Activists to Speak about Republican National Convention-Inspired Events

If Johnny Gault (pseudonymn) has not discredited himself enough by now, here's a repeat of some of the facts:

1) Gault takes a name from Ayn Rand's ideological novels and posts here to smear NPPG and the RNC protesters (when in reality, NPPG invited various groups of RNC protesters here to learn more, and NPPG members made it clear that they did necessarily not agree with or endorse the ideas or plans of all the protest groups).

2) Pete Keating (another Ayn Rand character pseudonymn) emails me to let me know that Gault has attacked NPPG.  Keating was, in other words, baiting me.

3) Gault (pseudonymn) claims that he is not Keating (pseudonymn).  Next, perhaps Gault will claim that he has no connection to the person using the Keating pseudonymn, and that this was all coincidence that one Ayn Rand character pseudonymn posts here, and then another emails me. 

4) Gault claims to be fearful of left-wing anarchists, and that this adds to his conviction that he'd rather post anonymously. 

All this makes for a wonderful argument in favor of eliminating anonymous comments altogether.

If left-wing anarchists should be preemptively arrested before the RNC, then for consistency's sake, anyone who owns a copy of an Ayn Rand novel, or has ever taken one out of a library, should be arrested and subjected to a lie detector test to see if they have ever posted online using Rand-based pseudonymns. 

I'd volunteer for the first lie-detector test.

Gault smells fishy because he loves red herrings.  He still wants to talk about charitable giving statistics on a discussion thread about the RNC.  Too bad.  At least fish can be used for fertilizer.  Gault's red herrings are simply too toxic.

Md. Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists
Surveillance's Reach Revealed
By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8, 2008; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?hpid=topnews

Follow-up on the above story:

Spying on Activists Discussed at Forum
Group Questions Why Some, Not Others
By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 12, 2008; Page C03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101427.html
 

So regarding the Johnny Gault posts on this thread:

Is Johnny Gault (AKA Pete Keating, AKA Ayn Rand fan, AKA anybody's guess) really a part of an effort, as in Md., to target, surveil, infiltrate, distract, discredit, provoke, etc., certain members of peace groups?  (You'd hate to think this is where our taxpayer dollars are going in the name of national security--but that would be a huge irony, for Johnny Gault to be the kind of blood-sucking tax-dollar leech that Rand despised.  This would be the ultimate tragedy:  For Gault to be living a life in total contradiction of the very ideology he holds so dear).

Or is he just an amatuer, a volunteer, a homeland security wannabe? 

(He's not very good at what he does, but you'd hope this guy doesn't just have too much time on his hands--when he could be learning to play a musical instrument, or volunteering at something more productive and positive -- maybe they're paying him minimum wage?  Or maybe they're paying him way too much via no-bid contract?)

Johnny, there's still time to confess your sins and let Jesus into your heart.  If you turn yourself in for the masked crimes you committed at the RNC, and if you plead guilty, there might be a way to convince the judge that you have seen the errors of your ways. 

Everyone, please, as the song bids us, let's "say a prayer for the pretender," Johnny Gault.  He's out there, somewhere, at war within the ideology-prison of his own making, within his own soul.  But we should not give up hope.  (We just might have to take the long view.)

Mr. Mask (Johnny Gault, aka Pete Keating, aka agent provocateur):

Rand's book was a snoozer, a soap-box for her to spout off about her ideology.  But you seem to have made it through Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and emerged out the other side, like a brainwashed victim of monotonous water-torture.

It's interesting that you assume you must resort to masks and lies to reach your goals.

You speak of how in Ayn Rand's book the highest value is integrity, yet you have little integrity (unless your logic is that for a liar to have integrity, he'd have to be consistent about it).  You post here under a pseudonym from one Ayn Rand novel, and then, like an agent provocateur, you obtain my email address and that of another PPG member, and you email us under a pseudonym from another Rand novel, Pete Keating (why didn't you choose the hero Howard Roark?  Too obvious, and there are Keatings who have lived in the area?). 

You hide behind the mask of these pseudonyms and play manipulative games, like those masked figures at the RNC in St. Paul.

And just as your names cannot be trusted, neither can your math.  If we live in a country where a small percentage of people own a disproportionate share of the wealth and have a vastly disproportionate share of "disposable" income, they can give to charities what seems to be large sums of money, and still be the beneficiaries of economic injustices. 

When giving to charities, 90% of us (the rest of us on the other end of the economic spectrum) are, on average, giving a larger percent of our disposable incomes.  But like Rush Limbaugh and other conservative shock-jocks, you're too impressed by big numbers to keep your cool while doing your math.

You present a caricature-list of what you'd like people to think that I'd like them to believe.  But that's as inaccurate as the level of Randian integrity you've acheived.

The fact is, PPG was against the war in Iraq from the start, before people knew about Cheney's Office of Special Plans in the pentagon that was cherry-picking and spin-doctoring intelligence, or about the yellow-cake forgery, or about the Downing St. memo, or about the no-bid reconstruction contracts and the fraud that would accompany them, or about the suppression of those who would try to become whistleblowers regarding the fraud, and before a long list of retired generals would emerge and speak out against torture and in criticism of the war or how it was being waged. 

(Notice the theme running through some of the above:  The Office of Special Plans, the forgery, the Downing Street memo, the fraud -- resorting to lies to reach goals....)

PPG was right from the start, and they didn't buy the fear-mongering, temporarily support the war, and then, as it became more clear that many things were amiss, come back around (like much of the rest of the public). 

So here you come, with your pseudonyms and your wonderfully internalized Randian ideology, acting more machiavellian than with anything like integrity.  Like the king's horses and men in the nursery rhyme, are you launching your masked attacks, perhaps to put Humpty Dumpty Bush (or is it McCain you defend?) back together as a symbol of conservatism?

Or are you simply paid to cause trouble?  A kind of propaganda-prostitute? 

Why should we trust a single thing you have to say, when you play with all these masks?

(Quick: Try another of Rand's characters' names....)

Johnny Gault would like you to believe that, during the RNC, the so-called anarchists caused all the trouble, and if anyone's free speech was infringed upon, it was those Republicans who were kept from holding their convention.  (Oops, I guess they did hold it).

What is happening here is a deception via distraction: Johnny Gault does not want you to know or focus on the facts that police in riot gear, with tear gas and pepper spray, arrested journalists and kept them from exercising their free speech and from reporting on the events; they also preemptively arrested people who were not anarchists, but who had a record of filming and documenting police abuse of force.

Fictional character Johnny Gault is, in other words, weaving a fiction.  Gault is probably producing propaganda on a volunteer basis, because we would hope that propaganda this transparent would not be worthy of a paycheck. 

At least Ayn Rand would probably think it unworthy of a paycheck.

Recent comments were posted here (not once, but twice--yes, a bit redundant) by a Johnny Gault (pseudonym).  These were in response to my earlier comments regarding NPPG, the protesters at the RNC, and my cautions not to put too much trust in appearances due to various historical precedents.

Johnny Gault is a fictional character in an Ayn Rand novel.  The novel has long been recognized as containing far more more soapbox spouting of ideology than well-wrought fiction. 

While Rand's philosophy conflicts very directly with certain Christian teachings, it is almost a religion to some, and similar in some ways to Reaganism:  Greed is good.  Self-interest is good.  Unions and workers for human rights, dignity and fair pay are portrayed as whiners and leeches, selfishly demanding what rightfully belongs to the self-sufficient and industrious rich. 

Instead of the Christian virtue of charity and giving to the poor, Rand-fans tend to quote that saying about teaching a poor man to fish-- if they're interested in teaching or helping that poor man at all. 

Rand, through her characters on their soap-boxes, stresses somehow that honesty is a virtue, but readers may wonder how quickly the virtue of honesty will give way to lies when lies do better to serve self-interest.

Hence the tendency for a commenter to use a pseudonym (a fiction, a mask, a kind of lie) instead of their real name. 

I want to say how honored I feel to be criticized by a fictional character from an Ayn Rand novel.  I never thought I'd see the day.  But now that it's arrived, I want to thank my family, my teachers, and all the great progressive journalists, besides the conservatives at the American Freedom Agenda, and Republican (but Libertarian-leaning) Representative Ron Paul of Texas, without whom I might not have arrived at this moment. 

But last, and above all others, thank you Johnny Gault, for the sweet irony of being criticized by a fictional character from a novel I never liked. 

It's very affirming, actually.

Based on my experiences during the Sept. 1 Peace March, I wrote the following commentary in an e-mail to other activists-- one of whom replied to tell me to take his name off my list and never email him again. So I think it's a better idea to post it here where folks can absorb my opinions-- or not-- without it clogging up their inboxes.

To read my essay, go to this link at the Northfield.org Forum:

http://forums.northfield.org/index.php?topic=183.0

There are many people who are fine with the idea of the Boston Tea Party -- the destruction of property (tea) in the Boston Harbor by people dressed as Indians.

There are many who are fine with Civil Rights demonstrations, and activists breaking unjust segregation laws. Or Gandhi's nonviolent demonstrations.

There are many who know that governments and private groups have sometimes orchestrated deceptions and "fake" events in order to influence the course of history:
The Trojan horse,
the burning of the Reichstag in Nazi Germany,
Operation Northwoods (a plan by the US joint chiefs to fake Cuban terrorist attacks against the US in order to generate public support to overthrow Castro;
COINTELPRO (a program by which, in the '60's and '70's, the FBI sought to infiltrate, disrupt, discredit and incite to violence various peace groups, the Black Panthers, and others);

Less well known in the US: After General Lemnitzer of the US joint chiefs worked on Northwoods and left for NATO command in Europe, Operation Gladio took place in Italy, where bombings were arranged in which real people were hurt, and they were blamed on the left, although they were not carried out by the left; they were carried out by elements arranged by what has been described as NATO underground "stay-behind" armies that continued and morphed after WWII.

More people might have more problems with this last group of decpetions than with the Boston Tea Party, MLK or Gandhi.

Regarding the RNC, the fact is that we simply do not know what happened and who did what. We know there were self-described anarchists who were against the war, and against many of the immoral and unethical activities of the Bush-Cheney administration. We know that some of them were planning, or supportive of, various protest activities that might have included chaining people to doors, or stopping traffic.

But we don't know for sure exactly who was arrested, and whether the most violent of the civilian lawbreakers were actually members of any anarchist group. These supposedly broke a window and started fires in dumpsters, as well as puncturing a tire -- all crimes against property, like the Boston Tea Party.

We don't know if these youths (most reports are that they were young males with black clothing and bandana masks) were anarchists, or some other protest group, or if they were paid to create "fake" events -- paid perhaps by Republicans. Karl Rove and others have been known to have a large bag of very dirty tricks, documented, that were used in past elections. We have a huge military-industrial complex in this country, and increasing privatization of military functions by groups like KBR and Blackwater. If I were a CEO of a large corporation whose lucrative contracts were at stake, I might not hesitate to set up channels (with degrees of separation and plausible deniability) by which people would recruit and finance troublemakers to discredit peace protests and create a highly visible media event.

So all we know is that there was trouble, and that the police, protected by riot gear and gas masks, using pepper spray and tear gas, caused far more human injury than the protesters did.

But we don't know how many anarchists were involved, and how many dollars worth of damage they did, or who the black-clothed male youths with bandanas were associated with, nor do we know their motives.

We know the events created some media spectacle, and that the mainstream media has trusted the official spokespersons more than they have asked hard questions. If the spokesperson for the RNC security says there were necessary arrests and anarchists, only the alternative media are asking questions at this point. As in the run-up to the Iraq war and the yellow-cake forgeries, the mainstream press is acting more like stenographers for official statments than they are like careful, discerning journalists who seek the truth.

We also know that journalists were arrested, and cameras were confiscated. But relatively few US citizens know about, or care about, the Constitution or Bill of Rights anymore, and we have too many distractions and toys in our lives, so it's easy to miss what may be the read problems and dangers revealed by these events:
- Why were so many arrested, and so many cameras confiscated? To intimidate, and interrupt attempts to record possible police misconduct? Intelligence and police knew that a number of groups were there who had a history of recording police actions at such events, and some had a track record of showing evidence in court that reflected poorly on the police. Were such groups targetted in advance by preemptive raids and arrests? It would seems so.
- Why did the police cause far more human injury than the protesters? Why is there so little discussion of this in the media?
- Did the police obtain and properly use all needed search warrants? Were there constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties that were violated?

So-called conservatives seem far more interested in discrediting Northfield PPG and the demonstrators than they are in being constitutionally conservative.

For a different view from conservatives who care about the constitution, visit the web site for the American Freedom Agenda, and read their list of criticisms and concerns about the Bush-Cheney years and their violations of basic aspects of the Constitution. The AFA is associated with former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who proposed a bill based on their ideas, as well as Republican/libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, who was involved in the Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton. The so-called conservatives who are commenting here are more accurately described as smear-artists and knowing or unknowing collaborators in the Republican's move (as manifested in the Bush-Cheney administration) toward something more like fascism. You can find the AFA at
http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

http://www.twincities.com/ci_10365754?source=most_viewed

Yet another story about one of PPG's featured guests at the forum last month.

I'm sorry, but PPG has absolutely no standing as an organization for "peace" given this all this.  PPG needs to offer a very, very sincere apology, or better yet, they just need to go away as a "peace" organization.  They have no credibility in this area whatsoever.

Not to be outdone, I see David Harris - another presenter at the PPG Northfield Library Forum - was arrested this afternoon, too:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/27716544.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

"We are going to march into the arms of police. Whatever they are going to do is all right with us," organizer David Harris said to the marchers before they entered the restricted zone. He was one of those arrested.

Way to go David.  I'm sure you made all the folks at PPG proud . . .

Thought I'd provide a quick update to RNC Welcoming Committee's activities during the past couple days, in case you hadn't caught the news:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/27695244.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyU

I've tried to give PPG the benefit of a doubt, but I'm beginning to think Johnny Gault may have done a good job describing this group in his previous posts.  It's hard to defend groups like the RNC Welcoming Committee.  It's even harder to understand why PPG would have invited this group to Northfield in the interest of "peace and goodwill."

I'm sure Eric would be interested to have anyone's money and not restrict himself to only Osama Bin Laden's. (j/k)

A few years ago I read a book by a junior high school teacher who was also a Vietnam veteran (I don't remember the title). It was a compilation of many statements made by many people involved in the Vietnam war. Most statements were a paragraph or two, some were over a page. The statements were from a wide range of people: Presidents Eisenhower through President Clinton, American military combat veterans (grunts and officers), ARVN, Viet Cong, North Vietnamese officers, Generals (General Westmoreland included), Secretaries of State (including Kissinger of course), even Country Joe McDonald (a former Navy man, but more well-known for his anti-war sung at Woodstock "What are We Fighting For"). This teacher wrote the book due to being asked by his students about Vietnam, and his own struggle with how to teach it. To the best of my recollection, it was written sometime in the early eighties. At the end of the book, the author summed up, kind of by condensing many of the statements made. His major point was, "What did we learn from Vietnam?" And he put out three answers: Never fight a war without popular support; Don't fight a war without having an exit strategy; there are different forms of communism.

There's another lesson, in my opinion, and wonder if any history buffs would care to share their opinion on it. The Federal government will not always base their foreign policy on the will of the American people. That's poorly worded, but allow me to elaborate. When you look back at the amount and size of demonstrations held by anti-war activists to end the war, it's somewhat rattling to think the public policy didn't change until the Watergate scandal. And then we didn't actually evacuate South Vietnam until the fall of Saigon in 1975.

What is my point then? I wouldn't tell anyone not to be an anti-war activist, or speak out against the war, etc if that's what they feel. Obviously many people have strong feelings about the Iraq War, and about civilians getting killed, and people must do what they must to do what they think is right and what will be the most helpful. And it is their right as an American citizen, as long as their actions don't violate the rights of others.

I, however, choose to speak out less about it, and write less about it than I did two years ago. One reason is the one I stated previously: I don't see our government changing policy based on protesters and the popular will of the American people. That reason alone wouldn't be enough to deter me, but there are other reasons. When it's a matter of war, the voice of civilian who's never fought is relatively weak compared to that of a combat veteran and other military personnel. The tide of the anti-war movement was radically transformed when Vietnam veterans came home and started to protest against it. That really picked up steam in 1967 (and yet still the war dragged on). I do realize there are currently anti-war groups; Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Veterans Against the Iraq War. To sum up, it is my right to express my views (on a web site, or to my elected representatives) on any national issue, but I choose to speak against the war much less than before because it's an issue that doesn't directly involve me. By that, I mean I'm not putting my life on the line. For whatever reason someone joined the military -- for the "benefits" or for patriotism, or to defend this country -- he or she is in direct danger and the potential for bodily harm, and their families are in direct danger of losing loved ones. Yes the war obviously affects every American, but not as deeply as those I mentioned. That is the main reason. Now if a veteran against the war, or if a family member of a veteran came knocking on my door and asked me to march in a peaceful anti-war protest, I would do it.

As always, I'm sure there are points here people can debate until the cows come home, but since I get dizzy from circles it's not likely I'll continue this discussion here.

Oh yes, my views are a cop-out. One other reason I "relaxed" my views is because I put a picture in my head, "What if a pro-war veteran debated with me about the war?" I couldn't really picture me having an intelligent discussion with him or her, where my views would carry much weight, not more than his or hers.

Here's some extra trivia for those interested in becoming more bored by me. Generally speaking, some Vietnam-era anti-war protesters motives were not noble or altruistic, but self-serving. There was a draft at the time so ending the war was in their best interests.

One more tidbit, I heard on MPR last year (I'm sorry I can't remember who said it) that some of the people who spit on returning veterans were pro-war activists who were angry about the "retreat," and about veterans "losing" the war. I put losing in quotes because recently a Vietnam veteran said we didn't lose that war, we.... retreated I think is what we said. He also said that Vietnam is a better place now than it would be if the war hadn't taken place.

Not everything HAS to be relative.  Peace doesnt have to be created in the presence of war.  Anger really isnt neccessary either (for continuation of our type of government), passion for ones beleifs would be enough.  Elections are won because we endorse a candidate, not because we disapprove of another candidate.  News media will inflate ANYTHING in order to boost ratings, (and thus profits), that is why they aim to create anger around politics.  Hot issues make them more money.  Money is what this country is really "about", why do you think we're at "war" with "terrorism"?  We want their power, or in other words, their money.

You have to have war to create peace. It's just common sense, and it's why we have to make sure other countries accept that our form of government is in their best interests. And peace isn't what this country is about. If Democrats didn't wage war with Republicans and vice versa, elections would be a lot tougher to win. That's why the news media and political candidates have to make sure there is the proper amount of anger and division in America, as well as other countries, to ensure a high voter turn-out and the continuation of a Democratic/Republican form of government.

Hey "Anonymous User":

You hit the nail on the head with your analysis of the PPG.  They're a bunch of hypocritical nut bags that couldn't really care less about peace.  They preach pacifism, but their primary goals are the advancement of "economic justice" (read: socialism), the weakening of the USA abroad and an open-boarder (illegal) immigration policy at home.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NorthfieldPPG/messages

They love Castro and Chavez.  They absolutely worship the UN.  They hate the military, Israel and any company that might actually turn a profit.  They think that Palestinian suicide bombers are just misunderstood and misguided, that Iranian-backed terrorists in Iraq are "freedom fighters" and that "no one is illegal" (even if you've crossed our border without a visa and assumed someone else's Social Security number).

As far as "free speech," look who's trying to shut down the Republican convention.  As usual, it's left-wing whackos trying to shout down anyone they disagree with.  But that's nothing new for the PPG... they booted me out of their group for suggesting that it was inappropriate for their hero, Dennis Kucinich, to give an anti-American propaganda interview to Syrian state-run media.  They want free speech... as long as you only say what they want to hear.

May I ask you, Mr. Anonymous, what right you have to lump together some pro-peace folks from our area with the murky, unattributed (anonymous, like you) website you mentioned? More to the point, has it occurred to you that this website may not even be published by someone who sincerely opposes the RNC, but rather by someone with the intent of spreading discord among all of us?

 From Wikipedia: Agent Provocateur --- "Traditionally, an agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent") is a person employed by the police or other law enforcement body [or perhaps a non-law enforcement body] to act undercover and entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group who provokes another to perform a wrong or rash action, the deliberate purpose being to incite wider conflict or harm."

Could it be that the nornc.org site is playing the role of an agent provocateur?

These thoughts come to my mind because I was doing some research into Gene McCarthy's bid for the Democratic nomination at the Chicago convention in 1968-- you know, the one where the cops beat the crap out of everybody. Well, it turns out that only a very few radicals showed up to fight the cops, and their "leaders" - Abbie Hoffman et al - managed to be nowhere in sight when the violence was going down. Was the whole confrontation the scheme of some agents provocateurs, with the victims being a small handful of misguided souls who were suckered into the streets to take on the cops?  Was the intent to keep a tense nation divided and on edge, so that we could not unite and oppose an unpopular war in Vietnam?

This is a concept we should all be concerned about.  And if the nornc.org website is just such an "agent provocateur," then you, Mr. Anonymous, have completely fallen for their tactic.

http://www.nornc.org/

From the website above: Crash the Convention - 2008 Call to Action - Who We Are: The RNC Welcoming Committee is an anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

P.S. I know the response already - PPG is just providing a forum for information so you can decide, blah, blah, blah.  And don't tell me the Ron Paul rep is going to provide balance!

Flame away . . .