Anonymous Attacks Chris Hedges Online Panel Discussion

Illustration: FFox

Illustration: FFox

Via Infoshop News:

On Wednesday, February 15, we launched several concurrent denial of service attacks against a website hosting an online panel discussion entitled “Occupying Beyond Divisions: Anarchy, Black Blocs and Protests” with Chris Hedges. After initially only creating a few minor disruptions, it was during the second half of the talk that we were finally successful in taking down the entire website, which remained offline further into the night.

We carried out this action because we regard this sort of institutionalized dialogue with the bourgeoisie’s hatemongering journalists about the nature of revolutionary violence to be a worthless diversion for any movement striving for the complete liberation of the oppressed. Having abandoned all pretensions of providing the public with socially responsible criticism, the once distinguished men and women of letters have reduced themselves to hacks: mechanically churning out one article after another in sycophantic defense of their corporate sponsors. While journalists have always more or less modified the truth at the request of their wealthy patrons, what is currently most striking about the filler crowding today’s newspapers is how the poorly written and researched articles now serve, only at best, as a mere decorative showcasing for the adjacent advertisements.

It is therefore of no value for us to enter into debate with cretins, who imitate illiterate cavemen, and spend their days endlessly producing primitive scribbles in order to adorn the distorted images of the modern-day fetish: the commodity. We prefer not to squander our time and energy in a discussion on equal footing with the press establishment, as they should, accordingly, be more mindful of the present environmental crisis, and stop needlessly wasting precious ink and paper …

Read more here.

39 Comments on "Anonymous Attacks Chris Hedges Online Panel Discussion"

  1. Mi Familia. | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:29 pm |

    I like Chris. I like attending OWS protests. I attended the first OWS protest with my 3 year old. I wanted to introduce my son to peaceful resistance. Anonoymous: You’re alienating families with BB tactics. It isn’t bourgeois to have children and a family. Damn you.

    • Anarchy Pony | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm |

      This isn’t a picnic in the park, it’s class war.

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

          that only accounts for some black bloc incidents most notably those in the press. diversity of tactics- it’s been utilised in every revolution or resistance movement from India to Egypt, Indigenous Peoples of the Americas to South Africa. Do you really believe societal shifts occur within the complacent paradigm of ‘inequality’? I think (and many agree) systemic change is nessacery.

        • Anarchy Pony | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:56 pm |

          All the more reason to be cautious and not bring your children to an event that could turn violent. 

          If you people think that any kind of significant change can occur without at the very least some violence, you are severely kidding yourselves. 
          The only way that it would be remotely possible without mass violence(and that is still unlikely) is with a mass dropout from the global industrial economy, with local and regional material independence from corporate and capitalist manufacturing and production. 
          Barring that it would require direct disruption of avenues of commerce a la the Oakland port blockades, but that will of course be accompanied by the violent repression from state and private police and even military force, which means you get taken into police custody, or killed if you do not defend your body and your actions. 
          If you don’t take real action of some kind then all that Occupy amounts to is a pointless steam valve that vents public frustration and accomplishes nothing. 

          • Hadrian999 | Feb 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

             sadly this is true, I just hope it is controllable violence and not a random explosion of rage

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 20, 2012 at 8:26 pm |

            If you don’t take real action of some kind then all that Occupy amounts to is a pointless steam valve that vents public frustration and accomplishes nothing.

            Yeah, but what constitutes “real action”?  The civil rights movement was non-violent and it accomplished great things.  In fact, violence would have only helped the state squash it and keep the status quo moving forward.

          • Anarchy Pony | Feb 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm |

            The civil rights movement had tremendous amounts of support from most of the country, and even a great deal inside the government. LBJ practically physically threatened segregationists. And there were certainly undercurrents and threats of violence behind the whole situation. Black panther party?

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm |

            The civil rights movement wasn’t non-violent. Riots and Bus Boycotts, Mass Sit ins, and Malcolm X.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Feb 21, 2012 at 9:33 am |

            It’s not about complete non-violence, that’s the ideal we strive for though. the civil rights movement, Indian independence and anti-apartheid movements were special because they showed a huge reduction in violence in what was a massive social change. It showed a mentality shift from violence towards individuals to violence towards the system. I do agree with Anarcy Pony that its no “picnic in the park”, and some situations call for more militant activism.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 11:19 am |

            in truth to call the apartheid movement or the indian independence movement “non violent” is (I know I know very common is this instance and i am not correcting you personally for it) ridiculous. The S. African state forcibly shot, raided, imprisoned, forced laboured, ghettoised 90% of the country and declared WAR on the resistance. The Indian Independence movement was no different, the British used every forcible means to quell any dissent. Bhagrat Singh, who bombed a british assembly, was executed and also an important reason WHY the British choose Gandhi- as the heir to the empire (his willingness to form an agreement with the british). You really cannot use Colonialism and Nationalist Resistance to Colonialism in the same sentence as Non-Violence. IF the state uses murderous means to suppress dissent- that ideology is immedietly negated.

            There is also the definition of non-violence. I wholeheartedly disagree that ‘complete nonviolence’ is the ideal. What is the defintion of it? In today’s pacified resistance to “inequality” (a vague abstraction really) a Bus Boycott would be considered “violent” the occupation of private spaces (much less public) is AN ACT OF FORCE. I am NOT advocating militarisation or even interpersonal violence. But resistance is force, it’s not ideology. And if one’s personal choice is Black Bloc Tactics (or the reverse the rejection of those tactics) everyone within the same ideological and physical camp should express SOLIDARITY with those people.

            Again, i am not responding to you personally-rather ideologically. And i appreciate having this discussion, i think it’s very nessacery to progress.

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:37 pm |

      somehow Greece has reconciled a diversity of tactics with family and society… it’s only bourgeois when you pay lip service to a movement in which you cannot at least support those whose actions are meant to dramatically jar the system you are also protesting. Solidarity, i believe is the concept of the day.

    •  It would be much fairer for Black bloc to user OWs protests as diversions ie all the protesters are at a particular location with police all around. Black bloc should be using the absence of police at that location to hold there own acts of activism elsewhere.
      On the other side of the city, completely separate from the OWS protest and not associated with it, a rolling protest that quickly forms, strikes it’s intended targets along a particular route and then disappears, a long distance away from the OWS protest and their accompanying law enforcement goon squads.
      This to try to ensure those goon squads lack the excuse to brutalise peaceful protesters.

  2.  Yea…..Anonymous
    C.I.A…..!!! Wake up enchanted…!!! He is suing the government for the
    unconstitutionality of the NDAA!!! (National “Defense”Authorization

    • Anarchy Pony | Feb 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

      Yes, and of course that will pan out. 

      • Tuna Ghost | Feb 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm |

        the point, I think, is that Hedges is not an enemy of Anonymous, or anyone looking to fight the prevailing injustices.  

  3. Any piece of shit can go around screwing others and say he is anon! Wake up! If the message does not feet the messenger it’s because it’s not him damned are you dumb or playing been blind!!!!! Anonymous  is PRO Freedom of speech! What part of that message didn’t you get yet!??? Now think a little bit who is against freedom of speech!!! FASCIST! Who are they!? Where are they!? How do they look like!? What do they do!? Ok! Now try to think alone! What’s wrong with you guys, do you need to be Jump started or what..!!????

  4. Neil busacca | Feb 20, 2012 at 5:29 pm |

    Chris hedges is actually one of the good guys.
    Anonymous should attack better targets.
    Chris is no anarchist but he does some good work.
    Attacking chris hedges gives anonymous no cred.

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm |

       chris hedges alienated a lot of people with his article. even people like me who are very neutral towards black bloc tactics. naomi klein and maude barlow have all done similar things, and within the activist and anarchist communities lost a lot of respect. chris hedges should be trying to build diversity, not amplifying the same mainstream perceptions of anarchists many hold.

      • UselessJunk | Feb 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm |

        Oh noes he has one article you disagree with.  For fuck’s sake, pick your fights.

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 4:59 pm |

          I don’t agree with shutting down an online panel discussion that mayhave been productive; however i agree that Chris Hedges has had some very deserving backlash. People who use words like “stinkhole” and “oh noes” really should not refer to others as immature. Nice to meet you Chris.

  5. What would stop the CIA from doing the attacks, and claiming it was Anonymous? I mean, I’ve followed Chris Hedges for years, and I cannot for the life of me figure out anyone in the mainstream media that is more outspoken about current institutions and media. Read his book Empire of Illusions.   

  6. Indrid C. | Feb 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

    It’s hilarious that everyone still treats “anonymous” as one large entity.

  7. Eh, Hedges is a total tool.  But this kind of attack wasn’t really thought out very well.  Attacking someone for speaking against you is a very, VERY Marxist thing to do, and is thus conduct unbecoming an Anarchist.  Better to just let the criticisms of Hedges stand as the obvious win that they were.  The whole notion of “non-violent change” is to say, “i’m going to nag enough until the mommy daddy state gives me the moderate concessions I want, just like they did for Ghandi”.  That should be clear enough to folks who bother to think anyway…but DDoS’ing Hedges doesn’t induce thought; it induces reaction.

  8. Hadenough | Feb 20, 2012 at 7:42 pm |

    Wow, anonymous actually attached Chris Hedges (The Pulitzer-prize winning Chris Hedges…)

    Anonymous, I used to feel something for you guys, but now you guys are just a bunch of juvenile, destructive assholes. Now I hope you all get righteously fucked down the road. You’ve got nothing better to do then attack a modern day hero that’s practically on your side for the most part???

    Why don’t you turn that gun around just a little bit more and shoot yourselves in the fucking face. Oh wait, I think you already did with this stunt.

    • Anarchy Pony | Feb 20, 2012 at 8:11 pm |

      Chris? Is that you?

    • If you’d made it to the end of the linked diatribe, you would have noticed that this attack was not the work of Anonymous, but of the “American Anarchist Fighters”.

      Yes, the submission was “Contributed by: Anonymous”, but think about it…

      The only claim that the attack had anything to do with Anonymous in the sense to which you’re hysterically abreacting is in the headline of this Disinfo posting.

      Dunno about you, but I sure would feel like a fuckwit for having had, publicly and with great faggotry, such a ‘road to Damascus’ opinion-changing reaction motivated by a miscomprehension that could have been cleared up with miniscule effort.

  9. So, Anonymous is attacking those that don’t fall in line and subscribe to their ideology….

    Hmmm, who else did that? Oh right, the Nazis.  

    • “American Anarchist Fighters”

      how the fuck do you people write if you can’t read?

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 6:16 am |

       while i don’t agree with this specific action, i do agree with the intent because CH, with his unresearched attackive article, perpetrated the first attack on the community of activists who embrace a diversity of tactics.

      • UselessJunk | Feb 21, 2012 at 4:43 pm |

        Chris Hedges “perpetrated the first attack”?  Pull your head out of your stinkhole.  There are TONS of actual bad guys out there, Chris Hedges did nothing more than wrinkle your feathers, and you flip out.  Extremely immature.

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 21, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

           “while i don`t agree with this specific action.“

          reading comprehension. and what he did was intellectually dishonest and not in keeping with the solidarity princples of activism and dissent.

          Your condescension has no basis, factual or intellectual. I did not `flip out` I was very disapointed in his article- a difference, yes?

  10. Chris Hedges is much more radical, thoughtful, and lucid than those attacking him. He is more brave to fight with peace than they are to fight with violence. He is more intellectual to have his every thought recorded, instead of hiding behind anonymity. Hedges announces his attacks beforehand, the anarchist cowards show up when they don’t think they will be caught. Hedges constantly attacks the corrupt state as a whole, while the anarchists attack whatever disagrees with them that day. I’ll stick with Hedges.

  11. razzlebathbone | Feb 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

    The Black Bloc are, for the most part, cops and agents provocateur. There are a few copycat civilians out there who were fooled into doing it themselves, but the real purpose of the BB is to give cops the excuse to shit-pound any activist they want.

  12. FREAKpowerULTD | Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20 am |

    “American Anarchist Fighters”

    sounds like a wrestling federation. I think this has to be some authoritarians having a laugh. The writing is pathetically juvenile. They even call David Graeber a “traitorous parasite” and he wrote one of the best counter arguments to Chris Hedges article, not to mention he’s an anthropologist who identifies as anarchist and helped organize OWS in the beginning. Interestingly enough, I seem to recall hearing a talk by Hedges where he identified himself as a Christian Anarchist.

    Anyways, as an anarchist I’d advise people to be wary of this type of bullshit. They’d love to divide us from this movement because we are the backbone. These aren’t the type of actions any anarchists I’ve ever known or observed condone and if you think thats the case you don’t know much about anarchists or anarchism.

  13. Black March Boycott protest ACTA, do NOT buy Movies, Music or Video Games for the month of March.  Send a message to the entertainment industry by having them watch their profit margin drop.

    google it Black March, Operation Black March, Black March Protest and Black March Boycott.  starts 3-1-2012 spread the word…….

  14. Is this “Anonymous” moron for real?  What gibberish.

Comments are closed.