Blackcap Blog

Published at 10:16 on 14 July 2018

This turned out to be an innocuous threat, though it was definitely a threat (the security perimeter around the president was breached). Expect more such threats to hit the news: Trump is a uniquely unpopular president (and rightly so), therefore there’s a uniquely great motive for actions against him.

There are no perfect security measures; all measures have their holes and oversights. The Secret Service knows this, and their response to it is redundancy. They have multiple shells of security surrounding the president. Each shell is imperfect (see my first point), thus has a slight chance of being breached. However, the overall chance of breaching all the shells is vanishingly low.

George W. Bush was in his time astoundingly unpopular, as well, yet he served out both his full terms. The Secret Service successfully stopped all threats against him. The strategy of having multiple security layers worked.

And yes, there were foiled assassination plots. Such plots have existed against all modern presidents. The reason you haven’t heard of them is that the Secret Service lives up to its name: they deliberately keep news of foiled plots classified so as not to have the news of them inspire copycats.

That policy only works if the outermost layers enable plots to be stopped before they start. If surveillance allows a plot to be broken up before anyone can be deployed on the ground, or an agent arrests a gunman well before he gets within even a mile of a motorcade route, it can all be easily hushed up.

It’s basically impossible to hush things up once the outer layers get penetrated. The president is accompanied by a retinue of reporters wherever he travels, and it is newsworthy when the security perimeter gets breached.

That’s what made the Greenpeace action so successful: once that guy got through, it was virtually ensured there would be multiple videos and reports of his action hitting the news. It also made it risky, of course: he could easily have been shot out of the air and killed.

But I am digressing. Go back to my initial points about all security measures having their holes, and Trump being uniquely unpopular. Put those two together and it means that the chance of the outer layers getting penetrated is much higher than for most presidents, simply because there’s more people attempting to penetrate them.

This time, it was a harmless penetration. The Secret Service may well have even been aware that Greenpeace might be planning such an action, and have decided to deprioritize it in favor of focusing on more serious threats. Greenpeace, after all, has a long, proud tradition of confining itself to only nonviolent direct actions, so the worst that would likely happen is what did in fact happen: an embarrassing penetration, but no actual harm done to anybody.

The next time, however, the penetration might not be so innocuous. It probably still won’t be successful in physically harming Trump (odds favor the inner layers of security working), but the news will be more dramatic and dire than it was this time. Also, keep in mind the copycat effect: now that there’s been one such story hitting the news, it will probably inspire others to make their own attempts.

So, this is probably only the beginning.

Published at 09:26 on 3 July 2018

Liberal columnist Paul Krugman makes the pretty obvious argument that we’re in for a trade war in his most recent column. Towards the end, he points out that the capitalist class seems pretty much oblivious to that threat:

For what it’s worth, I don’t think most businesses, or most investors in financial markets, are taking the threat of trade war seriously enough. They’re acting as if this is a passing phase, as if the grown-ups will step in and stop this downward spiral before it goes too far.

But there are no grown-ups in this administration, which basically makes policy by temper tantrum. A full-blown trade war looks all too possible; in fact, it may already have begun.

Of course it is, because they’ve fallen for Trumpism, Trumpism is a form of fascism, and fascism is founded on the words of the leader alone, irrespective of those words’ truth value. Since human vanity will inevitably cause that leader to engage in self-delusions, fascism is inevitably based on lies.

Which brings us to Umberto Eco’s observation: “Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.” Those words are as true for a trade war as they are for the shooting kind.

Published at 08:55 on 1 July 2018

Really, the entire fact there’s a disagreement with the parameters of the one that’s apparently emerging shows how fucked-up and detached from reality Establishment political narratives tend to be.

First, when Democratic politicians talk about “ablolishing ICE,” they’re talking about a rebranding, not an abolition. Politicians in the service of the State will stay politicians in the service of the State, and the State will remain the State. It will still have borders and laws, including laws that mandate respect for borders. The laws will be meaningless absent some way to enforce them.

ICE hasn’t existed forever. It’s only been around since 2002. Did the USA have borders prior to 2002? Were there laws about those borders prior to 2002? Were there people enforcing those laws prior to 2002? Of course! It’s just that the enforcement was done by other agencies called by other names and operating under a slightly different management structure, that’s all.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that any Democratic Party-backed bill which “abolishes ICE” would accomplish any amount of overall change more significant than the one that happened when ICE was created in the first place.

Second, there is going to be no anarchist world of no nations and borders in the next few years; it is simply not possible to create one in so short a time frame. Third, it is a contradiction in terms to suggest that such a world would be possible to create by legislating from above via the machinery of electoral politics.

So, we are now at three very good reasons why the whole premise of this emerging “debate” is totally bogus. Not that I expect such facts to make much difference when it comes to the continued presence of the “debate.” Establishment politics is often totally divorced from reality.

A far more relevant short-term question to be arguing over would be how to defang the State, as permanently as possible, so it is not so easily able to engage in the sort of cruel, authoritarian policies it recently has been engaging in on a wholesale scale.

Rebranding might be part of this, because labels can be powerful things. Changing them can be a way to express and continually remind people that the standards and rules have changed, and that what was done in the past is no longer acceptable today. On the other hand, rebranding can also serve as a smokescreen to distract from how a “reform” is just a pseudo-reform and the same injustices are still happening at the same scale, just under a different name.

Ultimately, the rebranding is far less important than the need for underlying change which should accompany it. Arguing about the rebranding while mostly ignoring the need for underlying change is just stupid.

This suggests the best way to respond to any Establishment figure who asks about “abolishing ICE.” Reject the question and challenge its premises. Say something like:

I think the fact that there is so much obsession over this topic is in and of itself a sign of the fundamental sickness of the system and the need to change it. Because, really, who cares what label is attached to the name of those enforcing border laws? What matters are the actions, not the label attached to them. This cruelty to children must stop, and there must be permanent systemic changes that make it impossible for any president of any party to ever order it into existence again!

Published at 21:51 on 29 June 2018

1. He’s almost certainly going to win. The polls have consistently been showing him leading his challengers by 15 points or more. Polls can sometimes be wrong, but they almost never are wrong at predicting the winner when the gap is this big.
2. He’s not another Hugo Chávez. Yes, he’s something of a populist and a buffoon, but he’s not a newcomer to politics; he was mayor of Mexico City, and seems to have done at least a passable job at it, and he doesn’t seem to have been a Chávez-style authoritarian while he was in office.
3. He’s apparently moved to the right in the past year, going by this article in the Washington Post.
4. The elephant in the living room is corruption. It’s a terrible problem in Mexico, and is intertwined with violence (another terrible problem). While AMLO is atypically clean for a Mexican politician (and this is part of his appeal), it’s unclear whether he’s going to be able to do much about the huge number of corrupt individuals.
5. Speaking of corruption and violence, his expected victory is mostly the result of Mexicans’ frustration at their country’s domestic problems. It doesn’t have much to do with the Mango Mussolini’s childish insistence that Mexico pay for his stupid wall.

Published at 17:56 on 27 June 2018

Back in 2013.

Published at 14:53 on 25 June 2018

WE SHOULD RIP BARRON TRUMP FROM HIS MOTHER’S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO. 90 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE STREETS ON THE SAME WEEKEND IN THE COUNTRY. FUCK [sic]

There’s been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the above tweet, but in my book the only thing over the top about it is the part about pedophiles. To the best of my knowledge, there is no deliberate policy about putting separated kids with pedophiles. Separated from their parents and put into cages, yes. And that’s quite bad enough.

If fascists don’t think it’s fair for it to be proposed that they get a dose of their own medicine, then maybe it’s time for them to reevaluate their decision to be fascists and to support fascist policies in the first place.

And note that this tweet was only a proposal, and not a serious one at that.  The First Family is one of the most heavily protected groups of people in the world. The odds of anyone being able to actually kidnap Barron Trump are so remote that they can be safely disregarded.

Meanwhile, there’s still over 1,000 children who were subject to Trump’s state-sponsored kidnappings that have yet to be reunited with their families. I suggest we should care more about the actual ongoing harm done to those children than to the harm being done to the delicate feelings of fascist snowflakes who can’t stand the idea of getting a taste of their own medicine.

Published at 14:40 on 25 June 2018

Three points:

1. The complaints from the fascists about being shunned can be for the most part disregarded, since the fascists have no issues with other people being shunned by their side. For example, they support the right for businesses to shun LGBT people. Simply make a note of their base hypocrisy and move on.
2. The complaints from the Democrats about it being inconsistent with the values of polite discourse can at least be debated, since they’re coming from a side that generally has been against the whole shunning business in the first place.
3. Notwithstanding the above, I believe it is more than mere coincidence that the Trump regime started backpedaling on its cruel policies within a day or two of the shunning episodes showing up in the news. Sometimes giving people a taste of their own medicine can be a most effective strategy.

Published at 10:57 on 23 June 2018

I find the notion that Melania’s jacket was worn in any way accidentally to be so beyond a reasonable conjecture as to be an insult to my intelligence. “I really don’t care. Do U?” in big letters? You’d have to have the IQ of an flatworm to not wonder about what kind of message that sends, particularly as a first lady, particularly in response to a humanitarian crisis, particularly one that your husband deliberately created.

Of course it was deliberately done to send a message to the president’s base of fascist followers and true believers. No other conjecture makes remotely as much sense as this one.

Published at 23:32 on 22 June 2018

Posting this to mirror a recent post in pugetsoundanarchists.org. In posting this here, I am not advocating any illegal or violent acts against those listed, nor am I guaranteeing the accuracy of any of the following information. If you choose to plan an action based on any information listed below, it is your responsibility to do your level best to authenticate and verify it.

Also, Wikileaks currently has a searchable database gleaned from scraping LinkedIn online.

Drew H. Bostock (supervisory detention deportation officer)
3220 N 22nd St, Tacoma, WA 98406

Neil E. Schaefer (deportation officer)
6121 242nd Pl S, Kent WA 98032

Ben R. Maxwell (deportation officer)
15304 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98087

Ramon A. Bonilla (deportation officer)
715 Harrington Pl SE, Renton WA98058 UNCONFIRMED

William Penaloza (asst field office director)
16213 142nd Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058

Brian E. Muirhead (supervisory detention deportation officer)
4457 185th Ave E, Lake Tapps, WA 98391

Jack W. Lippard (deportation officer)
6315 Elizabeth Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092

Darren L. Renner (deportation officer)
6814 47th Loop NE, Olympia, WA 98516

Brayland E. Mitchell (deportation officer)
20131 20th Ave E, Spanaway, WA 98387

Ruben J. Bojorquez (deportation officer)
11408 170th ave, Bonney Lake WA 98391

Christopher L. Sica (deportation officer)
18238 72nd Ave E, Puyallup WA 98375

Jaime M. Castro (deportation officer)
6747 20th St E, Fife WA UNCONFIRMED

Rodney A. Osborne (deportation officer)
2485 62nd Ave E #40-106, Fife WA 98424 UNCONFIRMED

Michael E. Metesh (deportation officer)
27054 111th Ct SE, Kent WA 98030

Tiphanie Epplett/Tiphanie Benthusen (deportation officer)
1430 Everett St, Sumner, WA 98390

Paul R. Ruby (deportation officer)
13804 2nd Ave SW, Burien, WA 98166

Lovett Seabrook (deportation officer)
15523 40th Ave E, Tacoma, WA 98446

Charlos Turpin (deportation officer)
17205 13th ave E, Spanaway WA 98387

Jay (Jose) H. Arroyo (deportation officer)
9334 Steele St S, Apt 435, Tacoma WA 98444 UNCONFIRMED

Scott R. Meyer (deportation officer)
25418 159th St SE, Issaquah WA

Dan A. Deering (deportation officer)
327 4th Ave SE, Puyallup, WA 98372

Timothy A. Black (Detention and Deportation officer)
9811 198th Avenue Ct E, Bonney Lake, WA 98391

Michael A. Fernandez (deportation officer)
22910 82nd Ave Ct E, Graham WA 98338

William Puff (asst special agent in charge)
6908 Silent Creek Ave SE, Snoqualmie, WA 98065

Gabriel Martinez (deportation officer)
25805 W Lake Wilderness Dr SE, Maple Valley WA 98038

Lisa Lockman (management program analyst)
4005 33rd Ave W, Seattle, WA 98199

Bryan Wilcox (Deputy field office director)
9521 234th Pl S, Kent WA 98031

Gwendolyn Thea Davis Franks (attorney)
2152 Yakima Ct, Tacoma WA

Thomas P Molloy (trial attorney)
16232 249th Pl SE, Covington WA 98042

Annie McElearney (asst chief counsel)
11228 Parkhill Pl NE, Bainbridge Is, WA 98110

Charles Neil Floyd (asst chief counsel)
2311 35th St NW, Gig Harbor WA 98335

Joshua Hailey (enforcement and removal asst)
1612 Stone Creek Cir SW, North Bend, WA 98045 UNCONFIRMED

Shaun Moss (mission support specialist)
6026 Discovery St E, Fife WA 98424

Kathlyn Lawrence (supervisory detention deportation officer)
8448 Homestead Ave NE, Olympia, WA 98516

Michael Gutierrez (supervisory detention deportation officer)
7703 30th Ave SW, Seattle WA 98126

Rob Patterson (criminal investigator)

Remely A. De La Paz (deportation officer)

Matt R. Nelson (deportation officer)

Brett T. Booth (deportation officer)

Rudy (Rudolfo) Rodriguez (deportation officer)

Jaime Maldonado (deportation officer)

Patrick T. Murray (Supervisory Detention deportation officer)

Jose A. Alvarez (deportation officer)

Nathalie Asher (asst field officer director)

Jason Stanley (asst chief counsel)

Sylvie Renda (asst field office director)

Mark Bailey (supervisory detention deportation officer)

Published at 14:44 on 19 June 2018

There’s an inspiring example of nonviolent direct action happening right now in Portland.

I was going to launch on a rant of how the Establishment media have totally ignored it, but just recently both the Portland Mercury and Oregon Public Broadcasting have run pieces on it.

Sorry about the Faceborg link above, but alas it’s really the only page I’ve found that is anywhere near up-to-date and comprehensive about what is going on there. For Faceborg abstainers, here is an alternate page.

Here’s hoping this is just the start of what soon becomes a nationwide thing. The people separating kids from their parents are evil and must be driven from power; until then, they must be rendered as powerless as possible via massive resistance.