It might be good to take a look at how state institutions vet their people for positions where sensitive information is handled.

After understanding that, and considering if an anarchist movement can background-check people to this extent and find such people, it is possible to make informed decisions. I think the obvious decision would be "we refuse to have a position like that", "do not bring illegal direct action (unless it is mass protest) into above-ground public groups, do it in private or better yet, do it alone".

State institutions handling sensitive info try to pick smart people, but not the absolutely brightest, because the brightest can become bored by bureaucracy, disillusioned by inefficiency and see through the game too deeply. You don't want a bolt or bearing who understands how the whole machine is flawed. Strong political views are not a plus in their eyes.

They try to pick the psychologically stable - free of addiction (gambling, alco, drugs) and anything that could be used to blackmail a person. Ideally, free of unsatisfied need (need for money, belonging, intimacy, recognition) or unresolved inter-personal conflict. Economically stable, not in debt, not in a dispute, not risk-taking, boring stable people who have verified boring and stable social connections for a long period of time, and something to lose in life.

If possible, they try to choose people who can compartmentalize their life. People without vanity, without a need to boast, even to a trusted partner.

Considering that radical organizations attract people who have been radicalized by life, typically by injustices and conflicts, there is little hope of having that kind of people in the quantity required. So, radical organizations need to rely on something else: a clear separation between legal and illegal activism, never mixing the two in an above-ground setting, anonymity, cell structure, such methods.

If someone proposes risky illegal direct action within an above-ground public group, kindly inform them that surveillance is cheap and loose lips sink ships.

If you are in a group planning illegal direct action and know the real identity of five or more people, the group is structured wrong.

Powerful read, thanks for posting it

This felt really meaningful for me to read today. I think I'm going to sit with it and reread it later. Frequently, even though I'm a woman, I choose to focus my learning and understanding on racism and transphobia as (I'm realizing now) those have always felt more important to me than misogyny. But misogyny and transphobia go hand in hand, and I'm thinking also of the times I've let men speak over me (a queer disabled woman), telling myself "there's more important things to focus on." I don't know. I might come back and share some more thoughts on my re-reading.

This was posted in 2010.
Precisely that it's a decade and a half old, and nothing’s changed, proves to me will never revolt. They’ll continue being blatant colonial misogynists racist fucks.

I've never been to any really organized deal like that, but it feels hard to believe misogyny and such would be such a pervasive problem.

Can canyons speak to that in more recent times?