COINTELPRO, Provocateurs, and Prisoners: An Interview
I recently did an interview with Vegan Police that is timely and worth reposting. The interview covered subjects that have become increasingly relevant with recent events, including: provocateurs, critics, informants, COINTELPRO, how to deal with suspected informants, and much more.
Reposted from Vegan Police.
Your website has been inter woven in Walter Bond’s case, with Walter allegedly telling an informant to check Animal Liberation Front-Line (formerly Voice of the Voiceless) to see “what he has been up to.” Do you feel a burden of responsibility knowing that the site is that well known and a hub or is that how you measure effectiveness?
This question became more relevant in the last 24 hours, after the FBI raided my home for the second time in five months yesterday. The new search warrant named certain communications to Animal Liberation Front-Line as among the items to be seized. This is the second time VOV has been mentioned in an FBI document in recent months.
Since its launch, Animal Liberation Front-Line has focused on original content. I rarely repost articles, or post anything that isn’t offering some value, some insight or layer to the story no other source is offering. The internet is well past the point of data saturation, and I don’t want to add to it with unoriginal or redundant content.
The burden of increased site-traffic comes in having to be increasingly cautious in my reporting. Several times in recent months the media has picked up on stories that I’ve broken on Animal Liberation Front-Line, and I’ve become much more hesitant to post any exclusive / breaking information without being 100% certain it is 100% accurate.
As an example, for weeks there was fairly solid speculation that the mystery informant in Walter Bond’s case was his brother. I was 95% certain based on what I was hearing, but I held off on reporting this until getting confirmation from Walter himself. Within minutes of posting, I was getting calls from the media, reporters who would likely never look at the site again if they were to catch me in one inaccuracy. Before Animal Liberation Front-Line was getting decent traffic, I would have been less likely to hold myself to professional standards.
The burden comes in having to hold back on the stories I want to write. I’m sitting on several bombshell pieces of info that I’ve been waiting for 100% confirmation on before reporting. Were I doing just another blog, I would not have to be so restrained.
After Walter was charged by the FBI I was expecting a show of support from the vegan community. Instead I got a lot of criticisms about his personal appearence (face tattoo’s) as well as his adherence to straight edge and his past arson convictions. A “vegan” celebrity can endorse and promote products which brutally test on animals and be revered as a God, but an activist with a face tattoo allegedly sets three fires (which harm no human or animal life) and is ostracized. Do you think there is a larger comment on appearance based activism at work here?
One thing I learned early on: There are people who do, and people who criticize. And those two character types rarely overlap. The critic-to-doer ratio is easily 20-to-1. Anyone who steps up and brings their beliefs into action – whether as a grassroots activist or A.L.F. operative – subjects themselves to the attention-seeking chatter of the other 98%. I don’t think those critics are relevant because they don’t do anything. And I think in activism, you forfeit your right to have an opinion about what others are doing when you don’t do anything yourself.
That is my opinion of anyone who would deny an A.L.F. prisoner support because of a tattoo. Critics do damage with their hit-and-run internet slander assaults and whisper-campaigns. They exist because they know they can escape being confronted about what exactly they are contributing to the movement. When I see people who only show up at meetings to obstruct everyone else’s ideas, or make a name for themselves slandering people, I think they should either show us what value they are offering animals, or be shown the door.
Along those same lines, Walter has entered a plea of “not guilty” and IS innocent until proven guilty, however, many people feel like he MUST be guilty because of his appearance, past history, etc. Why are we so quick to internalize the messages authorities and major media send out about people in our own communities?
Receive updates via email: Subscribe here.