Questions that commanders, the assistant chief of staff, intelligence (G-2), and the intelligence officer (S-2) should consider when developing an understanding of the operational characteristics of the threat are—
•Who are the leaders of the group? What are their roles, styles, personalities, abilities, beliefs, rivalries, and insecurities?
•Who makes up the group? Are they cohesive or riddled with factional divisions?
•How are members recruited, trained, and retained?
•What is the group’s organizational infrastructure (funding sources, communications, and logistics control)?
•What are the group’s propaganda and media resources and capabilities?
•What are the group’s security and intelligence resources and capabilities?
•What beliefs; cleavages; and ideological, political, and cultural codes affect or impact the group?
•What are the group’s operational doctrine, strategies, and TTP?
•Are there linkages with the police, military, other criminal organizations, political parties or groups, major businesses, or other organizations?
•What are the group’s goals?U.S. Field Manual No. 3-37.2: Antiterrorism (via no-vvolf)
In regular armies, only 2% ever pick up weapons, so the other 98% of the armed forces just do support work. The same with the I.R.A. Only 2% picked up weapons. The other 98%, they did the support. Most people don’t have the personality for it, or they can’t take the risk for reasons that are totally legitimate. What you need always is that 2%. …
So this for you who are the 2%, because I know you’re here, and you are the people I need to talk to because we need to take down industrial civilization.
We need warriors who will put themselves between what is left of this planet and fossil fuel. Now that could be done nonviolently. If we get the numbers, we could shut this party down by midnight. I don’t see the numbers. I would love to be wrong. I would in fact vastly prefer to wage this struggle nonviolently. But I don’t see the numbers, and my longing will not render forth. And it’s a little late in the day for millennialism.
So given a realistic assessment of what we actually have, the only viable strategy that I can see is direct attacks on infrastructure. In very plain terms: we need to stop them.
Now this is not a game for children, and this revolution is not “for the hell of it”. We need a serious underground organization that has the discipline, the training, the command structure and the strategic savvy to coordinate decisive attacks on a continental scale, and we needed it yesterday.
Lierre Keith, Deep Green Resistance
“This is not a game for children”.
Still waiting for Project Mayhem…(via lostgrrrls)
Ah-ah-ah. Say what you will, this radfem transphobe has a solid point. This is where we must take what is good from Keith’s work (and DGR’s) and apply a newer, better praxis; namely and obviously, one that includes trans* people.
Two choices were given to our DGR group; to either stay and agree 100% with DGR’s radical feminist and, frankly (to anyone socially aware of transphobia), anti-trans stance* or to quit. Not a single person I’ve talked with thus far has decided to stay with DGR. The following members have announced that they will not work with DGR, given the ultimatum imposed on our group by the DGR Staff: [10 redacted names].
The following are probably quitting (including new members who I wanted to join DGR but won’t because they’ve expressed concerns with DGR over transphobia and/or are genderqueer/trans themselves) as well. I’ll be sure to give you their confirmation: [9 redacted names].
Hopefully we actually can ally in the future. We do have a lot of work to do.
[me, one of the former DGR SF Bay Area group organizers)
*Although I myself am not trans, I do not mind having a serious discussion with anyone who wishes about why so many of us here believe the position DGR has taken and imposed upon us is wrong and deadly to our planet. This is a serious offer from me.
First, on principle, we need to analyze our privileges and dismantle them. The position and responses out of DGR sound, to be blunt, strikingly similarly to a white person denying that whatever racist/white supremacist things they say and believe aren’t actually racist/white supremacist. It’s disturbing to me that this oppressive stance is also being advanced at a progressive one (i.e. “protecting women’s spaces absolutely”). I understand that questioning privilege often times reaches a denial stage and that identifying oppression/privilege takes time. (We’ve all been there, and will be there.) However, this is something that is more than just theoretical disagreement. It isn’t, and never has been, an “issue”. This is about including/excluding the existence of real oppressed peoples the world over—in a collapsing omnicidal civilization—in a war to save what remains of our planet. We’re not quitting because we think it’s fun, cool or worth some cheap shock value; we’re quitting because this is a war, and we will not abandon or betray our comrades and fellow revolutionaries.
Second, strategically, in the wealthy nations, I think there’s no way an aboveground assembled by DGR will be able to function effectively given this position that DGR has taken—simply put, no one aware of this stance will join. My fear is that people working with Occupy The Machine will disassociate themselves over this. Whether they say so publicly or not is irrelevant. This stance has consequences I’ve experienced directly and personally while trying to organize my group. People didn’t join specifically mentioning problems with DGR, including transphobia. I don’t think a hypothetical underground would even want to be associated DGR if and/or once actions are taken given the stance adopted by DGR and the name it’s making for itself. Worse, the position that DGR has taken may and probably will negatively influence all anti-civ thought and activism from the Left, allowing for the unabated murder of our planet to carry on—as if this radical feminist/anti-trans stance is more important than being effective at stopping the murder of our planet.
That said, it’s really sad that we agree with 99% of DGR’s analysis and this problem had to present itself to us. We wish it could have been different, but we didn’t choose this. And, well, we deserve better.Email reply to Deep Green Resistance’s ultimatum, from DGR SF Bay Area. Dated 29 April 2012. (Actual email)