I went from being a teenage conspiracy theorist, to not being a conspiracy theorist, to hating most conspiracy theorists.
The George Floyd Rebellion resoundingly showed that conspiracy theorists, especially those identified as leftist, were among the front line of counterinsurgency and the inability of the all sorts of radicals, to include militants and anarchists, to interrogate conspiracies offered means it is a counterinsurgency at the root.
We need to confront them.
I’ll break this down, I’m going to lightly touch on the George Floyd Rebellion, go into what happened with Rayshard Brooks, then talk about the rhetoric then what the reality is.
On the Rebellion
I had an associate, one of those odd Bordiga elitist type communists who seemed to associate with anarchists just purely out of hatred for the authoritarian’s piss poor mainstream anti-imperialist takes, and they moved from an area with no meaningful militant scene to an area with a longer history of it. The George Floyd Rebellion popped off and that scene went hard, as to be expected. This person was posting the most asinine conspiracy theories, the “leaving bricks out”, sharing the white dude smashing up an autozone, and complaining about fireworks in their new area during protests.
Aside from the bricks being left by cops bullshit and the irrelevant white dude smashing shit up, I was particularly annoyed at the fireworks comment because I had associated with that scene once. It was a tale as old as time, they’d done that for years even in the smallest groupings, and I confronted them over this. I told them it was a common means of combating cops, this group has a history of this, and that’s just not even considering noise marches. They resisted my comments, that from their high rise condo, they could see the fireworks, and they thought it was suspect.
I asked them, great that you can see it from the high rise, but have you gone to taken the streets at all to confirm this for yourself? “Well, no..”
The annoyance ran deep. I had told a white liberal that same uprising to visit the CHAZ (regardless of feelings about it personally, this isn’t a cosigning, but again a “hey, go look for yourself and report back what YOU saw”) and unlike the Boridagist, the white liberal did, and they were shocked at basically how none of the shit they saw on social media matched what they experienced in their day there.
But from that time period, the one that brings me anger the most is the fallout from the murder of Rayshard Brooks. That Wendys had every reason to be burnt the fuck down by a random stranger out of anger even before it was the source of Brooks’ murder. When videos came out, immediately the narrative of “outside agitator” hit, that it was random violent white people invading and causing hell. Nevermind that “outside agitator” was always a counterinsurgent charge lobbied against even MLK and most leftists will buy in significant degrees “outside agitator”. Was is an outside agitator in a global struggle? I digress.
I was angry though. I was messaging locals sharing the videos, people who were eager to call out the murder of Rayshard Brooks while occupying the same role of the cops who killed him in the effort to track down the “outside agitator”. I was mad, we could play true crime social media or what have you, but the impulse again is a long one, the impulse of a conspiracy theorist. To shout “I got one”. We’ll get into the rhetoric, but a conspiracy theorist is just another wannabe cop and they don’t have the self awareness to clock it yet.
I was arguing, telling them to take down the videos, and then finally she got caught, Natalie White, Rayshard Brooks’ girlfriend. I’m a hater first and foremost, but I’m equally a lover, and that broke me. If I was Natalie White, I’d be at a minimum also burning down a fucking Wendys. I remember DMing the locals again, great job you fucking wannabe cop, you got his girlfriend arrested, how’s that going for you? Only to be responded with a deletion of accounts. The cowards knew they were wrong and that simply meant disappearing, no longer associating with the fact that for a brief moment, while vocally condemning the state, they were its most effective counterinsurgent operatives.
I hope those snitches fear everyday of their fucking life. I want the worst for them. They didn’t do this out of fear, they did this as an act to eagerly assimilate into the power structure without a critical thought in their fucking heads. Somehow being the eager snitches of the state and thinking you are acting in opposition to it rather in accordance with is a brain rot most people are seemingly incapable of escaping.
They are in “opposition” to the state, seemingly, until they’re in power. The articulation of conspiracies is to justify either their approach to taking power or to justify their inaction, which I’ll get into. I keep referring to Malatesta, but I think again to him in “Why Fascism Won” when the Italian Republican Giuseppe Benci that their party hasn’t hindered the fascists in power because when they (the Italian Republicans) have the power of the state, they’d want to do more or less the same thing.
The Logic
Let’s break down the logic of these conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy theories, in times of uprising, are always aimed at violence and to suggest that violence is either fake or initiated by an outsider to justify state repression. The alternative is always that nonviolence or inaction is the only good choice. Even “diversity of tactics” or “St Paul’s Principles” motherfuckers will utilize conspiracies in order to condemn militant tactics. I said in another writing I remember being in a march and a young Black boy was banging windows, that he got badjacketed by older Black folks into calming down. A child who was no older than twelve was accused of doing fed shit by being understandably angry in a protest against police violence.
The right wing may most certainly suggest the giant marches of liberals are paid protestors, etc, and this clearly isn’t a conspiracy the left buys because they’re the participants of those protests, but then again, as with leftists against most militants, they have zero hesitation to regurgitate right wing conspiracy theories in matters of tactics they’re uncomfortable with. To summarize:
Leftists don’t regurgitate right-wing talking points of protests being filled with paid-for protestors because they’re often the ones in those protests, but they will happily regurgitate that about militant actions for the exact same reason right-wingers do: because they don’t participate in that and refuse to acknowledge it as a reality to contend with, that there is a mass of people doing some shit they cannot fathom them doing.
We know for the past few decades nonviolence hasn’t done shit and is easily comparable to having done nothing. The anti-war protests, being the largest within American history, were the embodiment of mostly nonviolent protests, and were absolutely worthless. So if we assume that with a few decades of evidence that nonviolent protests are worthless and shift gears to insurgency, rather than being treated with a critical strategic eye, we have conspiracy theorists shouting “no!” “this is the only way” “any other way you are likely a fed” and it keeps the radicals in line because even so-called anarchists will buy a fedjacket wholesale with no evidence beyond a person being a bit to vocally militant.
No one is going to point fingers at the person silencing all dissent and only encouraging nonviolence as being a fed, even though their actions clearly don’t challenge the state and not just that, but they are eagerly working on behalf of the state as a counterinsurgent albeit unconsciously. I want to emphasize that no one is safe from being a conspiracy theorist and even if they don’t regurgitate some arguments, they will do other arguments that make effectively the same conclusions, even if they’re supposedly militant and condemn nonviolent action.
So again the logic here is:
If you are committing violence, you have no reason to actually do that. The only reason you would do that is is you are a fed, an op, or working alongside those who do repression. The only way we can ensure that you are not effective at repressing us is by either only being nonviolent or not doing anything, even if that’s contrary to reality.
It is a lose-lose argument because there’s no reasoning with a conspiracy theorist. If you disagree with this, you must be a fed, must be misinformed, or any number of other things. The problem here is the imagined fed in your head isn’t doing the repressing at this point, it is the conspiracy theorist acting on their conspiracies.
The Extended-Logic
Conspiracy theorists who seemingly do critique liberal nonviolence and call themselves anarchists or militants tend to extend these logics in other means. They’re snakes in the grass, they’re even more insidious than the usual conspiracy theorist because they seem more reasonable, and that reasoning is often rooted in a detachment. These types are usually techies of some kind or center an awareness around digital security or talk about hacking or anything quite a bit. Or they’re elder anarchists who, despite whatever militant talk they have, are materially indistinguishable from the non-profits they collaborate with.
These conspiracy theorists, they’ll perhaps reject the bricks in the streets conspiracy, maybe even someone entertain an infilitrator, but then they may hyper-obsess over something like signal being exposed, being a bad security app, that we shouldn’t used it, yadda yadda. Or they’ll suggest a person is moving through spaces too quickly because they’re good looking and might be an infiltrator on that alone. Let’s stick with the Signal example here, but we can replace signal with any form of technology at this point. This conspiracy theorist is not discussing opsec or just smart digital security, this conspiracy theorist is doing what the other ones do, but again in another way.
The extended logic here is that: the state is an omnipresent and omnipotent force capable of anything and in an effort to fight the state, we have to find ways to dodge its omnipresence and omnipotence. But its omnipresent and omnipotent, so there is no way to dodge it, yet we must dodge it. Therefore, we enter into an endless loop of not taking action against the state, but trying to find a means to circumvent the state, so we can potentially take action against the state, but we can’t find a means because the moment we do, the omnipresence and omnipotence will again have us adapt. Either it monitors all technology in such a way as the inevitability catch you or you finally fall prey to the wrong attractive person.
It is similar to my critiques on mass organizing, but this thinking is a fear-based issue of trying to take action only from a position of comfort and confidence, but there will never be such a thing, so we must take action despite the lack of confidence or comfort. The inaction has to be justified though to the conspiracy theorist, its not that they agree or disagree with fighting the state, but it is that they will always justify a reason not to and scorn reasons to.
This actually has me stumble into my next talking point on the reality, because this train of thought with tech seems like its more reasonable or its evidence based, but its not at all.
The Reality
What I’m discussing here is specific to one instance, but its a massive instance and we see it pop up in smaller forms. On January 20th, 2017, militants fucked up shit in D.C. It was great time. Hundreds took part, more than two hundred were arrested, mostly militants, and whatever technology they had was confiscated on them. Cellphones primarily and within 24 hours, the feds were attempting to log-in to these devices. Undoubtedly, these people were apart of radical networks, used signal, you name it. The feds even used a warrant against the DisruptJ20 website, pulled 1.3 million IP addresses, and they were on the hunt.
Yet by July 2018.. All charges were dropped and nothing resulted from this.
J20 existed and the militants active that day escaped felony charges. If you were to listen to a so-called anarchist conspiracy theorists about digital security and something like signal, you’d assume these people were thoroughly fucked. I’m hard pressed to assume that each of the 200+ people had flawless digital security, had zero record prior, and were the perfect ones to get arrested because there was no way they’d simply be caught.
So what is the alternative explanation for why the 200+ militants didn’t get successfully charged and disappeared? Despite the omnipresence and omnipotence of the state? Why did they, despite having more surveillance and technology than ever before, fail to convict 200+ people who were clearly present at J20 compared to the handful of convictions from the Green Scare in the early 2000s?
Because most successful charges are from the traditional forms of sleuthing and the militants did enough to prevent that by either being mostly properly bloc’d along with other basic security culture shit or a lack of evidence if they failed to do that. The state over-relied on technology and fascist collusion. Militants continued agitating on behalf of comrades during the trial, to such a point that a juror read “google jury nullification” in a bathroom stall, then in fact did google it, then shared it with the court. A small action with a lot of reverberations. Although I mention the good, even then there were still cowards preventing supporters from going on the offensive during the trial, but that’s beyond the purview of what I’m reflecting on at this moment.
The fact that hundreds of people in black bloc could go casually fuck up downtown D.C. on inauguration day and get away with it, even when nearly half were charged and arrested, is an impressive moment in militant history that does not get the credit it deserves. Without a doubt, militants fought police, broke through police lines, got injured during the course of the fighting, caused havoc for an entire day, those that were arrested went through even more hardcore shit, and yet they managed to escape without felonies or fines even though the trial itself was a long challenge.
What’s this to say?
When I hear of militants getting caught up or in trouble, it had little to do with the supposed omnipresence or omnipotence of the state. It was either an action in which trouble was expected or they did worse than the bare minimum to keep themselves safe (showing tattoos, wearing unique identifying apparel, not dealing with surveillance cameras beforehand). It is never “a network of anarchists was uncovered by the CIA hacking their television to surveil a secret meeting”. Their level of technological capability is not actually 1:1 repression capability, it is a flex at best, a blatant lie at worst, and propaganda regardless. Certainly, it is a factor to not be discounted, but mistaking technological capability for immediate and comparable repression is a grave mistake. Cameras are still the main foot soldiers of digital repression and we see this with the successful cases against militants or potential assassins, such as Luigi. When I had dealt with my own bout of repression, it was from my personal fuck up, and a phone call from someone who saw my shit and decided to let the state know. That’s it. Nothing fancy.
The Conclusion
This is not an argument against digital security or to not take the state seriously, but it is to point out that your supposed comrades might, out of fear, be counterinsurgents where their paranoia takes priority over everything else. At a minimal, that paranoia comes in the form of them constantly unwilling to take risks because of getting caught. On the other end, it’s them being very casual about fedjacketing and badjacketing even if its not explicit. Labeling other radicals or militants as dangerous because they aren’t restrained by cowardice, that they don’t let state repression slow them down. This isn’t a defense of people who are incredibly sloppy and loud, but there’s plenty of brave people that border getting fed and badjacketed because they don’t mince words.
You have an obligation, if you are a militant or an anarchist, to deal with these motherfuckers if you are true to your name. They’re likely the person actively help stir up general paranoia in your scenes that results in you becoming a bunch of do-nothings. They likely bloc actions, they get more militant people removed from scenes, and they plant the distrust the state needs for repression to succeed. Repression needs isolation and these conspiracy theorists are masters of isolating people out of their own cowardice, but acting as if they’re simply protecting their friends, when in reality, they’re ensuring their friends remain anarchists only in name.
Take stock of your own communities. Whose regularly put out paranoid takes that slowed you down or prevented an action entirely? Whose paranoia has driven who from what scenes? Whose paranoia is within reason, who manages to still take action vs whose paranoia is unfounded and prevents action? Whose been able to leverage a position of informal authority (knowledge-based) to stop your groups from doing anything? Whose been the gatekeeper to “protect” the scene while ensuring actions look like another liberal march? Whose conspiracy theories are always seemingly adjacent to fascists? Who regularly spews unfounded concerns with no evidence? Whose quick to fedjacket? To badjacket? Whose a hypocrite, condemning how you act online, maybe rightfully, but hosting a podcast that gets used for actual evidence in a trial? Whose paranoia ensures that whatever you do, it’s minimal? Ask yourself these questions to reflect on the likelihood you’ve been a victim and if you haven’t been a victim, maybe you’ve been an enabler. How should you rectify that?
1984 was a horror story about government false flag operations in a dystopia getting you caught up in resisting and anyone whose read it keeps that part as a parable, ignoring the part where the author was a snitch, which is a far more real threat than a government false flag operation that’ll get you caught up. Probably because the real lesson here would be not to associate with a democratic socialist.