Brad Will in Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone, part of “the American press [that] ignored Oaxaca” during the near-civil war of 2006 pictured in Rolling Thunder #4, has published a story on anarchist journalist Brad Will (presented in its entirety below). Brad was shot and killed by local government officials on October 27, at the peak of the conflict.

The article itself is supportive, having presumably been written by one of Brad’s countless friends, and even mentions Rolling Thunder. Thanks to such shining examples of journalistic integrity as Rolling Stone, it’s possible for revolutionaries outside the United States to get coverage—albeit only a few lines a year and a half late—in the US media. All they have to do is hope some sexy, well-connected US journalist gets killed beside the countless anonymous locals whose lives are ended by US-backed repression.

Let’s keep Brad’s memory alive by supporting all those who still struggle for freedom, in Oaxaca and around the world.

To keep up with current events in Oaxaca, try narconews.com.

Download Text PDF [140k]

Rolling Stone: Issue 1044 Jan. 24, 2008
Anarchist Superstar: The Revolutionary Who Filmed His Own Murder (front cover)

HE WAS AN ANARCHIST, AGITATOR AND JOURNALIST WHO WENT TO MEXICO TO DOCUMENT PEASANT REVOLT — AND HE ENDED UP FILMING HIS OWN DEATH by Jeff Sharlet

The Martyrdom of Brad Will

Even before he was killed by a Mexican policeman’s bullet, Brad Will seemed to those who revered him more like a symbol—a living folk song, or a murder ballad—than like a man. This is what the thirty-six-year-old anarchist-journalist’s friends remember: tall, skinny Brad in a black hoodie with two fists to the sky, Rocky-style, atop an East Village squat as the wrecking ball swings; Brad, his bike hoisted on his shoulder, making a getaway from cops across the rooftops of taxicabs; Brad, locked down at City Hall disguised as a giant sunflower with patched-together glasses to protest the destruction of New York’s guerrilla gardens. Brad (he rarely used his surname, kept it secret in case you were a cop) wore his long brown hair tied up in a knot, but for the right woman—and a lot of women seemed right to Brad—he’d let it sweep down his back almost to his ass. Jessica Lee, one of the few who spurned him, met Brad at an Earth First! action in southwestern Virginia the summer before he was killed. They skipped away from the crowd to a waterfall where Brad stripped naked and invited Lee in her swimsuit to stand with him behind sheets of cascading water. He tried to kiss her, but she turned away. She thought there was something missing inside him. “Like he was incomplete, too lonely,” she says. Maybe he was just tired after a decade and a half on the front lines of a revolution that never quite happened.

He was one of America’s fifty “leading anarchists,” according to Nightline, which in 2004 flashed Brad’s mug shot as a warning against the black-clad nihilists said to be descending on New York for the Republican National Convention. “Leading anarchist”—that was the kind of clueless oxymoron that made Brad laugh. Brad wasn’t a “leader,” a word he disdained; he was a catalyst: the long-limbed climber who trained city punks on city trees for forest defense in the big woods west of the Rockies, the smart guy you wanted in the front row when you gave your public report on the anarchist scene in Greece or Seoul or Cincinnati, even though he was also the dude who would giggle when he fumigated the room with monstrous garlic farts. In the 1990s, he’d helped hand New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani a public defeat, organizing anarchist punks into a media-savvy civil-disobedience corps that shamed the mayor into calling off plans to sell the city’s community gardens. In the new decade, he became a star of Indymedia’s anti-star system, an interconnected anti-corporate press that lets activists communicate—directly instead of waiting to see their causes distorted on Nightline.

Brad seemed to be everywhere: One friend remembers him in Ecuador, plucking his bike from a burning barricade; another remembers him in Quebec City, riding a bike into a cloud of tear gas, his bony frame shaking with happy rebel laughter later while a comrade poured water into his burning eyes.

Now, Brad has become most famous for the final minutes of his last day alive, October 27th, 2006, in the capital of the southern state of Oaxaca, Mexico. He’d gone to document a massive strike blowing up into revolt against the government. His video camera peers through broken glass at a smashed computer; holds steady on a strangely peaceful orange-black plume rising from a burning SUV; crawls under a truck to spy on a group of… well, most people who watch Brad’s video on YouTube don’t know who they are. Cops, probably, though they wear no uniforms. Brad feints and charges toward them along with a small crowd armed with stones and bottle rockets, improbably chasing men toting .38s and AR-15s.

With two minutes left, Brad inches toward the door behind which he knows men with guns may be hiding. “Si ves a un gringo con cámara, mátalo!” government supporters ranted on local radio around the time Brad arrived in Oaxaca. “If you see a gringo with a camera, kill him!” Then there are the last words heard on Brad’s video before he films a puff of smoke—muzzle flash beneath a gray sun—and his own knees rising up towards the lens as he falls, the cobblestones rushing toward him: “No esten tomando fotos!” (“Stop taking pictures!”) Brad didn’t hear.

He was scheduled to fly back to Brooklyn the next day.

-

During the three weeks he spent in Mexico before he was killed, Brad would make fun of his half-assed Spanish by introducing himself as “Qeubrado” (”Broken”). He didn’t look it. Six feet two, with a frame broad as his father’s – a veteran of Yale’s 1960 undefeated football team— he was vegan-lean but ropy with muscle, “a little stinky and a lot gorgeous,” remembers his friend Kate Crane. Back during his twenties, when he’d bring a slingshot to demonstrations instead of a camera, he thought of himself as half-warrior, half-poet, a former student of Allen Ginsberg’s now specializing in crazy-beautiful Beat gestures recast in a militant mode— “sweet escalation,” he called it, protest not as a means to an end but as a glimpse of a world yet to be made.

By the time he got to Oaxaca, in the fall of 2006, he was calling himself a journalist. “His camera was his weapon,” says Miguel, a Brazilian filmmaker who has produced a tribute called Brad: One More Night at the Barricades. “If you survive me,” Brad told a friend after he’d battled cops at a protest in Prague, “tell them this: I never gave up. That’s a quote, all right?” In the end there was just a picture, his last shot, the puff of smoke of the bullet speeding toward him.

Yo d,” he wrote to Dyan neary, an ex-girlfriend, three days before he died, “jumping around like a reporter and working my ass off—been pretty intense and sometimes sketchy.” The governor of Oaxaca had sent in roving death squads, pickup trucks of paramilitaries firing on the barricades. The bodies were piling up. Brad was getting scared. “I went back to the morgue—it is a sick and sad place—I have this feeling like I will go back there again with a crowd of reporters all pushing to get the money shot— the body all sewed up and naked— you see it in the papers every day—I am entering a new territory here and don’t know if I am ready.

Ready for what? Revolution? Blood? Brad had seen both before, in Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil. Oaxaca was bigger, more exciting, more frightening. What had started as a strike by the state’s 70,000 teachers had exploded after the governor attacked the teachers with tear gas and helicopters. The federal government feared a domino effect, other states following Oaxaca’s example. In Oaxaca, every kind of leftist organization—indigenous groups, unions, students, farmers, anarcho-punks—came together in an unprecedented coalition and took over the city. The national government declared the entire state of Oaxaca “ungovernable.”

Brad knew what to do: Film it all. He’d send the tapes home, screen them in squats and at anarchist bookstores. Revolution is real, he’d say, here’s the proof. Burning tires, masked rebels stuffing rags into bottles full of gasoline, farmers with machetes; free kitchens, free medical clinics, free buses, commandeered by farmers and fishermen. At a street funeral, old women sing a radical anthem with their fists raised in the air; in a red tent at night a father pounds the silver box that holds his son. “La muerte as gobierno malo!” shout the mourners. (”Death to the government!”) “Viva Alejandro!” Alejandro García Hernández, forty-one years old, shot twice in the head by a group of soldiers who tried to crash through a barricade opened to let an ambulance pass. Brad wrote home, “And now Alejandro waits in the zocalo“—the city plaza—”he’s waiting for an impasse, a change, an exit, a way forward, a way out, a solution—waiting for the earth to shift and open—waiting for november when he can sit with his loved ones on the day of the dead and share food and drink and a song…one more martyr in a dirty war…one more bullet cracks the night.

-

Kenilworth, Illinois, isn’t a town that raises radicals. A mile wide, tucked away close to the beach on the North Shore of Chicago, Kenilworth is the kind of place in which the wrong side of the suburb means houses cost only a couple of million dollars. There were four African Americans in the most recent census, and if there were any Democrats around when Brad was growing up, says Stephanie Rogers, a family friend, they kept quiet. “If Kenilworth wasn’t the absolute height of preppiness,” she says, “it was only because we were Midwestern. Kids would study that East Coast model, towns like Greenwich, Connecticut. That’s what Kenilworth wanted to be.”

Not the Wills. They didn’t follow anyone. “The Wills were achievers, and leaders,” says Rogers. For Brad’s three older siblings, that meant good grades, sports and student government, Brad was different. “We were all active kids, curious, athletic, and we would roughhouse and play ball,” says his sister Christy, a graphic designer who lives in San Diego. “Brad was less interested in those kinds of things.” He preferred science fiction and fantasy, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings. And Star Wars, one of the few passions he shared with his all-American dad: Hardy, an engineer who owned a small factory, liked to imagine how other worlds might work. Brad liked to build them. He’d arrange miniature societies with his action figures, write modules for role-playing games. It wasn’t the monsters that enthralled him, it was the struggles between good and evil.

One of his favorite movies was It’s a Wonderful Life; lanky, amiable Jimmy Stewart provided a model for the way Brad would move through the world as he grew older, a Teen Beat-gorgeous geek–a dungeon master!—who was friends with jocks, preps, even Kenilworth’s tiny clique of stoners. With his feathered hair, his rugby-shirt collar standing proud and a broad smile sprawling beneath dreamy eyes, Brad looked like an extra in a John Hughes movie.

But he was slowly splintering away from the high-school-college-back-to-the-burbs loop that was the natural order of things in Kenilworth. “It was a struggle to open my life,” Brad would tell a Venezuelan newspaper years later. “I didn’t know much about the truth of the world, but little by little, I forced my eyes open, without the help of anyone.”

The Will children were expected to be athletes (Brad was a runner) and stick with an instrument. But one day Brad announced he was quitting trumpet to play guitar. Instead of joining clubs, he worked after school, as a flower-delivery boy, a library shelver, selling newspaper subscriptions. “Brad was perplexing,” says his mother, Kathy. “But he wasn’t a loaf.”

The one unbendable rule for Will children was college. His sister Wendy went to Stanford, Craig followed their father to Yale, and Christy went to Scripps College. Brad’s grades hovered between B and C, but after he aced his entrance exams he squeaked into Allegheny, a small school in western Pennsylvania. There he joined a frat, majored in the Dead and studied On the Road. Mostly he liked getting high, passing a pipe back and forth with his friend Matt Felix, an outdoorsman from New Hampshire who introduced Brad to the radical environmentalism of Earth First! That ethos of direct action and theatrical gestures drew Brad west when he graduated in 1992. He followed the hippie highway to Boulder, Colorado, where he began attending classes taught by Allen Ginsberg at the Naropa Institute’s Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics.

Even more influential than Ginsberg was Peter Lamborn Wilson, who under the pseudonym Hakim Bey was known for a manifesto called The Temporary Autonomous Zone, or T.A.Z., a study in “ontological anarchy” and “poetic terrorism,” and a guidebook to the life of Brad was beginning to lead. “What happened was this,” Wilson writes, “they lied to you, sold you ideas of good & evil, gave you distrust of your body & shame for your prophethood of chaos, invented words of disgust for your molecular love, mesmerized you with inattention, bored you with civilization & all its usurious emotions.”

Wilson wasn’t offering an indictment so much as a prescription: “Avatars of chaos act as spies, saboteurs, criminals of amour fou“—crazy love—”neither selfless not selfish, accessible as children, mannered as barbarians, chafed with obsessions, unemployed, sensually deranged, wolfangels…” Brad was becoming one of Wilson’s wolfangels. “Very high-energy, extremely bright, not so well-controlled,” Wilson remembers of the student who talked his way into class because he hadn’t bothered to pay tuition. “Loose at the edges, reckless, you might call it courage. Manic sometimes, charming everybody.”

“Brad liked being in a hotbed of ideas,” says his mother, happy, at least, that her son had a job. She didn’t know that he stopped paying rent. “My crazy poet roomies fled the scene,” he later wrote of his accidental introduction to squatting. “I stayed and didn’t even have the phone number of the landlord.” that suited Brad—cash, he was beginning to believe, was a kind of conspiracy, a form of control he was leaving behind. He wanted to write poems, but even more he wanted to become one, a messy, ecstatic, angry, sprawling embodiment of Wilson’s manifesto.

His first attempt came one summer when 50,000 members of a Christian fundamentalist men’s movement called the Promise Keepers descended on Boulder, distributing a pamphlet called “The Iron Spear: Reaching Out to the Homosexual.” Brad wasn’t gay, but he decided to reach back. The Naropa Institute’s lawn abutted the Promise Keepers’rally ground, so Brad put on a show: He married a man. He recruited Wilson to perform the ceremony and a poet named Anne Waldman to play his mother. Another student was the bride, in a white satin gown complete with a train, and Brad scrounged a suit and tie. “I actually am a minister in the Universal Life church,” says Wilson. “I married them in full view of the Promise Keepers.” Then Brad kissed the bride, a long smooch that provoked one Promise Keeper to hop the fence to find out whether he was really seeing two men making out. Brad declared the stunt a victory when the fundamentalist decided to stick around, apparently convinced that poets throw better parties than Promise Keepers.

That was Brad’s idea of politics and poetry at the same time: a party and performance. But Brad didn’t care for stages. He wanted the show to run 24/7. From Boulder he moved to West Lima, Wisconsin, a half-abandoned town that had become an “intentional community”—a commune—called Dreamtime Village. Dreamtime was like a surreal version of the town Brad had grown up in: There was a post office, a school building, little Midwestern houses and almost no rules. Then, in the summer of 1995, Brad became interested in the stories he heard from a group of New York squatters on a road trip. When they headed back east, Brad hitched a ride.

“I moved to the big shitty as Giuliani-time kicked in,” he wrote in an essay for an anarchist anthology, We Are Everywhere. In New York, at least, anarchists were concentrated in a few dozen squats, buildings abandoned at the nadir of the city’s grim Eighties and rehabbed by whoever wanted to live rent-free. It was illegal, of course, which was part of the attraction for Brad—just living in a squat was a form of direct action, defiance of all the rules about property and propriety. Brad found himself an empty room in a squat on East 5th Street, home to around sixty “activists and destructionists,” in the words of Pastrami, a yoga teacher who befriended Brad. They hauled water up from fire hydrants and wired an electricity from a streetlight. Next door they cleared the trash out of an abandoned lot and turned it into a garden with a pear tree. They shared it with their Puerto Rican neighbors, eventually winning over even the nuns of the nearby Cabrini seniors home—their response to the squats went from one of horror to prayers for the wild but lovely young creatures who ate the trash and the toxic soil of the city. This was the life Brad had been looking for.

-

Anarchist isn’t so much a singular ideology as a set of overlapping philosophies, and Brad wanted to explore them all. He’d haunt the anarchist store Blackout Books, in New York’s Alphabet City neighborhood, and then he’d disappear for days into volumes he had bought, borrowed or even dumpster-dived, his long, bony hands cracking the spines of old lefty tomes and the quickie compilations of the writings of Subcomandante Marcos, the leader of the Zapatista revolt in Mexico who was fast becoming the new model for anarchist panache. he read Kropotkin, the early-twentieth-century Russian biologist who gave to anarchism its core idea of “mutual aid,” the simple but radical premise that cooperation, not competition, is the natural condition of humanity, and he worked with movements like the Ruckus Society, Earth First! and Reclaim the Streets, leaderless networks of activists who put anarchist ideas into action through confrontational tactics—Brad was expert in the construction of “sleeping dragons” and “bear claws,” both methods of locking yourself down in front of a bulldozer or in the middle of a city street. The point wasn’t a set of demands but the act of disruption itself. In Brad’s world, action—direct, local, unfiltered—mattered more than ideology. In theory, anyway. In practice, the anarchist factions often succumb to purist notions, refusing even to speak to comrades they consider co-opted. Not Brad. he was tight with anarcho-primitivists, who view language itself as oppressive, and social anarchists, who write books and build schools. “He was the least sectarian person I ever met,” says Dyan Neary. “That’s what made it easy for him to introduce people to ideas. He was just sort of user-friendly.”

He had a sharp side, too. “Brad did his fair share of alienating people,” says Sascha DuBrul, who like Brad had migrated from Dreamtime to the Lower East Side. “He was so loud and outspoken, and he wasn’t always a big listener.” At the 5th Street Squat, he’d “talk really loud” about his building skills, but then, friends say, he wired his room incorrectly, resulting in a small fire. The fire didn’t threaten the building, but it gave Giuliani an excuse to tear it down. “When they came for our building,” Brad wrote, “there weren’t any eviction papers, and they came with a wrecking crane. I snuck inside, felt the rumble when the ball pierced the wall. I was alone. From the roof I watched them dump a chunk of my home on my garden…When it was all over: a rubble heap.”

“I almost feel like he wanted to die up there, he felt so guilty,” a friend told The Village Voice. Afterward, Brad undertook a freight-train tour of America, riding in boxcars from city to city, speaking to activist groups about Giuliani’s crackdown. “Brad got incredibly fucking riled up,” remembers DuBrul. “He was on fire, his hands were shaking.”

“He had a certain innocence,” says Stephan Said, a squatter and folk singer Brad admired. “What led him to his death was at the same time what made him so endearing.”

In 1998, Brad went out west to join Earth First! activists for a “forest defense,” which for Brad would consist of spending the summer on a platform built high up around the trunk of an old-growth Douglas fir in Oregon, an anarchist retreat from the laws down below. “I called it the Y plane ‘cause you’re up, up, up off the rules of the X plane,” says Priya Reddy, who’d become one of Brad’s best friends that summer. “The only rule you really have is gravity. It’s homelessness in the best sense.”

A city girl, Reddy–in Oregon she took the name Warcry, a not-so-subtle response to “hippie-ish” tree-sitters like Julia Butterfly—didn’t know how to climb, so at first she provided ground support, hiking from tree to tree in the murky green light, taking orders for supplies. Brad had a different concern. “I dropped a piece of paper,” he called down on her first day. “Could you find it for me?”

Warcry looked into the branches. The voice’s source, 200 feet up, was invisible. So was his piece of paper, fallen amid the thick ferns of the forest floor. When she found it, a folded-up scrap, she took a peek. A battle plan? No; a love poem.

The woods were noisy with the music of the tree-sitters. CDs and tapes of Sonic Youth, Crass and Conflict blasted full volume. The most popular song seemed to be “White Rabbit.” After Warcry heard it for what seemed like the hundredth time, she took a stand. “Why are you people playing White Rabbit over and over again?” she demanded. “You don’t know?” came the answer. “It’s a warning.” White Rabbit meant the cops, spotted by Brad or another tree-sitter from their perches far above, were on their way.

Soon Warcry worked up the courage to join Brad in the trees, spending three weeks on a neighboring platform. She brought a video camera. One day loggers brought down a giant within fifty yards of Brad’s and Warcry’s video, but you can hear his raw scream: “Fuuuck!” The tree settles, and Brad shouts at the loggers below. “How old do you think that tree was? How old are you?” It was a question he might have been asking himself—up in his treehouse, there were times he felt like a child, powerless to respond.

-

What set Brad apart from so many radical activists was that throughout it all, he remained close to his family, the buttoned-down Republican Wills of Kenilworth. When he was jailed for nearly a week at the WTO Seattle protests in 1999, one of his chief worries was getting out in time for his mother’s sixtieth birthday, which the Wills planned to celebrate in Hawaii. When he made it there, he didn’t tell them what had really gone down. “He didn’t want to burden us,” says his mother.

That’s how Brad kept his truce with where he came from. In 2002, when he and Dyan Neary were hopping freight trains from the Northwest to New York, he insisted they take a detour so that Neary—who goes by Glass—could meet his mother. Glass tried to talk politics, telling the Wills about South America coca farmers blasted into extreme poverty by U.S.-funded crop-spraying. Brad’s mom looked confused: “But, dear, how do you think we should deal with the cocaine question?” It wasn’t meant as a question.

“Later, I was like, Oh shit, they don’t really know what you’re doing, do they?” Brad giggled, proud of his ability to move between worlds.

The two had met shortly after 9/11, their first date a six-hour walk around Ground Zero. Brad was thirty-one; Glass was twenty, tall and skinny with big curves and big eyes and a smile like Brad’s, wide and knowing. But she was stunned by New York’s transformation from go-go to grief to warmongering. “What the fuck happened to my city?” she thought. They decided it was time to get out of town.
There were two complications. The first was monogamy. Brad didn’t believe in it. All right, Glass said, no sex. Brad suddenly discovered an untapped well of fidelity. The other problem was thornier: Brad was about to become a father. The mother was a French woman with whom he’d had a brief relationship while she was visiting New York. A month later, she called to tell him she was pregnant. Brad loved kids, but he’d sworn he’d never bring one of his own into a world he considered too damaged. Brad flew over to visit.
“Why don’t you stay?” she asked. “We can raise the child together.”

“I’ll help you out with money,” he said—a major commitment, given that he lived on food he found in dumpsters—“but I’m not moving to France.”

When the woman had the baby, her new boyfriend adopted him. That seemed to Brad like an ideal solution—he loved the family he already had, but he wasn’t looking to start one.

“He wanted to experience revolution,” says Glass. “He wanted to live that every day.” They spent much of the next two years in South America, returning to New York to raise funds by taking temp jobs–Brad was a lighting grip—and throwing all-night benefit parties. In Brazil, they worked with the Movimiento Sin Terra, landless poor people who’ve squatted and won rights to more than 20 million acres of farmland. In Buenos Aires, they joined up with a movement of workers who’d reclaimed factories shuttered by Argentina’s economic meltdown. In Bolivia, they met a radical coca farmer named Evo Morales who would soon become the country’s first indigenous president. This wasn’t the East Village, Brad realized, or a tree platform in Oregon. There was real power at stake.

Now he had a mission. He wanted to show American activists how to join the fight wherever they could find it, or start it. Video, he determined, was his best medium. In 2004, he scraped together $300 for a used Canon ZR 40 and headed back south, this time on his own. He was ready to start telling stories, ready to become a reporter.

In 2005, in a central-Brazilian squatters’ town of 12,000 landless peasants called Sonho Real (”Real Dream”), Brad filmed a police attack that resulted in two dead and twenty “missing.” Brad was the only reporter on hand. He hid in a shack, filming, and waited for the worst. The cops found him, dragged him out by his hair and beat him to a pulp. Then they smashed his camera and arrested him. “The U.S. Embassy refused to do anything,” says Brad’s friend Miguel. “They said, Yes, we know, but he is not an important person to us.” But his American passport still carried weight with the Brazilian police. They let him go. He’d managed to keep his tape hidden; soon, it would be broadcast throughout Brazil, a perfect example of Indymedia in action.

But it didn’t seem like a victory to Brad. “I feel like I am haunted,” he wrote to his friend Kate Crane. “I keep seeing a thin woman’s body curled up at the bottom of a well, her body in a strange position—I can’t escape it.

-

The Mexico to which Brad traveled in early October 2006 seemed like a nation on the verge. Of what, nobody could say. But something was about to break. It was an election year, and a new force in Mexican politics, the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), appeared certain to win the presidency. Vicente Fox, the Bush clone who had deposed the long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 2000, was constitutionally forbidden from running again. His anointed successor was Felipe Calderón, an angry bully obsessed with oil and secrecy, the Dick Cheney of Mexico. On July 2nd, Mexican television declared the race between Calderón and moderate Andrés Manuel López Obrador too close to call, and the next morning Mexico’s electoral authority made Calderón the winner. Only they hadn’t counted all the votes. Two million Mexicans poured into the streets to protest. Calderón’s only hope was to seduce the PRI, his right-wing party’s traditional enemy, into a coalition against the leftist PRD. In exchange for the PRI’s support, he promised that his party would bail out the PRI’s cash cow: Oaxaca.

Oaxaca is one of the poorest states in a poor nation. In 2004, the PRI installed as governor a rising star with a reputation for electoral fraud named Ulises Ruiz Ortiz. Ruiz was a cash machine, skilled at milking the state to kick funds up to the national party organization. What he wasn’t so good at, it turned out, was keeping a lid on the discontent that has been rippling across Mexico since the Zapatistas marched out of the jungle in 2004.

“If they want to kill our teachers,” Oaxaqueños declared after Ruiz’s police killed several striking teachers on June 14th, 2006, “they should kill us all now.” From that day on, Oaxaca City was in open revolt. “Con Ulises’pelotas, yo haré los huevos fritos,” women chanted in the streets. (”With Ulises’ balls, I’m going to make fried eggs!”). It was as if Louisiana’s poor converged on New Orleans, shoved aside the political hacks and ran the city themselves for months, even as National Guardsmen drove around shooting into houses.

And yet the American press ignored Oaxaca. That made it a perfect story for Brad. Friends tried to talk him out of it. “The APPO”—the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca, in effect its revolutionary government—”doesn’t trust anyone it hasn’t known for years,” Al Giordano, the publisher of a report on Latin American politics called Narco News, told him. “They keep telling me not to send newcomers, because the situation is so fucking tense.”

I think I will go,” Brad wrote back. When he showed up at an Indymedia headquarters in Mexico City en route to Oaxaca, they told him his white skin would make him and anyone standing near him a target.

“You’re treating me like my mom,” Brad said. “What are you made of? This is what it’s about. This is the uprising.”

John Gibler, a radical print journalist with deeper roots in Mexico, remembers Brad showing up in Oaxaca City’s central square, a tall hipster American with a fancy camera—Brad had sunk his life savings into it—that made him look like a professional. “The media painted a picture of a gung-ho idealist who didn’t know which way was which, but the guy was not clueless,” says Gibler. “That first day I said, Hey, Brad, you wanna come along to the barricades tonight?” He looked at me, and he said, “I can’t wait to get out there, but people are getting killed. I need to get a feel of the place. Walking around at night without that is not a smart move.”

He found a place to sleep (the floor of the headquarters of an indigenous-rights group) and a place to stash his videotape—he’d learned from Brazil that a hiding place was a requirement for an Indymedia journalist lacking the protections of a big news agency. He ate with the APPOs, as the protesters were called, marched with them, slept on the ground beside them on hot evenings. He told them about his politics before he asked about theirs. He laughed a lot, his ridiculous guffaw. Slowly, the APPOs began to trust him. Brad was on the inside of what Rolling Thunder, an anarchist rag back in the States, would call “the closest our generation has come to seeing an anarchist revolution.” Mexican authorities evidently agreed—they were preparing to make an example out of Oaxaca.

-

Brad’s footage on October 27th begins on a suburban street, strewn with rocks and sandbags, a pillar of black smoke rising in the background. Minutes before, there’d been a battle, paramilitaries with automatic weapons versus protesters with Molotov cocktails. Brad zooms in on a silver van consumed by flames. Then he cuts back to the crowd, old men in straw hats, teenagers in ski masks, big mamas with frying pans. They begin to shout. “the people, united!” Bullets pop from a side street, and the fight careens onto a narrow lane of one-story buildings. “Cover yourselves, comrades!” someone shouts. The protesters advance car by car, lobbing Molotovs that bloom from the blacktop. The sky darkens, bruised blue over green trees. A dark-skinned boy in a black tank top kneels and aims his bottle-rocket bazooka. Bullets are cracking. Brad remembers a war photographer’s maxim: “Don’t get greedy.” That’s when you get killed. He turns of his camera.

When he starts shooting again, the protesters are crouching outside a white building in which they believe a comrade is being held prisoner. They batter the door, darting out into the open to deliver drop kicks. “Mire!” Brad shouts. (”Look!”) From down the street, more gunfire. Brad runs. Next to him someone is hit. “Shit!” Brad shouts. “Are you OK, comrade?” someone asks. Brad zooms in on an old woman fingering her prayer beads.

Then the final footage played around the globe half a million times: a red dump truck used as a barricade and a battering ram, a wounded man led away, gunfire answered by bottle rockets. “Diganle a este pinche wey que no este tomando fotos!” somebody shouts. (”Somebody tell this fucking guy to stop taking photos!”) Brad keeps shooting. He steps up onto the sidewalk, his camera aimed dead ahead. The compañeros are crouching; Brad rises, a pale white gringo above the crowd.

“I watch this, and I say, Brad, stop! Don’t do this!” says Miguel, the Brazilian filmmaker. “I ask myself if he really knows where he is. I ask myself if he knows he can die.”

Bang–a bullet hits Brad dead center, just below his heart, exploding his aorta.

Ayúdeme!” he screams. (“Help me!”)

Tranquilo, tranquilo,” someone says. (“Take it easy, take it easy.”) A photographer gives Brad mouth-to-mouth, and he gasps and opens his eyes. There are last words, but nobody knows what they are; the men who rush him to the hospital don’t understand English, and Quebrado has forgotten how to speak his mind.

-

His old girlfriend Glass was in Hawaii when she heard. She’d been e-mailing Brad a lot. She missed him, and it seemed like he missed her too. She’d been in New York right before he’d left for Oaxaca, and they’d gone on a pub crawl. He’d had a girlfriend with him, but in the pictures from that night it’s Glass on Brad’s arm. The day he died, she was sitting in a park, singing songs she learned from Brad. She sang the anarchist anthems, then Woody Guthrie’s “Hobo Lullaby.” Most of all she wanted to sing his favorite, “Angel from Montgomery.” She tried to hear Brad’s voice. He’d be John Prine, she’d be Bonnie Raitt.

Just give me one thing that I can hold on to/To believe in this living is a hard way to go.

“I have to e-mail Brad,” she thought. “This is so great!” Then her phone rang. “This is Dyan, right?” a stranger’s voice said. “Can you call Brad Will’s mom? He’s hurt.”

“What? How?” The stranger wouldn’t answer. “I’m not calling his mother until I know what happened,” Glass said. The stranger gave Glass another number. She dialed. “I was told to call this number about Brad?” she asked.

“Yeah, it’s been confirmed,” said the voice on the other end, another stranger.

“What’s been confirmed?”

“Oh, he’s dead.”

All Glass remembers after that is screaming.

-

In Oaxaca, the APPOs combed Brad’s long hair and dressed his body in white. They draped a gold cross around his neck and laid him in a coffin. There were no fiery speeches, just weeping. Then-president Fox used the death of the gringo as an excuse to invade Oaxaca with 4,000 federal police. The U.S. ambassador, a Bush crony from Texas, blamed the violence on schoolteachers and said that Brad’s death “underscores the need for a return to law and order.” In the coming months, the APPO would be crushed; Calderón would slam through a Mexican version of the Patriot Act, allowing police to tap phones and make arrests without warrants or charges; and, this past fall, the Bush administration proposed a $1.4 billion military aid package for Calderón’s regime, ostensibly to fight drugs and “terrorism.”

And Brad’s killers? It seemed like an open-and-shut case—a Mexican news photographer had even taken a picture of the men who appeared to be the shooters, a group of beefy thugs in plain clothes charging toward Brad and the APPOs with pistols and AR-15s. The Oaxaca state prosecutor, a Ruiz loyalist, grudgingly issued warrants for two of them, police Commander Orlando Manuel Aguilar and Abel Santiago Zárate, known as “El Chino.” But at a press conference two weeks later, the prosecutor announced a new theory: Brad’s murder had been a “deceitful confabulation” planned by the APPO. In this version of events, Brad was only grazed on the street. The fatal bullet was fired point-blank by an APPO on the way to the hospital—a physical impossibility, according to the coroner. No matter. At the end of November, a judge set the suspects free.

Last March, Brad’s parents traveled to Mexico to request that the investigation be turned over to federal authorities. They won that fight, only to be fed the same story with a half dozen variations. Believability wasn’t the point. “In political crimes in Mexico,” notes Gibler, who came to act as the family’s translator, “there’s an impeccably neat history of immediate obfuscation and destruction of evidence. The authorities immediately flood all discussion with conspiracy theory. There’s a tradition of exquisite incompetence, so that later only speculation is possible.”

The Wills are not, by nature, speculative people. At age sixty-eight, Hardy is a solid, fit man with white hair worn in a boyish curl. He still drives more than an hour each way every day to his factory in Rockford, Illinois. Kathy Will bounces like a loose electron around the Wisconsin lake house in which they now live. Designed and built by Brad’s great-grandfather, the home is a mansion of broad, dark cypress beams, spotless, disturbed only by neat stacks of documents, arranged at the great oak dining table, like settings for a seminar on Brad’s achievements as a boy, Mexican politics and ballistics.

It’s on this last matter that the case still turns. If the Wills are ever to be able to say, “This is what happened, this is how Brad died, this is the man who killed him,” they must determine what sort of bullet killed him and where, exactly, it came from. The initial coroner’s report said the bullets were 9mm, which would rule out the .38s carried by the cops Brad filmed. But a re-examination of the evidence has revealed that the bullets were .38s after all. Hardy shows me a photograph of them, two squat slugs hardly dented. “They only passed through soft tissue,” he says. But from how far away? The government says Brad was shot nearly point-blank. The Wills are certain he was shot by the policemen at the end of the street. Proving that, they believe, may start the wheels of justice turning. I’ve come bearing what passes for good news to the Wills these days: a frame-by-frame analysis of Brad’s last minute made by his friend Warcry, who has entrusted me to act as her courier.

“This is what we’ve been waiting for,” says Hardy. We gather in a TV room. “That’s it!” Hardy exclaims. There, on the left side of the screen, above the hood of the red dump truck, in the green of the trees, a tiny white starburst appears, expands, drifts like smoke, visible for a fraction of a second, blown up into giant, pale pizels—very possible the bullet that’s about to hit Brad.

“Should we watch it again?” Hardy asks. Kathy’s head drops, and she backs out of the room. Rewind, pause; Brad falls down, over and over. “Yes,” says Hardy quietly, “this is what we need.”

He’s excited, his face flushed. It’s 11:30 at night. I call Warcry; she’s up, waiting for the Wills’ response. Hardy wants to see a still she’s isolated of a man who appears to be holding a sniper rifle, more potential evidence for a long-distance kill shot. “This could really change everything!” Hardy says. We gather around his computer in his study, a dark room filled with hunting trophies and memorabilia from Hardy’s Yale football days. I pull up the image, a man in a yellow shirt at a distance, a long gun barrel rising above his left shoulder. Hardy sighs. He walks over to a well-stocked gun cabinet, removes a rifle and turns around, posing perfectly as the man Warcry believes is his son’s killer.

“It’s not a sniper rifle,” he says, looking at the gun in his hand. “It’s a carbine.”

The puff of white smoke is the best piece of evidence they’ve seen in the year since Brad died, but they still can’t explain how he was shot twice at long range by such a clumsy old weapon. Hardy slumps into a seat in the corner, thinking of one more theory—one more chance at certainty—dashed.

Kathy brings us tea. Like Brad, she has soft, sleepy eyes and a broad smile. “I like talking to people,” she says. “I’ll talk to anyone. I guess that’s where Brad got it from.” Hardy is exhausted, but Kathy sits up, watching Brad’s old videos—Brad fleeing tear gas in Miami, bullets in Brazil. Hardy was always the skeptical one, shielding his wife from the ways of the world, but now it’s Kathy who’s gaining a worldly wisdom, grasping the roots of her son’s political discontent. She still doesn’t get the politics, tsk-tsks when she sees Brad sitting in front of an upside-down American flag—a crisp Stars and Stripes snaps on a pole outside the house, and there are three bands of red, white, and blue stones on her finger. It’s not anything that Brad said that has changed her point of view. It’s what the Mexican government says, the lies they told her to her face.

“It’d be laughable if they weren’t serious,” she says. “What they’re really telling me is that Brad was there for a very good reason. Believe me, I didn’t want him there. But he was absolutely right. He was right about all the injustices. I didn’t know it then. I really didn’t know. I know it now. In spades.”

One of the most common clichés about radicalism in America is the myth that it’s all about the parents, activists rebelling against or proving themselves to Mom and Dad before they settle down and become Mom or Dad. That wasn’t what Brad Will was doing. Had he come through that fire-fight on October 27th, 2006, he probably wouldn’t have mentioned it to his mother. Instead, he’d tell her about the great Mexican food he’d had, and she’d say that the lake was flattening in the cold, that soon it would be frozen, that maybe when he came home for Christmas he could go ice-skating. His footage likely would not have been seen outside activist circles in the United States, the echo chamber of the already persuaded. Yet the bullet that killed him ended up broadcasting what he had learned far beyond his usual channels, all the way back to where he’d begun. With Brad’s death, knowledge came to Kathy Will. It was the most awful kind of knowing: a new understanding of the world as it is, almost blinding her to the glimpse she had caught, maybe for the first time, of the world as Brad had imagined it could be.

“The last possible deed is that which defines perception itself,” writes Hakim Bey in the long and wild poem that turned Brad Will on to those possibilities, “an invisible golden cord that connects us.”

veganmolotov said,

January 18, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

although i knew a few people close to him i never got to know an awesome activist.

Better late than never though

JeffSharlet said,

January 19, 2008 @ 10:43 am

Thanks for posting this online, Crimethinc. In fact, I didn’t know Brad. Just liked the guy I learned about after he died.

Angela Bocage said,

January 19, 2008 @ 11:45 am

I get into a conversation with the above author of the Rolling Stone piece on my angelabocage.com page. He wrote me and said the stuff I said about crying when i read the article were the response he dreaded, and I felt bad. He seems like a really nice person, and while he wrote some great things about Brad I really took issue with some of it. But even though I say terrible things about him I hope to read his books and thought his Harper’s article on The Family was extremely eye-opening.

Angela Bocage said,

January 19, 2008 @ 11:47 am

oops meant the comments section of my last post.

Brad Will in Rolling Stone Magazine at said,

January 19, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

[...] READ THE ARTICLE HERE FRIENDS OF BRAD WILL _____ [...]

Crimethinc On Brad Will’s Martyrdom « Blueshift said,

January 20, 2008 @ 1:46 am

[...] Blueshift for a world without barriers « Isola nella Rete Crimethinc On Brad Will’s Martyrdom January 20, 2008 Following the Rolling Stone’s coverage of Brad Will’s murder in Oaxaca, Rolling Thunder has a feature, now available online. [...]

swarmdistro said,

January 20, 2008 @ 11:13 am

I guess it’s better that this story is generally supportive and brings attention to Brad and Oaxaca, but it makes me completely noxious to think that Brad’s death is helping to furnish this yuppie’s brownstone in Brooklyn. At $1.50 a word, Brad’s death sure has turned out to be profitable for some members of the capitalist press. I’d honestly rather that Brad’s death got no attention from the capitalist media at all than have to think about how Jeff Sharlet et al are cashing in on the death of someone who dedicated his life to alternative, anti-capitalist media. Three cheers to Brad for having been far braver than these pathetic hacks in both his personal integrity and his reporting.

JeffSharlet said,

January 20, 2008 @ 11:35 am

I’ll second your three cheers for Brad, Swarmdistro, and gladly say he was braver than me. Probably you, too, and definitely smarter than you — one thing Brad didn’t do was shoot his mouth off without finding out what he was talking about first. I just spent a good part of the last five years undercover or among the far Christian Right. Real yuppie shit. You know, sipping chardonnay while sifting through 1,000 pages of documents on Christian fundamentalis/capitalist/U.S. government collusion in Suharto’s genocides, or Siad Barre’s Guernica, or the billions in U.S. aid to the generals’ junta in Brazil. The money for that sort of thing rolls in, of course.

Figure out who your enemies are, Swarm. Or, what the hell, piss on everyone who’s not as saintly pure as you.

peter p said,

January 20, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

Swarmdistro, regardless of some single individual making money off of his journalism career—something that is quite far down the list of complaints we might have with popular culture as a whole—we should celebrate this event. Brad infiltrated pages corporations pay thousands for, he did so without changing or compromising his values to cater to their so-called profitability standards. It is impossibly stubborn and naïve to go on: “I’d honestly rather that Brad’s death got no attention from the capitalist media.” This kind of mentality is totally ridiculous; to argue that radical struggles are only to be witnessed and appreciated by those who are already familiar with radical struggles is to say that those who wage them are unworthy of presenting real alternative ways of living to the rest of the world.

swarmdistro said,

January 21, 2008 @ 8:07 am

To Jeff:

I’m glad you did such worthy things with your time. Good for you. That doesn’t make you any less of a capitalist hack when you sell articles to corporate media outlets. If you think doing ‘good’ things in the past is a Get Out Of Jail Free card for everything else you do for the rest of your life, then congratulations on discovering liberal bourgeois ideology. None of us are saintly or pure or capable of living without compromises, but neither are well-educated white men forced to make tens of thousands of dollars writing articles for corporate magazines. Accept some responsibility for yourself. Now go ahead, install some energy saving light bulbs; it’ll make everything else feel better, and you might even get an article out of it. And, yeah, Brad did shoot his mouth off when something made him sick. You didn’t know him, which I suppose is exactly what qualifies you to write an article about him in the mainstream media. Please, be exasperated. Your friends and that bottle of chardonnay are there to console you now. They certainly won’t call you out on your shit.

To peter p:

Saying that “Brad” (he’s dead by the way, he hasn’t done anything recently) “infiltrated” a corporate magazine is hopelessly naive. This is a process called recuperation, it’s the strength of capitalism and it’s what turns something abstract and intangible, like the death of a dear friend, into a commodity. Is that a completely black and white process? No. Perhaps there is some lonely kid out there who will read this story and be inspired to do something brave with his life (although I think it’s more likely that he’ll be inspired to become a womanizer given the author’s obsession with Brad’s sex life.) There’s a chance something positive could come out of it, but one thing that’s not left to chance is that everyone makes money. So pardon me for not celebrating the transformation of Brad’s life and death into a commodity, even if there is the possibility of a positive influence. It’s a sickening process either way. And to answer your last point, radical media need not limit itself to radical audiences. That’s kind of the point of CrimethInc.

ret marut said,

January 21, 2008 @ 11:57 am

OK everybody, here we go with the internet attitudes again! No such thing as a civil disagreement when you don’t have to look people in the eye, I guess. Here’s my two cents:

-Rolling Stone magazine is the enemy, yes. They’re capitalists who are not deeply invested in social change, and reinforcing their centrality in the distribution of information won’t serve us. We don’t have to accept that the hold a monopoly on access to “normal people.” There are other ways to reach those people.

-That said, there are a lot of different camps regarding how much compromise (and what kinds of compromise) makes sense, when it comes to spreading radical ideas and information. Myself, I don’t like to work with corporate media at all, but I also recognize that radical momentum is healthiest when it’s spreading outside the “radical ghetto” into a lot of different spaces.

-As someone who has been involved in the anarchist project full time now for a decade and a half, I think one of the most exhausting things–the things that make it hardest to keep going–is the constant fucking hostility from anarchists who are convinced that they are the sole possessors of the truth.

-So while I will personally never work with or support Rolling Stone, I’ll make a distinction between the owners of the magazine and someone who chooses to work with/for them. I think it’s just a matter of us disagreeing about the most effective means of passing on Brad’s legacy, and I want that to be a civil disagreement, so there aren’t any unnecessary schisms in radical circles. Even if we never agree about anything and never choose similar paths, it’s still important that information flows smoothly from one sector to another.

This is a hypothesis about what the most effective (and personable!) approach to this issue is, not a value judgment (which, as anarchists, I think we should be suspicious of).

xdx said,

January 21, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

I think that the intentions of individual journalists is pretty irrelevant in the face of the institutional power and ‘ethos’ of the media, and I sympathize with the anger of someone who sees their friend made two-dimensional in the pages of a corporate magazine. If a journalist tried to write something for Rolling Stone about someone close to me who had died, I would be less than civil, to say the least.

Peter P - I have trouble understanding how you can believe that Rolling Stone is “presenting real alternative ways of living to the rest of the world” by printing this article.

JeffSharlet said,

January 21, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

Swamp — there’s no “get out of jail” card, and neither you nor Brad is any purer than me. To argue otherwise — to suggest that through your individualist seccession you’ve somehow reached some moral highground — is the very cornerstone of liberal bourgeois ideology. You’re in the system whether you like it or not. The choice that remains to you is how you want to resist it. You can guard your personal purity, or you can hit where ever possible. But purity — any variety — is the spine of fascistic thinking. That rhetoric was the same path too many early 20th century anarchists took to fascism.

So we’re all fucking compromised. And maybe working for Rolling Stone compromises me more than Brad working for Kinko’s, or Bluestocking Books selling books that kick profit up to Rupert Murdoch, or you buying gas for your car, or liquor, or flour to bake bread with. Maybe Rolling Stone is the enemy. So the fuck what? Screeching about who has the right to write about Brad like some kind of guardian of the sacred ark is the best you can do with yourself? What bothers me about you is the fact that you don’t want to share your precious radical knowledge. It may be a fucking shame that Rolling Stone is one of the magazines most read in prison, but it’s a fact. So prisoners shouldn’t get to hear about Brad unless they’re cool enough to subscribe to Rolling Thunder? How about the fundamentalist kid in Scotia, NY, where I’m from, who’s never heard of anything left of fucking Hillary Clinton, who’s not allowed to use the internet at home, who reads a magazine like Rolling Stone at the newstand? Should that kid not hear about Oaxaca because she’s never even heard of hopping a train much less done so?

That’s not making excuses. I’m not sipping chardonnay, and I’m not claiming to be pure. I’m just regretting spending time on dumbass arguments like this one.

swarmdistro said,

January 22, 2008 @ 7:29 am

I’m not going to bother responding to Jeff’s intentional misreading of what I’ve written. His straw man is poorly constructed and its self-serving logic requires no analysis.

But to ret, I’ll just say briefly that I’ve been far less civil to opportunistic journalists face-to-face than I have been to Jeff here. I remember when black bloc-ers used to flip off the cameramen at demos so they couldn’t sell the pictures, and I used to do that too, so I don’t exactly feel like I’m breaking with some anarchist tradition of civility towards the capitalist press.

And to xdx, thank you for understanding why it might be upsetting to see a dead friend converted into a spectacular representation and then a down payment on a Prius.

Brad Will In Rolling Stone - and Some Thoughts About Something Else « Commie Curmudgeon said,

January 24, 2008 @ 2:26 am

[...] the issue (maybe it’s not out yet), but through some other sites, I landed upon a page from a Crimethinc site that has the story in its entirety.  It also has some dialogue about whether or not it was a [...]

D. Umpster said,

January 24, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

Hey “swarmdistro” please shut up. Don’t act like you’re better than Jeff because Harpers wouldn’t give you the internship you applied for. It’s just not productive or cool to be an asshole.

This is a good article. I only noticed one factual error. Brad didn’t know how to make bear claws which are pastries. He did help make black bear lock down devices. That made me chuckle.

Black bears - http://www.nopepperspray.org/rudin.htm
Bear claw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_claw

JeffSharlet said,

January 24, 2008 @ 2:44 pm

D. Umpster — thanks for the correction. In my very meager defense: a) I love bearclaws, the pastries; b) I doubted the name, too, but a figure well-known in anarchist activist circles swore to me that’s what they were called. I think it’s a good name, and that’s what those devices SHOULD be called.

Noble Swarm (apologies for mangling your name as Swamp — I didn’t realize you’d named yourself after fashionable political theory) : Sadly, I have not been able to convert Brad’s remains into a downpayment on a Prius. I don’t actually have a car, but like all my colleagues at Harper’s and Rolling Stone, I dream of a Hummer converted to run on the blood of Oaxacans mixed with the integrity squeezed from the last squats of the Lower East Side. That’s why I write.

finne said,

January 24, 2008 @ 4:06 pm

Jeff-
I want to say, first, that in general I’m happy Brad Will and the struggle of the Oaxacan people were even mentioned in a mainstream capitalist magazine, and for your part in making that happen I want to say thanks.

One glaring error I wanted to point out, though, is that the APPO was not “crushed”, and even if it had been the Oaxacan struggle would most likely continue autonomously. There were also times when the article felt like some kind of pop-hagiography - calling someone a “superstar” and implying that they were a martyr can easily incorporate our collective memory of Brad (and by extension for most RS readers, the Oaxacan struggle his death “revealed” to us) into the Western liberal narrative of popular social defeat and endless streams of righteously dead activists.

Most importantly, that image of Brad as a “damaged martyr” highlighted the very real possibility of the article becoming a recuperative effort, in which Rolling Stone’s audience experiences the conflict in Oaxaca as a corollary of the life of a revolutionary killed by a “corrupt government” (as if there were “legitimate governments”), and who was basically doomed by his “idealism” to begin with. If this is the image most readers of the article are left with, the struggles of both Brad as an American anarchist and the Oaxacan rebels as an insurgent population become totally inaccessible - they become monuments (much like the lives of the Roman Catholic martyrs) which are intelligible but ultimately not empowering.

mariobudha said,

January 24, 2008 @ 9:15 pm

Hey folks, and I mean the seriously interested ones, not the rest, trolls, cops, armchairsists, et al..

Let’s experiment with exploring different ways of engaging with reality than sarcasm and snark. It often leads to factually inaccuracies (”presumably written by one of Brad’s countless friends…) that then serve as the shaky foundation for ad hominem or broad strokes not worthy of a critical view: (”Thanks to such shining examples of journalistic integrity as Rolling Stone”) meant to foster a sense of unity and superiority amongst the true cognescenti, that is those reading the material in the first place. This then can lead to false analysis (”All they have to do is hope some sexy, well-connected US journalist “) that distracts and disempowers us from our true possibilities.

Mass media exists, people read it, are impacted by it, etc. Rolling Stone has also published about the still ongoing “Drug War”.

Brad Will’s murder has been utilized for the precise purposes that he was seeking to report the story and is bumbling up into a greater consciousness, and with it the issues of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Atenceo, Mexico etc etc, not because he was sexy and well connected, but because many people, his friends and other dedicted activists are still raising it in a variety of ways.

From civil disobedience, to letter writing to getting thrown out of Congressional hearings, working with migrant and immigrant communities, making and showing films, hosting forums with other human rights activists, etc etc

The good news is that YOU can be INVOLVED and CONTRIBUTE in some unique way that will impact us all in a helpful manner,

We are currently working to STOP PLAN MEXICO, a $1.5 billion Bush/Calderon military package that would be used against the civilian population in Mexico, with a special $60 million allocation to the prosecutor and investigator;s office who is responsible for not indicting the filmed murderes of Brad (Emilio Alonso Fabian, Estevan Ruiz, Estevan Lopez Zurita and Eudacia Olivera Diez also kiled that day) and others in Oaxaca and elsewhere.

So, it does not matter what the corporate media does or does ot print, it matters how we use what exists to accomplish our goals with a diversity of approcaches and tactics.
http://www.friendsofbradwill.org

Your love and joy and snark and sarcasm are welcome to be utilized in a helpful manner.

Stop Plan Mexico.

JeffSharlet said,

January 25, 2008 @ 12:08 pm

My biggest regret with this story is that I wasn’t able to keep in the stuff I wrote about Plan Mexico, and the good work Friends of Brad Will and others are doing to fight it. I think my editor had legitimate structural reasons for arguing that it was another story, but my original hope — and his, for that matter — was that we’d go from Brad’s story to that of Mexico’s popular uprisings. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which was time, resources, and my own writing style which tends more to the narrative than the analytic, it ended up being more about how this guy Brad came to be aware of the world and responded to it. I’m still hoping to write about Plan Mexico.

That said, I disagree with Finne about the APPO. I agree with all your points about pop-hagiography (tho, given the anger of some here who feel that I’ve betrayed Brad, it’s hard to see this as hagiographic), and I cringed when I saw the word “superstar,” over which I had no control. But just as dangerous is the kind of movement celebratory narrative that suggests that the resistance is always strong, the people are always on the march, the revolution is always about to happen. That denies the real suffering experienced by those who sometimes do get their asses kicked. The APPO got its ass kicked, and what’s left is in disarray. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be another uprising — there will, and I’m guessing it will be bigger — but it will be a new uprising with roots in the old, just as the APPO was a new uprising with ideological roots in the Zapatista movement.

And, for what it’s worth, I think it’ll make use of the concept of martyrdom. Remember, first, that “martyr” means simply someone killed by the powerful for the act of bearing witness to truth. Brad may not have been a superstar, but he was unquestionably martyred; moreover, he’s viewed as such by many in Oaxaca. One of the most fascinating developments, I thought, was that after Brad’s death many ordinary Oaxacans suddenly “remembered” their encounters with the gringo who came to film their revolution. They weren’t lying, any more than the many holocaust survivors who “remember” Mengele are lying. Such stories become things on their own, deeply embedded metaphors for expressing all sorts of things — in Oaxaca, I think, “remembering” Brad spoke to the awareness of Oaxacans that as isolated as they felt some days, suffering from media black out and the much worse actual assault of military troops, there were other people from far away who knew about them and shared their beliefs. I think that’s why Brad’s memory survives so strongly there now — not because Oaxacans need a white guy from the U.S. to validate their struggle, but because his memory is a shorthand for the awareness that the struggle has a resonance far beyond the immediate.

margaret said,

January 26, 2008 @ 10:05 am

I’m new to all this squabbling. When the right-wing wants to organize in my neighborhood they have people who look like my husband and me knock on each door and they act real nice and tell us about how much they love jesus.

they seem really effective.

i liked mario’s comments because he kind of brought the conversation around again to what people are ACTUALLY DOING to continue the work brad (and others) were engaged in.

I heard about the activism in Congressional hearings and the calls (i made my calls to congress and am organizing a rally in california outside pelosi’s office about her support for Plan Mexico). It was inspiring.

I understand the bitterness of some of the commentators but feel it’s counter-productive to attack a journalist who has raised issues to a new audience.

And I am baffled by the silence of the people who seemed so passionate in denouncing Jeff for his actions but when mario suggests that people are taking ACTION to stop state violence and us funded repression, there is SILENCE!

Maybe you’re organizing something that would convince my neighbors to oppose PLAN MEXICO.

But I have a feeling that for that to happen aloof (non)activists need to look around and be more creative in their efforts.

what did you call them, mario? Oh yes, armchairists. Good word.

margaret

AYYJEEZ said,

January 28, 2008 @ 4:31 am

I think people need to get off the martyr kick and look more critically at the reasons for Brad’s death. Yeah it was the fascist government and their supporters who killed Brad, and sure rebellion is liberating, but I think we need to question this rebellion-tourism. The guy’s going around Ecuador, Bolivia, Oaxaca with only a disfunctional knowledge of spanish? It says

“The media painted a picture of a gung-ho idealist who didn’t know which way was which, but the guy was not clueless,” says Gibler. “That first day I said, Hey, Brad, you wanna come along to the barricades tonight?” He looked at me, and he said, “I can’t wait to get out there, but people are getting killed. I need to get a feel of the place. Walking around at night without that is not a smart move.”

Is waiting around until the next day a much better idea? It takes a long time (and knowledge of the language) to understand the social and political situation in another country so maybe its not the best idea to jump into the front lines, for the sake of all involved. It sounds like he went down there with preconcieved notions of what it was all about and just jumped in to trumpet the cause. I know the people at narconews will disagree with this but the APPO had plenty of opportunist wannabe politicians who are about as revolutionary as the ruling Partido Revolucionario Institutional. So obviously this isn’t a straight libertarian revolution, so should anarchists go out on the lines so another politician like Evo Morales or Chavez can be put back in? I also question this idea that Oaxaca was on the brink of a people’s revolution. It seemed like the support of the general populace started backing off once the APPO resorted to trashing stuff and making the state “ungovernable” just so the governor would step down.

Now sure breaking some shit and overthrowing the government sounds good and all but its just harmful if you’re doing it in an impoverished city and your organization has dubious support from the people who have to live and work there after its done. Are the poor and indigenous really going to benefit from activists shutting down their city to make a political point and getting rid of the governor, or would activist be better off setting up alternative structures that help people. It seems that people like Will want to rush off to some locale to get a taste of rebellion and hopefully see the revolution, but they have little understanding of the context and the consequences of their actions.

I’m not trying to get down on international solidarity efforts. Things like prisoner support and spreading information about whats going on around the world is important. I can understand participating in actions that have concrete benefits for people, like setting up alternative institutions, getting people resources and assistance, or reclamation actions like the MST. But throwing down barricades just to be heard often seems counterproductive when you have nothing tangible to protect behind them. I think activists often get stuck in a rebellion-for-rebellion’s-sake frame of mind and too often has unintended consequences and doesn’t help to further the movement. Just because we see rebellion popping up somewhere in the globe doesn’t mean we should hop a plane and jump in OR uncritically cheer it on over the web.

Activists like to say they’re in the trenches fighting for freedom. If that’s the case then ACT LIKE IT. You can’t go to some country, barely knowing the language and get yourself into an uncertain situation and start getting vocal or fighting. That’s what the US military does and you can see how bloody and fucked up their adventurism gets (journalists’ ignorance of local situations is similarly detrimental). Obviously in places like Mexico you don’t get arrested and beat up for protesting, you get shot, so prepare and act accordingly, we’d be better off with Brad Wills around countinuing his activism rather than dead with some footage of a couple gunmen. I’m not saying we should stop fighting for the revolution, I’m just saying that we need strategic thinkers rather than cheerleaders. If you want to be in a trench, make sure you’re in the right one, make sure you know what your doing, and make sure you know what you’re fighting for. Remember the Spanish and Russian revolutions, it wasn’t for a couple years before foreign supporters understood what was really going on under the auspices of a “people’s revolution”. Sure there was a need for intenational fighters and supporters, but they aren’t much help when they end up working for quasi-revolutionaries and despots. Lets learn from past mistakes.

Subversive_Happiness said,

January 28, 2008 @ 11:15 pm

The achievements of the man’s life are impressive. No doubt about that much. But has anarchy really spiraled down to martyrdom? We are all martyrs in some respect or another just because our opinions are out of the usual frame of politics but part of this whole belief is not to idealize anything so much as to let it have power over you and I am afraid this article is idealizing Brad as the near-perfect anarchist. Therefore half of the people that are self-described anarchists that read this will attempt to emulate Brad and shun there own actions in light of his. Therefore Brad has power over activists who know he existed.

Brad was a good dude but this article has such a idealizing-tint that I am afraid some of those in the “trenches” may be turning on their own ideals to draw more unenlightened scatter brains and dis-satisfied liberals to their cause. With this new “poser” crowd drawing in it may lead to the abusive of anarchist action to further despotic goals similar to the Russian Revolution.

I half to say I agree with “AYY JEEZ” in regard to Brad’s activist-tourism as being but a spin-off of the United States military adventurism which has lead to some of the world’s more shocking failures.

-Friend

lamuella said,

January 29, 2008 @ 11:41 am

““If you survive me,” Brad told a friend after he’d battled cops at a protest in Prague, “tell them this: I never gave up. That’s a quote, all right?” ”

It is a quote. In fact it’s a quote from a song by Chumbawamba.

saoirse said,

January 29, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

(and its a good quote from Chumbawamba - I think Brad was perfectly aware of its origins.)
About the portrayal of Brad as an anarcho- superstar. I dont know about that at all. This article is full of critical comments - like Sascha’s. But most crucifying of all is the opening image of naked Brad trying to kiss some random chica behind the waterfall, and she, this blow-in, gets to sumise his whole fucking life as such : “Like he was incomplete, too lonely,” she says. Maybe he was just tired after a decade and a half on the front lines of a revolution that never quite happened. ”
This is a pretty devastating introduction to the character (for the reader of the article). I wondered why Jeff chose this as the first defining image of Brad - as a literary device to pull him down only to build him up later? or because that really is how he perceives him from all his research and interviews (having never met him?)?
Ive read loads of articles about Brad, and this is probably the best - at least the best written. Until Sascha writes the final word, that is.

xdx said,

February 2, 2008 @ 11:12 am

Hmm, I think in situations like this when the media reports on dead comrades, it is no longer ‘life draining’, but necrophilic. I think comments here, like comments elsewhere on this blog, speak to the huge divide that exists between the leftist/activist milieu of anarchism and the ‘anti-political’/insurrectional milieu (if it can be called that). It is interesting that Crimethinc is a convergence point for both, an awkward meeting place of two tendencies that have very little in common but are held together by subculture and personal friendship.

I am not engaged in any activity related to Plan Mexico, but I don’t think my lack of action in this regard makes me unable to critique the media or a journalist.

“The media has another essential function. It is the creator of images for consumption. It creates celebrities and personalities for people to look up to and vicariously live through. It creates role images for people to imitate in order to invent their “identity”. It creates images of events separated from and placed above life. It is through these images, ingested uncritically, that people are to view and interpret the world, formulating their opinions out of this virtual unreality…

In choosing to seek to get one’s ideas across through the media, one is choosing to feed these ideas to this masticating monster, to offer one’s self to this life-draining ghoul. For anarchists this makes no sense. It is impossible for the media to portray anarchism as a living praxis or anarchists as complex multi-dimensional individuals. It is therefore not possible to express anarchist ideas in a worthwhile way through this forum. The ideas will be chewed up and shat out as one opinion among many, one more turd about whose odor the public can argue. The living individuals get chewed up and shat out as images-of freaks, of intellectual brooders, of street rioters-but essentially as images not living, acting beings. The media is part of the power structure, and, as such, is our enemy. We can’t play their game and win.”

nouseforaname said,

February 4, 2008 @ 9:36 pm

“Even before he was killed by a Mexican policeman’s bullet, Brad Will seemed to those who revered him more like a symbol—a living folk song, or a murder ballad—than like a man.”

i wanted to vomit when i first read those words and the whole article makes my skin crawl.

why must we make gods out of men? i was brad’s friend, and his death hurt a lot– but brad’s feet were made of clay. he was human and that is why he died– because hot lead rips through flesh, because governments kill scientifically and without passion, the world stuck through the grinders of clean systems that value everything that is not alive.

brad’s death is meaningful precisely because he was human. he was one of us. he wasn’t a superstar. he didn’t live in the rarefied world of the other, of the object, of the symbol. he was an anarchist. he was a man. and everything he did in his life, everyone of us is capable of (for better or worse– brad wasn’t exactly perfect).

to make brad a martyr, to create this mythology around him, is to deny him meaning– to take away precisely what is special about him. and what is that?
that he was a rebel, that he came from the same set of larger circumstances we all find ourselves in, and he chose freedom, revolution, and anarchy. brad is special because he is one of us, not separate, above, and apart.

a distinction worth making– brad didn’t go to oaxaca to die for his beliefs. he went to oaxaca to *fight for them.* fuck martyrdom.

JeffSharlet said,

February 10, 2008 @ 10:01 am

Here’s the thing — a lot of people here resent the fact that I reported that Brad seemed to ‘those who revered him more like a symbol… than a man.” But hell, I didn’t say Brad was more like a symbol than a man, I said “those who revered him” — the many friends and comrades I talked to, and the many more who paid tribute online, they — you — are the ones who made your friend a symbol.

The folk song analogy? I decided to lead with it after I’d heard it from three friends. Three of Brad’s anarchist’s friends who said, “His life was like a folk song.”

Me, I don’t have any problem with that, but that’s beside the point. I reported that this is how a lot of people felt. But for that matter, after having interviewed 40 of Brad’s friends, I feel pretty confident that he didn’t take himself so seriously that he would have minded that. Nobody who really loves Woody Guthrie’s music, and gets it, and makes it his own, would mind that. Nobody who gets a song is so silly as to think the song is the whole story. It’s just one story among many.

And one of the stories about Brad that has come up within various anarchist communities since his death is a martyrdom story. Brad probably wouldn’t have liked that one; then again, he didn’t like getting shot, either. What’s a martyr? The word does not mean someone who dies for his beliefs. It means someone who is killed for his beliefs. World of difference.

Now, if you feel, as XDX does, that stories themselves are the enemy, then that’s that, though I’m puzzled by XDX’s argument given her great blog on print culture. My guess is that most of the writers and publishers she admires there, a lot of them the same writers on my shelves, would be alarmed by the anti-story manifesto in her comment.

But if you think stories matter — that they are simultaneously mediated and immediate, as it were — and that by telling stories we are engaging in a living process, one that doesn’t end w/ the martyrdom tributes paid to Brad Will at his memorial, or a Rolling Stone story, or the “Brad Will Presente” carved in the sidewalk on Broadway, then consider the process of storytelling within the various anarchist communities. Consider the creation of martyr narratives and the construction of heroic purity. Ask yourself whether that’s the result of “outside” media, or whether any of it comes inside. Listen to the “Tear Gas Anthem” — is it a martyr song? Is there any “anthem” that’s not?

If, having done that, you conclude that the number one priority is purging yourself of any story that is not genre-fucking-perfecto, look to your own community first. But if you conclude that most stories are a fucking mess, which is why we tell more stories, and that right now there are folks geting killed, squashed, and otherwise maimed by empire, and that one of the very few weapons we have to oppose that is stories — well, then, maybe you can get on with the fight instead of burning books. Much of the discussion here is real, but there’s a strain that doesn’t sound “anarchist” to me at all. Reminds me more of Stalin’s commissars whipping doctrinally errant fascist fighters into line in Spain, 1936.

Friends of Brad Will » Rolling Stones Magazine article & discussion said,

February 24, 2008 @ 12:03 am

[...] Here’s a link to the Crimethinc re-publishing of the Rolling Stone piece and a discussion of it. [...]

Jack said,

July 3, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

Funeral Flower…

Thanks for this page….

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.