by the (ridiculously poorly sourced) reassurance from western journalists that if they rose up against it, others would do so too, the Tunisians tried it. And it shouldn't have worked, because the army had all the guns. But it did work, for a reason not explained in the Cablegate files: right that minute, for their own personal reasons, the Tunisian army wasn't terribly happy with the dictator, either. So they declined to machine-gun the protesters. And the dictator fell.

Understanding little or none of this, people living under western-backed dictatorships all over the Arab world freaked out: "we can DO that?" So they tried it. In Iran, the army backed the regime, tortured and gunned down as many protesters as they needed to (which wasn't all that many) and won. Being a dog-bites-man story, hardly anybody talked about this much. In Syria, the army backed the regime, tortured and gunned down as many protesters as they needed to (which wasn't all that many) and won. Being a dog-bites-man story, hardly anybody talked about this much. In Saudi Arabia, the government handed out a few million dollars' worth of bribes, and sent the religious police and the army out to crack a few heads of people who wouldn't take the bribes, the regime won, and this being a dog-bites-man story, even you probably barely heard of it. But in Egypt? The Egyptians who tried to follow the Tunisians out into the streets lucked into the fact that the Egyptian army was also, for its own personal reasons, ticked off at the dictator; they refused to torture and gun down the protesters, and the protesters won. And now there were two, and even though the success rate was only "two for five" the world giddily declared the "Arab spring."

Which would have meant nothing. If it weren't for the second thing that happened because of "Collateral Murder" and "Cablegate."

People who live and die by the internet, who think that the internet is a Really Big Deal? A lot of those people saw the US government crackdown on Wikileaks as an internet censorship story. And nobody freaks out more, about internet censorship, than Anonymous.

Maybe you'd never heard about Anonymous until recently. I knew a couple of the 2nd or 3rd-wave hangers-on even before Anonymous had even consciously noticed Wikileaks. Anonymous' original issue was, of all things, Scientology. The Scientologists have been really angry, ever since their most-secret scriptures got dumped onto the Internet after they were briefly unsealed in a lawsuit. To contain that damage, Scientology lobbyists have been pressuring governments (and, by some press reports, Scientology black bag squads have been blackmailing government officials) to get governments to censor Scientology materials from the internet. And so a bunch of 4channers and /b/tards and Something Awful Goon Squad members got together on an anonymous chat server, and decided to protect themselves from Scientology black-bag squads by donning Guy Fawkes masks (the recent movie V for Vendetta was on their minds) and protest outside of Scientology centers. Nothing much came of it ... because Scientology is a much harder target than any government, if you ask me. And, if nothing else, it's also one that a lot fewer people care about. But that's who Anonymous were.

When Anonymous found out that the government was cracking down on banks that processed credit-card payments for Wikileaks? And when our own government started torturing Bradley Manning, the suspect in the Collateral Murder/Cablegate leaks, to (according to Manning's lawyer) try to coerce him to testify (falsely) that he didn't volunteer to send that data to Wikileaks, that he didn't come up with the idea on his own, that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, put him up to it, so they could get NATO member countries to extradite Assange to us for espionage? Anonymous went ape-shit, forgot all about harassing the Scientologists, and signed onto an idea from the artsy anti-corporate magazine Adbusters for an American Fall following the model of the Arab Spring, calling on Anonymous's tens of thousands of anti-censorship fans to get the word out to Occupy Wall Street the way that the Egyptian people occupied Tahrir Square.

So, here we are.

Millions of Americans have been told by the corporate media, ever since the 1980s, that nobody but a handful of dirty hippies, and evil Satanic commies, and lazy welfare bums, and illegal immigrants, and of course more recently al Qaeda, but other than those people, nobody else but you has a problem with winner-take-all laissez faire oligopoly capitalism. They've been told that if you're not okay with fewer and fewer of us having jobs, or if you're not okay with more and more of us being robbed of our savings by Wall Street fraudsters who don't get punished ("laissez faire" means "leave us (businesses) alone," you know), or if you aren't okay with hedge fund managers like Mitt Romney making a thousand times the salary of the factory workers they lay off while liquidating their profitable companies for short-term gain, or if you don't agree with all of the Republican candidates and 90% of the Democratic candidates that those are the best policies for the American people? It's just you. You and al Qaeda and the illegal immigrants and the thieving welfare bums and the dirty hippies and the anti-Christian communists. So what's wrong with you that you agree with those people, and not with the rest of America, the real Americans? And people meekly shut up and took it, thinking that even if they did have a few friends who agreed with them, maybe it was just them. How would they know differently?

Just like the Tunisians. And the Egyptians. And the people of Saudi Arabia. And the Syrians. And the Iranians.

We didn't have Wikileaks to tell us otherwise. It shouldn't have mattered if we had; we should have known not to trust the roughly-half-BS stuff that was in the Cablegate files, but maybe it would have mattered to us if they had told us, like it mattered to the Tunisians and the Egyptians and the rest. But we did have Anonymous to tell us. Which shouldn't have mattered, because none of us knew who Anonymous were, and probably most of us wouldn't have approved if we did know. (You took the word of cypherpunk anti-Scientology freaks from three of the most notoriously awful BBSes on the internet over the word of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times? Really?) But somehow, when they told us, even though it shouldn't have done so, it did matter: by current polls, about 2/3rds of Americans now realize that no, it's not just a couple of us, and a few bad people, it really is at least 2/3rds of us who have a problem with this. And it's a month later, and the protest encampments are still going strong, and getting bigger. Pretty soon, maybe, the Wall Street regime's hand-picked politicians will order the cops and the Army to clear those camps, like the pro-Wall-Street regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and Saudi Arabia did, and the even worse regimes in Syria and Iran. And then we'll find out who the cops and the army like better, here, just like they did.

And in the far future, when they already know whether the police and the Army will have sided with the Wall Street regime or with the 2/3rds of Americans who aren't okay with the Wall Street regime, if they read my account of how it all started? They won't believe me. Because how this all happened? Is just plain nuts.

Comments

( 68 comments — Leave a comment )
cannibal_x
Oct. 18th, 2011 03:30 am (UTC)
Great summary, thanks! It's interesting to review how the last few months transpired :)
doodlesthegreat
Oct. 18th, 2011 03:41 am (UTC)
(You took the word of cypherpunk anti-Scientology freaks from three of the most notoriously awful BBSes on the internet over the word of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times? Really?)

Actually, yes. Because I have more trust in the impartiality of those sources than anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, and the NYT has proven notoriously slow to find out about such matters until everyone else has it.
ff00ff
Oct. 18th, 2011 04:24 am (UTC)
I like Wikileaks a lot, and I like what they do, but I always remember that one of their earlier escapades was the "climate gate" scandal, which was touted as disproving global warming, but turned out to be the crudest right wing conspiracy theorist driven hit job. Once people get used to wikileaks as an institution the use of it I have to think the value of its releases is going to become more and more suspect.
caramida
Oct. 18th, 2011 03:42 am (UTC)
I do love your analyses.
Thanks,
~B
chaotic_nipple
Oct. 18th, 2011 03:52 am (UTC)
You left out the Madison protests.
bradhicks
Oct. 18th, 2011 03:55 am (UTC)
It's hard for me to fit them into the direct causal chain; not least of which because they lost. Where would you fit them into the narrative?
(no subject) - chaotic_nipple - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bradhicks - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Yeah, that sounds right. - squidb0i - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sheherazahde - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hugh_mannity - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dd_b - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - martin_wisse - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
ff00ff
Oct. 18th, 2011 04:19 am (UTC)
I think you overemphasize the role of wikileaks in the Arab spring uprisings.
bradhicks
Oct. 18th, 2011 04:27 am (UTC)
I didn't save the links (you may be able to find them by searching the Guardian's website), but my source is reporting by the NYT and the Guardian, citing members of the Tunisian opposition, who credited the fact that Tunisians were passing around internet links to reporting on Cablegate that mentioned Tunisia.
(no subject) - ff00ff - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tyrsalvia - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ff00ff - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dd_b - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
squidb0i
Oct. 18th, 2011 05:11 am (UTC)
Fantastic summary!
Shared around!
brynndragon
Oct. 18th, 2011 05:18 am (UTC)
I spent some time in a sukkah in Dewey Square (Occupy Boston) last Saturday, and it's the first time in my experience that the sound of davening was disrupted by someone yelling "assholes!" at us. The remaining 1/3 are as angry as the rest of us (for the most part), but their aim is pretty deplorable.
brockulfsen
Oct. 20th, 2011 10:08 pm (UTC)
And they tend to be the ones with guns...
(no subject) - brynndragon - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - brockulfsen - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - brynndragon - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - brockulfsen - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - brynndragon - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
pingback_bot
Oct. 18th, 2011 07:06 am (UTC)
Not just you
User communicator referenced to your post from Not just you saying: [...] made a couple of years ago. He was pretty interesting on the dotcom boom too. His most recent post [...]
communicator
Oct. 18th, 2011 08:55 am (UTC)
Re: Not just you
Good there's a pingback. I came here to say I'd referenced this post. In my own post I drew a parallel with feminism: women in the 1950s, each woman feeling she was the only one who was unhappy with her life, and then the power that was generated by women sharing their discontent with each other, and realising that they couldn't all be mad and wrong. That perhaps the system was imperfect.
Re: Not just you - dd_b - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
zornhau
Oct. 18th, 2011 08:30 am (UTC)
But...
...let's see how the next round of elections go when the right manufacture "moral" issues for people to vote on.



margi_lynn
Oct. 20th, 2011 08:11 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
I'm suspecting doing that is going to backfire since they've decided to hit the abortion card so hard it's going to practically make getting pregnant illegal.
Re: But... - brockulfsen - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: But... - stellans - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: But... - margi_lynn - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: But... - stellans - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: But... - margi_lynn - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: But... - houseboatonstyx - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
nancylebov
Oct. 18th, 2011 10:23 am (UTC)
Here's a hypothesis about why it took a while for OWS to happen, even though your chain of specific causes still might apply.

Protestors are more likely to be people with some time and resources. The people who were hit first with the mortgage crisis were poorer, and it was easier to convince them that their troubles were their own fault-- they'd signed dodgy mortgages, and some of them had lied to get the mortgages. (I agree that the banks were highly complicit in the situation.)

So, it may have taken a while for people to realize that things weren't going to get better, and it also took a while for the crisis to hit so many people who'd "done everything right"-- people who actually could have afforded their mortgages if they'd been able to stay employed.

All this being said, I do think we're living in a very low probability time line, and probably have been since the peaceful dissolution of the USSR.
hugh_mannity
Oct. 18th, 2011 01:56 pm (UTC)
This.

Also, it's taken a while for there to be a significant number of middle-class long-term unemployed. Now it's teachers, firefighters, middle management, accountants, nurses, computer geeks, et al who can't get jobs and whose unemployment benefits have run out. The people who'd "done everything right" as nancylebov called them. They're better educated, more vocal, and have very little left to lose.
(no subject) - nancylebov - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - houseboatonstyx - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - catvalente - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - pope_guilty - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - catvalente - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - nancylebov - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
Larry Hamelin
Oct. 18th, 2011 11:03 am (UTC)
This is really good. May I reprint it with attribution?
bradhicks
Oct. 18th, 2011 02:03 pm (UTC)
As always (it's in the sidebar), yes: Creative Commons licensed, attribution required, no commercial use, share-alike, license version 2.5.
(no subject) - Larry Hamelin - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
sheherazahde
Oct. 18th, 2011 01:35 pm (UTC)
Just thought I would share:
"The Sociology of Religious Movements" by William Sims Bainbridge
Each person doing the same thing for the same reason, but each is doing it alone. This is called parallel behavior. Although it takes place in a social context, it is not socially organized.

People facing a common problem or opportunity tend to communicate informally and influence each other's actions so that they end up doing similar things in a somewhat unified way. Interactions among people reveals to them their common concerns and turns parallel behavior into collective behavior.

Many people are working together toward a specific goal through concerted action. Continued focused interaction has transformed collective behavior into a social movement

Bureaucrats now occupy set positions in a hierarchy, perform standard roles, and work together according to established procedures. Social movement agitation in this crisis has led to the establishment of a social institution.

These four degrees of social organization are really areas of a spectrum rather than separately delineated categories. Parallel behavior blends imperceptibly into collective behavior which shades into social movements which carry over into societal institutions. Social institutions derive their status from the fact that they are recognized by other institutions of the society, a kind of mutual admiration society. But in a very real sense institutions are merely slow movements. In turn, movements are well-organized instances of collective behavior, and collective behavior is simply parallel behavior augmented by communication."

beamjockey
Oct. 18th, 2011 08:02 pm (UTC)
Even though I don't read much sociology, I own several of Bainbridge's books, because he has studied a couple of corners of the technosphere to which I belong (space buffs and science fiction fans).

Also, he is the guy who brought transhumanism to the National Science Foundation, for good or ill.
dd_b
Oct. 18th, 2011 02:57 pm (UTC)
Fascinating event chain!
nancylebov
Oct. 18th, 2011 03:16 pm (UTC)
silveradept
Oct. 19th, 2011 05:09 am (UTC)
So we have a low probability event setting off several other low probability events, and all we're missing now is the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire / Stonewall Riots event that crystalises where the army and police stand.

As you mentioned earlier, the question is who gets hurt now, and what we do in reaction to that.
margi_lynn
Oct. 20th, 2011 08:20 pm (UTC)
Considering this comment about who the protesters are I think that the dwindling pensions of the police and that one youtube video of a Marine yelling about 'America isn't a war zone, stop treating the protesters this way' - I'm very tentatively calling it in the reform's favor - especially since the movement's migrated to lots of places.

What's going to be the spark, that's any one's guess.
(no subject) - brockulfsen - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
Oct. 19th, 2011 07:49 pm (UTC)
First Walmart staff then the unions?
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/occupywallst-roundup-day-33/

And looking ahead to Thursday: Wal-Mart workers are coming to Zuccotti Park to talk to the protesters about their campaign to win higher wages and improved working conditions.
houseboatonstyx
Oct. 19th, 2011 10:03 pm (UTC)
calling on Anonymous's tens of thousands of anti-censorship fans to get the word out to Occupy Wall Street the way that the Egyptian people occupied Tahrir Square.

So, here we are.


So, the first to show up at Zoc were fans who got it straight from Anonymous? Or straight from Adbusters? Then the police got colorful, and Mainstream Media gave it a few lines? What coverage brought all the ordinary people out?
bradhicks
Oct. 19th, 2011 11:03 pm (UTC)
The gap between Anonymous and the mainstream is not all that broad, or else tens of millions of people would never have heard of Lolcats, All Your Base, Rickrolling, Planking, ...

4chan, in particular, for all that I have no use for it personally, is the world's most intensively competitive breeder's club for memes. When people raised in that atmosphere decided to "get the word out to their friends," they really get the word out to their friends.
(no subject) - houseboatonstyx - . th, 12:00 am (UTC) - Expand
pingback_bot
Oct. 20th, 2011 02:05 pm (UTC)
A long-overdue news post - 13-19 October 02011
User silveradept referenced to your post from A long-overdue news post - 13-19 October 02011 saying: [...] out, the Infamous Brad suggests how Occupy Wall Street came to be, and why it has managed to stay [...]
tyrsalvia
Oct. 23rd, 2011 07:58 am (UTC)
I posted a link to this tonight in Twitter and Facebook. As always, I appreciate your analysis, Brad.

I know a couple of folks in the local hacker community who know a couple of people involved in these things. One of the things I value so much about your analysis here is that my perspective has been a little closer to these events than yours. It's nice to get a view that's a little more of a big picture and a little less focused on the personalities involved.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 23rd, 2011 11:28 am (UTC)
Nicely done
excellent chronology, you really tied all the pieces together ,definitely 1 for the history books
pingback_bot
Oct. 27th, 2011 07:48 am (UTC)
Musings on Politics and Occupy Wall Street
User heron61 referenced to your post from Musings on Politics and Occupy Wall Street saying: [...] Occupy Wall Street Here's the best analysis of how the whole OWS situation got started [...]
chezmax
Oct. 27th, 2011 05:33 pm (UTC)
Nit-pick: "laissez-faire"
livejournal
Sep. 24th, 2012 02:59 pm (UTC)
It was Another 9/11, Alright - in Exactly the Way They Didn't Intend
User d_c_m referenced to your post from It was Another 9/11, Alright - in Exactly the Way They Didn't Intend saying: [...] ng thousands of civilians, but by killing exactly the wrong one. I mentioned, almost a year ago [...]
( 68 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner