doctorow at April 3rd, 2014 10:00 — #1
mag_pie at April 3rd, 2014 10:04 — #2
Fuck the police.
That is all.
ffabian at April 3rd, 2014 10:13 — #3
I posted this before but it seems apt:
They apparently learned from the best.
from the wikipedia article:
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung (pronounced [ʦɛɐ̯ˈzɛʦʊŋ]) – a term borrowed from chemistry which literally means "decomposition".
By the 1970s, the Stasi had decided that methods of overt persecution which had been employed up to that time, such as arrest and torture, were too crude and obvious. It was realised that psychological harassment was far less likely to be recognised for what it was, so its victims, and their supporters, were less likely to be provoked into active resistance, given that they would often not be aware of the source of their problems, or even its exact nature. Zersetzung was designed to side-track and "switch off" perceived enemies so that they would lose the will to continue any "inappropriate" activities.Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim's private or family life. This often included psychological attacks such as breaking into homes and messing with the contents – moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually victims had no idea the Stasi were responsible. Many thought they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
One great advantage of the harassment perpetrated under Zersetzung was that its subtle nature meant that it was able to be plausibly denied.
acerplatanoides at April 3rd, 2014 10:18 — #4
On the one hand, this is terrible.
On the other hand, the man* feels threatened. Good.
edit: * 'the Man', because capitalization IS important.
mister44 at April 3rd, 2014 10:37 — #5
OK. I'd really like some more details on this "eviction". They lived there for 52 years? Aren't most mortgages 30 or less? It mentions not missing a payment in 52 years, again, who has 50+ year mortgages? Did they take out a second mortgage? Assuming they are being evicted for not paying a debt, why aren't they paying the debt? A technicality was mentioned, what exactly is it?
Sorry it just seems really fishy. Getting evicted from a home is usually a long process, and if you have the money for it, one you can prevent.
carl_pietranton at April 3rd, 2014 10:42 — #6
I suspect that the payments are RENT. It is common in some cities for families to rent the same place for decades on end.
nickyg at April 3rd, 2014 10:48 — #7
You don't get evicted from a house you have lived at for 52 years and own. They obviously didn't own it. Thus no mortgage.
nickyg at April 3rd, 2014 10:51 — #8
On one hand this is horrible news. And you know, his book may be a factor here as well. I only started it (really do need to finish it), but it's extremely worth reading and educational about how the monetary system and power on a larger level work. There are definitely people out there who want this all to be a mystery.
On the other hand, I've always been one to say things are going to have to get a LOT worse before they get better. This is but a sign of things to come. And it's going to force people to be more thoughtful in how they work against the oligarchy. That's probably a good thing.
brian_carnell at April 3rd, 2014 10:59 — #9
Regarding how he could be evicted after so long..
According to Graeber's Twitter feed, his parents moved into the apartment building in question when he was 3 years old. It appears that his parents died, and Graeber continued to live in the apartment and make payments. However, he wasn't on the original occupancy agreement:
@kaponofor3 I was there when the buildings opened and we moved in 3 years later & have always been on the income affidavit etc
@kaponofor3 I wasn't on the original occupancy agreement because it was signed before I was born
mister44 at April 3rd, 2014 10:59 — #10
I've never heard of that. Must be an east coast thing.
nickyg at April 3rd, 2014 11:00 — #11
Quite common in NYC in rent-controlled apartments.
jeff_fisher at April 3rd, 2014 11:05 — #12
Wondering if this has anything at all to do with NYPD intelligence, OWS, etc... or if his landlord just wants the vastly higher rent.
randyrandy at April 3rd, 2014 11:07 — #13
Fucking christ, that is terrifying on a visceral, punch-in the-gut kinda level. It's not the hapless, non-nondescript workings of a bureaucracy, nor even "banality of evil" type shit, but a purposefully twisted, malignant vision of human existence. Existential warfare.
douglas2 at April 3rd, 2014 11:24 — #14
And what he mentions about "income affidavit" would hint that it is a form of public-housing for low-to-moderate income people. My experience of UK council housing is that your eligibility to rent a place is related to income, family size, and the size of the house. Some councils will let a parent stay in a multibedroom house after the children have all become adults, but some will require a move because they don't have enough houses for the larger families in need. Likewise with the death of a partner, you are not likely to be forced to move, if you were partners living together at the time of the original lease. In NY do succession rights ordinarily go to adult children?
simenzo at April 3rd, 2014 11:38 — #15
Probably a rent-controlled unit in a building that has been converted to co-ops. In such situations the building's original owner has to keep renting to the folks who didn't want to buy their apartments. If the landlord can get the renter out (who is probably paying below market rents), then he can sell the apartment for a tidy sum.
steampunkbanana at April 3rd, 2014 11:58 — #16
It's pretty typical. I know someone who lived someplace for 90 of their 93 years.
steampunkbanana at April 3rd, 2014 11:59 — #17
It's pretty specific to New York, which has a ton of super weird laws usually designed to protect renters because they don't own property but still pay all of the owner's bills.
rocketpj at April 3rd, 2014 13:09 — #18
Why is it good for someone to feel threatened?
cah at April 3rd, 2014 13:17 — #19
I assume AcerPlatanoides meant "the Man feels threatened", rather than the ambiguous "the man feels threatened".
(And this is why capitalization is important.)
melted_crayons at April 3rd, 2014 13:31 — #20
Pretty standard response over the last 50+ years from those who are the strong arm of TPTB.
What people need to understand is that the freedom to make money is the high religion of the U.S. and that anyone who threatens the exercise of the freedom to financially exploit is considered an enemy of the State, the response being waging some kind of war whether it be internationally or here at home.
next page →