Enemies Within: On Occupy and Infiltration, Part 1
Posted by onehundredflowers on February 29, 2012
This piece comes from truthdig.com.
“…[I]nfiltration is the norm in political movements in the United States. Occupy has many opponents likely to infiltrate to divide and destroy it beyond the usual law enforcement apparatus. Other detractors include the corporations whose rule Occupy seeks to end; conservative right wing groups allied with corporate interests; and members of the power structure including nonprofit organizations linked with corporate-funded political parties, especially the Democratic Party, which would like Occupy to be its tea party rather than an independent movement critical of both parties.
Infiltration to Disrupt, Divide and Misdirect Is Widespread in Occupy
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
This is Part I of a two-part series on infiltration of Occupy and what the movement can do about limiting the damage of those who seek to destroy us from within. This first article describes public reports of infiltration as well as results of a survey and discussions with Occupiers about this important issue. The second article will examine the history of political infiltration and steps we can take to address it.
In the first five months, the Occupy movement has had major victories and has altered the debate about the economy. People in the power structure and who hold different political views are pushing back with a traditional tool—infiltration. Across the country, Occupies are struggling with disruption and division, attacks on key people, escalation of tactics to include property damage and police conflict as well as misuse of websites and social media.
As Part II of this discussion will show, infiltration is the norm in political movements in the United States. Occupy has many opponents likely to infiltrate to divide and destroy it beyond the usual law enforcement apparatus. Other detractors include the corporations whose rule Occupy seeks to end; conservative right wing groups allied with corporate interests; and members of the power structure including nonprofit organizations linked with corporate-funded political parties, especially the Democratic Party, which would like Occupy to be its tea party rather than an independent movement critical of both parties.
On the very first day of the Occupation of Wall Street, we saw infiltration by the police. We were leaving Zuccotti Park and were stopped in traffic. We saw the doors of an unmarked van open and in the front seat were two uniformed police. Out of the back came two men dressed as Occupiers wearing backpacks, sweatshirts and jeans. They walked into Zuccotti Park and became part of the crowd.
In the first week of the Occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., we saw the impact of two right wing infiltrators. A peaceful protest was planned at the drone exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. The plan was for a banner drop and a die-in under the drones. But as protesters arrived at the museum, two people ran out in front, threatening the security guards and causing them to pepper spray protesters and tourists. Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator, wrote a column bragging about his role as an agent provocateur. A few days later we uncovered the second infiltrator, Michael Stack, when he was urging people on Freedom Plaza to resist police with force. We later learned he was from the Leadership Institute, which trains youth in right wing ideology and tactics. We were told he had also been at Occupy Wall Street provoking violence.
There have been a handful of other reports around the country of infiltration. In Oakland, CopWatch filmed an Oakland police officer infiltrating.
a
a
In another video, CopWatch includes audiotape of an Oakland police chief, Howard Jordan, talking about how police departments all over the country infiltrate, not just to monitor protesters but to manipulate and direct them.
There were also reports in Los Angeles of a dozen undercover police in the encampment before they were forcibly evicted by the police. The raid by the L.A. police was brutal and resulted in mass arrests, with most charges dropped, but with others mistreated in jails. Similar pre-raid undercover activities were reported in Nashville, Tenn.
Los Angeles also had infiltrators from the right wing group Free Republic. They posted on their Web page a call for infiltrators to block a vote concerning an offer from the city of Los Angeles for virtually free space for Occupy L.A.: “Need LA Freepers to show up to block this vote by the Occupy L.A. General Assembly. How brave are you?” In the end, the L.A. Occupy decided not to accept the offer from the city, something opposed by other elements in the encampment.
In New York, there were also reports of infiltration. For example, one protester described how undercover police infiltrated a demonstration at Citibank and were the loudest and most disruptive participants. Later at the station listening to the police, the protester said in an interview: “It was a bit startling how inside their information was, how they were being paid to go to these protests and put us in situations where we’d be arrested and not be able to leave.”
Survey and Interviews of Occupiers Show Common Tactics, Infiltrators
These scattered reports seem to be the tip of the iceberg. As a result of experiencing extreme divisive tactics and character assassination on Freedom Plaza, we began to hear from Occupiers across the country about similar incidents in their encampments. We decided to survey people about infiltration.
Recently we toured occupations on the West Coast, where we spoke to many participants and have attended General Assemblies at Occupy Wall Street and Philadelphia. We heard stories in Arizona of someone with website administrative privileges deleting the live stream archive that included video that was to be used in defense of some who were arrested. In Lancaster, Pa., someone took control of the email list, making it an announce-only list, and when the police threatened to close the camp, that person put out a statement that the Lancaster Occupiers had decided to go without any conflict. In fact, no such decision had been made and 30 Occupiers had planned to risk arrest when the police tried to remove them. The false email resulted in no resistance.
Our West Coast trip ended at the Occupy Olympia Solidarity Social Forum. We were able to survey 41 people representing 15 occupations primarily on the West Coast but including Missoula, Mont., and New Orleans. Participants were questioned about 10 behaviors. The most common behaviors, seen in roughly two-thirds of those surveyed and covering 12 of the 15 occupations, were:
1. Disruptions of the General Assemblies and attempts to divide the group. Individuals would interrupt General Assemblies with emergency items or sidetrack the agenda with their personal needs or issues. When proposals were presented to the General Assembly on principles for the occupation or plans to prevent division, individuals would question the authority of the writers of the proposal, launch personal attacks or question their abilities. There were frequent attacks on people who did the most work and were perceived as leaders. The anti-leadership views of many Occupiers were used to essentially attack the most effective people. Sue Basko wrote about this in Los Angeles in a comment on a Chris Hedges article, writing that there was an “ongoing campaign of harassment and coercion against the Occupy L.A. participants and volunteers. Each day is a fresh set of victims.” She describes the use of Twitter, Listservs and blogs to “defame and harass anyone giving their efforts to help Occupy L.A.” This has included attacks on “social media workers, the website team, the lawyers (including me), the medics, the live streamers, the writers and on and on.” She also writes that “there is the very strong belief that some among them are FBI or DHS [Department of Homeland Security] agents placed there to start the group, egg it on, control it.” Conversations with others in Los Angeles confirmed this report. Our experience in the area of personal attacks included outlandish lies calling us criminals and thieves and near daily email attacks since early December. We found that when we respond and correct lies, it does not stop them and have concluded that if someone has the intention to be a character assassin there is nothing you can do except expose them. Although that does not necessarily stop them, it at least gets those in the occupation who are not gullible to doubt the undocumented personal attacks.
2. Individuals who took over the website and/or social media and then removed them or hacked them and took control. As noted above, these networks have been used in personal attacks, as well as to send inaccurate messages to the media and other Occupiers. One mistake made is to allow a large number of people to have administrative privileges on the website. Being an administrator allows people to erase crucial information as occurred in Phoenix. In Washington, D.C., we have been removed as administrators of a Facebook page we created because we allowed people who turned out to be untrustworthy to have administrative privileges. People can blog or post to Facebook or websites without being administrators.
Division over how money was being spent was an issue reported by 50 percent of respondents, and in 12 out of 15 occupations, individuals persistently questioned transparency and use of funds. In General Assemblies in New York and Philadelphia, we saw disruption by people who complained about money issues. In New York, an argument about access to free MetroCards resulted in a 30 minute argument. In Philadelphia, it was a vague complaint about “where is the money?” We saw something similar at a 99 percent’s meeting in San Francisco where one of the questioners complained about missing money. And, we have seen the same in Washington, D.C., with false accusations of missing money. Sometimes these disruptors seem like homeless or emotionally disturbed individuals. They could be acting out their concerns or they could be encouraged by police to attend meetings to cause disruption and may be paid a small amount to do so. Whether paid or not, the impact is the same—it takes the Occupy off of its political agenda and turns people off to participating in the movement.
Finally, the issue of escalation of tactics to include property damage and conflict with police was brought up. The euphemism for this is “diversity of tactics.” In fact, there is great diversity within nonviolent tactics. This is really a debate between those who favor strategic nonviolence and those who favor property destruction and police conflict. In 11 of 15 occupations, there were reports of verbal attacks on police and/or escalation of tactics from nonviolence to property destruction or violence. In one occupation, an individual took over the direct action working group and escalated the tactics used beyond what the group had agreed upon. In another Occupy, the General Assembly approved putting up a structure but agreed that if the police wanted it taken down the protesters would promptly do so to prove that it was temporary. After the structure was put up, a handful of people refused to take it down causing a 10 hour police conflict and undermining public support for the Occupy. In another occupation, because a minority of the demonstrators refused to adopt nonviolent strategies, a protest with the teachers union was canceled preventing a major opportunity to expand the movement. When it comes to the issue of violence versus property damage, it is particularly hard to tell whether the differences are political or instigated by infiltrators.
Participants were asked about attempts at co-optation by law enforcement, individuals or organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party and about suspected infiltration by right wing groups. Eight of the 15 occupations (41 percent of respondents) reported Democratic groups attempted to co-opt them, using the demonstrations to push or prevent a legislative agenda or using their social media to change the times of protests or meetings. Far fewer reported suspicion or evidence of right wing infiltration (12 percent of respondents in four occupations), most stating that the corporate media provided poor or misleading coverage. The most common form of infiltration was by law enforcement agencies (49 percent of respondents, 11 of 15 occupations). Some respondents reported having video evidence; some reported law enforcement officers having more information than they had been given—such as police using names of Occupiers when names had never been provided; and some suspected police infiltration but had no proof.
Of course, there is a lot of suspicion, but people are rarely able to prove infiltration. These incidents could be people with real political disagreement within the Occupy, or they could be people who are emotionally disturbed, mentally ill or who bring other personal challenges with them. Or, it could be an infiltrator manipulating these people, playing on their fears and prejudices. This is not a simple issue, as we will discuss in Part II. It is best to judge people by their actions and not label them as infiltrators without direct proof.
Some may wonder why Democrats or groups closely affiliated with the Democrats, such as MoveOn.org, Campaign for America’s Future, Rebuild the Dream or unions like the SEIU, would want to infiltrate the Occupy (note: Individuals who are Democrats or members of a union, MoveOn or other groups are not the same as the leadership). Essentially, leaders of these groups see Occupy as the Democrats’ potential answer to the tea party. Occupiers do not see themselves that way, but these groups want the movement to adopt their strategy of working within the Democratic Party. In one example, Eric Lotke, a senior policy analyst for SEIU who has been involved in Occupy D.C., appeared on a radio show with two other Occupiers from the Washington, D.C., and Oakland demonstrations. Lotke said he was speaking as an Occupier from D.C. and talked about “taking back Congress in 2012,” the need for an electoral strategy and gave the usual Democratic rhetoric about Obama needing more time. The two other guests said Lotke was completely out of step with most Occupiers, who say we should not focus on electoral politics but instead should build an independent movement to challenge the corrupt system. We doubt the Occupy D.C. General Assembly members agreed with Lotke’s pro-Democratic Party, pro-Obama views but he had positioned himself to speak for them. Van Jones of Rebuild the Dream similarly was appearing in the media as if he were an Occupy spokesperson, claiming there will be 2,000 “99 percent candidates” in 2012, again trying to push Occupy into Democratic electoral politics. These are just two examples of many Democratic Party operatives trying to drag Occupy into their politics despite the movement consistently describing itself as independent and non-electoral.
We have seen some Occupiers attacking the National Occupation of Washington, DC, scheduled to begin March 30, while other Occupiers have shown enthusiasm for it. Solidarity with NOW DC has been shown by 19 General Assemblies of occupations around the country. InterOccupy classifies it as a national event. The attackers have been criticizing NOW DC by finding fault with the authors of this article. This criticism is occurring at the same time that Democratic Party-aligned groups have announced their own project—“99%’s Spring”—that will take place at the same time as NOW DC. Thus far the dividers have succeeded in preventing solidarity between the two D.C. occupations and the rest of the Occupy movement. Is the timing a coincidence?
No doubt the information in this article is incomplete. We have been able to survey and talk with people at only about 20 Occupies. We would very much like to hear from others about experiences at their occupation, as understanding these tactics is the first step in confronting and addressing them. (Send your comments to research@october2011.org.)
In Part II of this series, we will focus on the history of government infiltration and the destruction of political movements and political leaders. We will also examine steps that can be taken to minimize the damage from these tactics. One thing evident from the history: Infiltration has been common in political movements for centuries as have divisive methods, attacks on leaders, escalation of tactics, fights over money and misinformation disseminated to the public.
Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese were among the original organizers of Occupy Washington, DC, and are now helping with the National Occupation of Washington, DC.
Carl Davidson said
Until I see some proof, I’m going to assume this is just something of a sectarian fantasy that Zeese and Flowers made up. I don’t know any leading Democrats who want OWS as their ‘Tea Party’. They are rather wary of OWS, even if they appreciate, to some degree, its role as an ‘energizer bunny’ for their own base. But they also fear it, as in the case of Jean Quan.
PDA, on the other hand, undoubtedly would like to play the role of left ‘Tea Party’ to the Democrats. Zeese can’t stand PDA, which conflicts with his ultraleft brand of populism. But that’s another matter…
Ghan said
“And, we have seen the same in Washington, D.C., with false accusations of missing money. Sometimes these disruptors seem like homeless or emotionally disturbed individuals. They could be acting out their concerns or they could be encouraged by police to attend meetings to cause disruption and may be paid a small amount to do so. Whether paid or not, the impact is the same—it takes the Occupy off of its political agenda and turns people off to participating in the movement.”
If it is the former (and no evidence is presented in this article either way) than Occupy DC needs to do some “soul-searching” to determine where these concerns come from.
When I was in DC prior to the crackdown, I would say about 45-60 percent of those participating in the Occupation were people of color, (unsurprisingly given that this is a mass-movement of the 99% in a “chocolate city”) however the Facilitation Team were about 75-85% white. (also almost 100% folks between the ages of 18-35) The only disruptor I saw was a homeless Black man over the age of 35 named “Tim” who was concerned about financial transparency and the replacement of his tent which had allegedly been damaged. I do not know the inner details of Occupy DC’s finance committee but I think the major occupations should use a portion of their finances to provide for the subsistence needs of full-time Occupiers regardless of whether or not they are “homeless and emotionally disturbed”. Also the Peacekeepers of Occupy DC practice “nonviolent intervention” which supports co-operation with police among internal disputes. The use of finances to provide for the subsistence needs of full-time occupation, the over-representation of priviliged strata among the Facilitation, and the use of metaphysical “non-violent” ideology as a crutch to ignore building dual-power autonomous from the police, are issues that many major Occupations suffer from.
At the risk of being a backseat driver, I think Occupy needs to take the following steps.
1) Reform and reconsider the Facilitation process. Facilitation was originally a capitalist organizational development model rooted in the bourgeois ideology of transcendental psychology, pioneered for use in capitalist professional settings. (Google Human Potential Research Project, Re-evaluation Counseling Community Resources, Co-Counselling International, etc.)
3) Make the finance committees as financially transparent and democratic as possible to deter future criticisms and ensure funds are being used properly,
2) Reform the “Peacekeeping” process in accordance with the realistic threat of state counter-insurgency which this article presents.
Also remember the words of David Gilbert:
“In the movement, people only talked about ‘agents provocateurs,’–infiltrators who promote violence in order to bust or discredit and organization–and there are many grim examples of such…But the state also fielded a stable of agents suppressants who tried to put a damper on evolving movement militancy. Provocateurs are more dramatic and damaging, but much of the Left has an anti-militant bias in not discussing the problem of suppressants at all.” – Love and Rage:My Life in SDS, the Weather Underground, and Beyond, p. 135
Marq Dyeth said
Carl Davidson: It’s funny, even we when agree we disagree. Ach.
I have seen Democrats, unions friendly to democrats, and groups like Moveon and Gamechangers all have varying degrees of success in “forking” Occupy (turning it into their own project.) I think that stuff is real. I agree with that part of what Flowers and Zeese are saying.
That part of the piece above that I don’t agree with is the idea that most of the internal problems of Occupy are because of police agents.
In my town we had plenty of problems of the kind Flowers and Zeese describe: internet sabotage, character assassination and intimidation of leaders, disruption of general assemblies, all of that stuff and more and stupider and worse. But I would be very surprised if many of the people engaged in that wrecking were police or in the employ of the police. Maybe others have had different experiences. I’m interested to be wrong on this, but I think we flatter ourselves if we explain our failures on the basis of police infiltration.
And the bit about how “a diversity of tactics” is just a cover for agents provocateurs is goofy. I think the authors have an axe to grind here. I’ve seen this line from people before, and mostly from older folks who haven’t seen the moving side of an action for a while.
I’m not saying false-flag black bloc actions are impossible, but in my limited experience you can kind of tell the difference. For one thing, our side tends to be kind of skinnier and more fashionable, and there are usually people who get read as women involved. It’s a different feeling compared to a dozen riot cops in drag. Anyone know what I mean?
robert wood said
This seems really paranoid. Certainly, there are real issues of infiltration within the various occupy movements, and I suspect that the progressive end of the Democratic Party is going to try to coopt the movement in the next few months, but at its heart, this article really seems to want to neutralize the real conflicts and debates within a variety of factions within these movements, and externalize them in the form of a looming other. This is certainly true in the case of the LA situation that has been defined by a set of contentious debates, and often underhanded actions of exclusion by the defacto leadership of that movement. In its own way, the argument is not that far from the one offered by Chris Hedges.
Carl Davidson said
I’m not sure what ‘forking’ or ‘coopting’ is supposed to mean here.
For instance, in Pittsburgh, Occupy and the Unions took over a rickety bridge across the Mon one day, with 800 people–half union, half OWS–and dropped a banner, demanding a tax on Wall St to create jobs in infrastructure. It happened all across the country, and was called Bridge Day. It was union-initiated, and the GAs concerned voted to do it also–and it was likely backed by the Progressive Caucus in Congress as well.
So is this the co-optation we’re worried about? I’m not; I think it was a very good event, and won wide support.
Now Al sharpton is organizing a new Selma-to-Mongomery march in Alabama, to highlight the GOP efforts to suppress the vote in 2012 by purging the roles of Blacks, the elderly and students. I’m sure he will appeal to OWS groups in the South to join in. I think it would be wise for them to do so, especially in building allies with people of color.
Or is this something to avoid?
We know the Dems would rather not have OWS showing up at their convention in Charlotte, but groups are planning it anyway, along with plan aimed at the GOP in Tampa.
Or is this too closer to relating to elections for some people?
Exactly what are we worried about here? I know were Kevin Zeese is coming from, which is often to have little to do with unions, the NAACP and such, because they endorse Democrats. But is that what’s being argued here?
Sks said
Carl, fucking Obama said as much:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-occupy-wall-street-not-that-different-from-tea-party-protests/
*facepalm*
Sks said
Ghan,
David Gilbert, Marx bless his soul, is in jail and might never see freedom. I think that speaks to why “agent suppressants” vs “agent provocateurs” is in my view an incorrect dichotomy.
One of the major issues, and this is what people refuse to acknowledge, is the shit we do to ourselves without the need of State intervention.
And the harm that a paranoid politcs does. Lenin when faced with the fact that the Bolshevik duma leader was a police spy, took a very materialistic view: he did more good than harm because in having to provide his cover, he advanced the bolshevik cause.
Paranoia on police intervention is often used to squash legitimate debate (because even if I disagree, debating the likes of Carl Davidson is healthy) and to obscure non-police related failings.
Carl Davidson said
@SKS
One quip from Obama hardly makes a serious cooptation effort. One would think OWS is made of sterner stuff–and you should know better.
Truth be told, about a third of OWSers from the beginning likely voted for Obama in 2008. Probably less will do so in 2012. A trend to ‘Push Obama,’ as opposed to ‘take down Obama,’ has always been there. But I don’t see a single OWS GA anywhere remaining anything but nonpartisan. They will protest all candidates at both conventions, as well as Chicago. How wisely they do so, in the face of police provocation and repression, is an open question. Therein lies the real debate.
PatrickD said
I know the Van Jones and moveon.org have tried real hard to create the left Tea Party, including attempts to draw OWS into that project. But I haven’t heard much from Van Jones in a while. But moveon is having a “99% training day” in April and have been pushing “the 99 Pledge”. But I think Carl is generally right that we don’t need to worry too much about Democratic cooptation.
And for a while there I thought that was the real threat to the Occupy movement. But I was wrong. The real threat is ultra-leftism. And I’m not talking about black-bloking. There’s a weird aversion to movement building, not wanting to draw new people in. Here in Wisconsin most occupiers are happy having a small number of like-minded people. These small groups are mostly anarchists or people with quite similar ideas to anarchists (all tend to be very utopian) and they’re increasingly dogmatic regarding structure and sectarian towards other less anarchistic trends within Occupy. Debate and discussion about internal matters are squelched or censored. I’ve seen a rash of bannings on facebook groups (and been threatened myself a couple of times).
But there’s some hope. There’s been some attempts at regional and national coordination that involves mostly people who aren’t that interested in physical occupations, where most of the anarchist/utopianists reside, which are being recognized as the resource drain and distraction that they are. Though I think some symbolic occupations are worth maintaining. Instead people are concentrating on more political action. Locally it seems that these are people that have just shown up or at least have stepped up only recently.
louisproyect said
There’s a weird aversion to movement building, not wanting to draw new people in. Here in Wisconsin most occupiers are happy having a small number of like-minded people.
—-
Mark Lause reported similar problems in Cincinnati:
The proof of the pudding lies in the eating, as they say. Has the black
bloc made Occupy a growing movement or not?
There are, of course, many other reasons why a movement that speaks for the
99% isn’t continuing to mobilize ever growing, ever broadening sections of
that 99%. It’s not just the black bloc, which I see as a symptom.
Indeed, I think that Brother Hedges and others emphasize the civil
disobedience and moral suasion aspect of the movement to the detriment of
reaching out.
Our first march in Cincinnati was fantastic, though there were some
provacateurs around, there mostly to misrepresent the movement for the TV
cameras. They weren’t anarchists or, I think, radicals of any sort. I
marched with former students who had been in the job market for a while–or
had just gotten there via the military. Firemen, cops, people in the black
community–everybody waved, nodded, smiled, and gave indications that they
understood what we were about and agreed with us. In the end, the
orientation seemed to preclude the efforts needed to bring these people–or
even keep what we had.
Occupy survived as a shriveled shell of its potential. It has three to six
GAs a week, any one of which can actually make decisions about policies and
actions. Nobody who’s not a full-time activist of one sort or another (or
thinks of themselves as such) can actually participate fully in this. I
ventured out some time back for a rally announced (with the usual short
notice and shitty directions) in support of people who’d chosen to get
themselves arrested. I saw no sign of it, but was told that some sort of
rally came off, though not where it was supposed to. I was told that
roughly 40 people were there. Considering that this was about the arrest
of 22-23 people, that means most of the participants in the solidarity
rally were defendants and their lawyers. I hope everybody felt good about
themselves, because they accomplished nothing in terms of having an impact
on the political climate.
My point is that the general focus on civil disobedience to the exclusion
of other–even more vital–concerns about mobilizing the 99% naturally
produces the kind of puerile responses of a black bloc. If there was no
black bloc and we just had Chris Hedges and others urging small numbers of
people to get out there and get themselves arrested, you’d have something
like the black bloc creeping into place pretty quickly.
We need to mobilize the 99% and stop pretending that any small group can
adequately speak for them.
ML
Carl Davidson said
The key thing I stress is OWS as a representative of the ‘critical force,’, the militant minority that hold up a mirror to society, highlights the contradictions, and urges it to action from the moral high ground. At the same time, organizations, new and old, representing ‘the main force,’ the progressive majority come forward when they are called out in this way, some better, some worse–but they are rooted in demographics that have yet to take action, or only on the cusp of taking action, especially of any militant variety.
Our task is to treasure, develop and strengthen the alliances between the critical fore and the main force. These will strech sometimes, like a rubber band, but hopefully not break. By ‘us’ I mean the socialists and other revolutionary-minded democrats. Obviously, it can get more complicated, but besides generally fanning the flames and doing the consolidating work of revolutionary learning and education (note the two-way street), that is the bare bones of a good orientation, in my book anyway
Michael Novick said
You have to divide one into two in this article, which lumps actual efforts at infiltration and disruption with claims that legitimate political differences and struggles are infiltration and sabotage. Sue Basko’s claims especially should be taken with more than one grain of salt, as her main contribution to Occupy LA seems to be dire warnings on her blog that most of what Occupy does is illegal.
Ghan said
Stratfor may have played an “agent supressant” role in Occupy Des Moines, according to a recent WikiLeaks document:
http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4199951_re-ct-anonymous-and-occupy-divergence-in-the-iowa-caucuses-.html
The reason I point this out is not to further promote paranoia, but to lampoon the hysterical blaming of “agent provocateurs” on everything, including – apparently – not just black blocs, but Internet drama and people having disagreements about finances at GAs.
IkeNCumalot said
There will be infiltration in the occupy movement because it’s the biggest movement. “They” will all be there. The police provocatuers, the FBI plants, and even the CIA.
Police provocatuers/infiltrators are the easiest to spot. They have already been shown on video in Oakland. The CIA and various branches of military intelligence is much harder to spot. The main “CIA organizers” have graduate degrees with a credible history. They will know Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao better than you. Being well read, they can play up their weaknesses and minimize their strengths. They may have a military background. If they are spies, they will recruit and train others for “revolution” based on an ideology. They will train others in tactics and strategies that are known to fail. They will understand which left ideologies have failed in the past and its is those which they will promote. That’s how “they” topple the left-wing and create right-wing revolutions in the 3rd world and that’s how “they” will do it here on the domestic front. “They” organize better than you. They are players and you are the chumps who get played. I guess you can say that they’re more successful at revolution than you are.
The CIA has already infiltrated all the major media outlets as well as the “left” / “liberal” media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Example:
CIA guy writes articles in Counterpunch. People working as agents within Occupy will cite those articles for reference. Or you can create an illegitimate debate with the parameters of the debate limited like the recent “krystof and Chris Hedges” debate about black bloc tactics.
Gloria Steinam CIA
http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-12096.html
This is the goal of a good agent. Once you’re firmly entrenched in the mainstream, you can direct public opinion and action away from anything truly revolutionary.
Its a fact that US intelligence infiltrates groups or create their own counter-revolutionary groups. To deny this is sheer folly or willful complicity.
A current example is the so-called “black bloc”. Note the similarity of rhetoric of the Black Orchid Collective and the ones behind the FTP marches and the ones who promote black bloc tactics. They write for Counterpunch forming the ideological basis for their actions and promoted via blogs like the Black Orchid Collective and through their organizing efforts at Occupy Oakland. They will always try and disrupt the meeting if things don’t go their way or manipulate it to control the debate. Actions proposed will always be counterproductive and will result in failure. And should there be a successful action, they will claim it was not successful and we should have a “done more” and how we should not have allied with this group or that group. The one that is trained by the main “cia organizer” will take the spotlight as a spokesperson for Occupy. And that person trained by the CIA agent will have a long history of “activism”.
Ghan said
Ike, all and all your analysis rings of right-conspiricst panopticonism.
“The CIA and various branches of military intelligence is much harder to spot. The main “CIA organizers” have graduate degrees with a credible history. They will know Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao better than you.”
Firstly, it’s not enough to simply say “the CIA is smarter than you because they have graduate degrees”. It is useful in an political milieu of nativity towards state repression to emphasize the importance of not underestimating one’s opponent. However you overestimate the opponent, which is as dangerous of a logistical error, and in doing so you are showing a lack of faith in the masses..
The CIA are trained to read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao towards a means that is contrary to the political content of the scholastic body in question. (If the scientific premise of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, et al is correct, it does about as much good as studying Darwin to prove intelligent design. And even in regards to those who study revolutionary documents to become better counter-revolutionaries, one is reminded of Nietzsche’s famous adage that if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also.) At the risk of bordering on infantile anti-intellectualism, an 8-year-old who has not read a page Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or Mao but knows from personal experience that it is right to rebel is more valuable towards our ends than a truckload of graduate degrees. (And we long for a day when every graduate degree is burnt) A graduate degree in of itself does no good in protecting an economic system when the objective historical conditions create a lack of confidence towards said economic system among the masses, it’s as useful as having a menu for a restaurant that is on fire.
“If they are spies, they will recruit and train others for “revolution” based on an ideology. They will train others in tactics and strategies that are known to fail. They will understand which left ideologies have failed in the past and its is those which they will promote.”
This strategy has its obvious limitations and weaknesses. First, regardless of its intention it promotes the political consciousness of the enemy, ie the revolutionary. It is dumping napalm on fire. Secondly, whether the practice of tactical and strategic avenues which have failed in the past are the result of some (real or imagined) CIA conspiracy or not, the immediate personal experience of participation in said failures and the empirical understanding of their limitations can be an important educational experience for the masses, a phoenix that arises from the ashes regardless of whether the fire is doused. Your view underestimates the capacity of the revolutionary masses to adapt and learn from their surroundings, even in the face of extreme repression, and if anything because the face of extreme repression forces them to better adapt.
If this is actually the strategic avenue pursued by the CIA, (and we are given no evidence to support your claim) it has failed in the past and will fail again.
“‘They’ organize better than you. They are players and you are the chumps who get played. I guess you can say that they’re more successful at revolution than you are.”
Again, obsessive over-confidence in one’s enemy, which makes your prophecy solely a self-fulfilling one and thus a thoroughly reactionary endeavor. Again, a deterministic pessimism of the will which proclaims “they are more professionally organized than us and therefore they will win”. It’s the equivalent of saying that a possessive boyfriend has the upper hand because he has a trust fund, knows how to exploit a few of your emotional insecurities, and knows the password to your e-mail. If one understands strategy, one understands how to exploit the contradictions within the tactical advantages of one’s opponent.
“The CIA has already infiltrated all the major media outlets as well as the ‘left’ / ‘liberal’ media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Gloria Steinam CIA
http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-12096.html
“This is the goal of a good agent. Once you’re firmly entrenched in the mainstream, you can direct public opinion and action away from anything truly revolutionary.”"
The information on Operation Mockingbird and the CIA-Random House connection is factually correct but your analysis is reductionist. State and military intelligence is also invested in academia and environmental research to an extensive degree, yet it highly spurious to assume that there aren’t genuine revolutionary academics and environmental researchers, in fact there are many. Similarly, within the “liberal media” many potential revolutionaries may exist. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t criticize Vanity Fair or Ms. Magazine, on the contrary we should criticize them as harshly as possible, but this has nothing to do with eccentric conspiracy theories which posit that every stupid editorial penned by a professional journalist is part of a panoptic scheme by the CIA to “create an illegitimate debate”. This throws the Marxian and dialectical analysis of the production of ideological hegemony entirely out the window in favor of unhelpful tinfoil hat shenanigans
“CIA guy writes articles in Counterpunch. People working as agents within Occupy will cite those articles for reference.”
Alright, if I can read between the lines, (and your claims are full of fuzzy innuendo) what you’re saying is that since John Doe writes an article for Counterpunch, and John Doe’s credibility has been called into question in the past for many legitimate reasons, (and I have it on very reliable personal authority that your concerns about John Doe are legitimate, however that doesn’t make it responsible to air them in public without evidence) this means that we should assume that anyone who reads John Doe’s article, agrees with some or all of the points, and shares the article with other is a potential “agent”? Or that anyone who independently produces similar points of argument is a potential “agent”? Or anyone who reads or cites Counterpunch, period? (Since Counterpunch is allegedly just part of the monolithic Operation Mockingbird liberal media conspiracy?) This is incredibly reckless and dangerous advice that should be summarily ignored.
“Note the similarity of rhetoric of the Black Orchid Collective and the ones behind the FTP marches and the ones who promote black bloc tactics. They write for Counterpunch forming the ideological basis for their actions and promoted via blogs like the Black Orchid Collective and through their organizing efforts at Occupy Oakland. ”
This is a slanderous and baseless snick-jacketing attack on hundreds of principled revolutionaries and is in-of-itself as damaging and destructive to the movement as the work of any infiltrator. Making these sort of accusations without proof is highly irresponsible and dangerous. Enough said.
IkeNCumalot said
It’s not the opponent (the CIA), I overestimate. I’m simply bringing forth an issue that the author of the article does not address. He talks of various police infiltrators and then sidetracks us with a lotta BS about the Democrats co-opting Occupy via Van Jones. This type of “expose” which begins with truth and ends with a red herring is classic misinformation from the milieu that is behind the people who seek to destroy the movement.
The author, Kevin Zeese, plays both sides of the fence. He writes for “leftist” rags as well as reactionary elements like Lew Rockwell who is tied at the hip with that racist Ron Paul. Zeese is not legit and his article shows it.
What’s dangerous is the lack of criticism and lack of discussion of CIA activities. When someone brings it up, its often called “tin foil” and “conspiracy theory” when all that was brought up was something that’s simply a matter of historical record. Operation mockingbird is a matter of fact. Gloria Steinam as a CIA agent is a matter of fact.
So if you didn’t get it the first time, let me try and lay it out for you. Operation Mockingbird put agents in various news outlets and they also wrote books. This formed the ideological basis for their faux ideology. When activists “educate” themselves, they will read articles from CIA-activists who in turn cite these articles written by CIA agents.
In Occupy Oakland, the same people who write articles supporting the black bloc tactics and the Black Orchid Collective are the same people who write for Counterpunch. There are 2 occupy organizers in Oakland who write for Counterpunch who are promote the FTP marches, black bloc, etc. Chris Hedges writes for Counterpunch. Zeese, the writer of this article writes for Counterpunch as well as libertarian right-winger Lew Rockwell. The “debates” are nothing more than “controlled opposition fronts”. Its time to wake up.
People who infiltrate are part of organizations. Organizations are made up of people with connections and this is how you make connections between people. “Birds of a feather flock together” as they say.
The people behind the black bloc tactics have no principles as evidenced by their lies. in Oakland, they claim that their FTP marches are approved by the GA, but it was never approved. It’s a lie. Principled? More like a bunch of snakes in the grass. just look at the RESULTS. What are the RESULTS? All they do is provoke the police into brutal action. How does that make things better? How is that revolutionary? the police have all the weapons, we don’t. Now, they’re talking about the “car bloc”. Note the bad ideas designed to fail.
It’s been ~40 years since Operation Mockingbird and Gloria Steinam’s rise to prominence as a faux feminist. Don’t you think they are more skilled at their spy-craft after 40 years? They are skilled and you are simply in denial. Maybe its out of personal pride or maybe their propaganda was successful, but what can I say… you got played. but you’re not the only one…
When there’s propaganda being written, the increasingly illiterate masses will not be able to make sense of the truth. It will be up to you to make sense of it. If you don’t, we lose. So in that sense, I don’t trust the masses let alone the “revolutionary masses” (so far a figment of your imagination). So far, there is no revolution worth a damn cuz if there’s a revolution today, it will fall to the right-wing, just like it is in Egypt right now with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining control. here in the U.S., it will go to the far-right.
If all a person knows is “I got a right to rebel”, he’s ignorant and will be defeated. It’s all about being ignorant vs knowing how the enemy operates so you can defeat them. So far, no one knows nothin’ about important events like Operation mockingbird which is simply a matter of public record. And when presented with the facts of history, it’s dismissed as “conspiracy theory”.
Just look at where we are headed. Occupy to FTP and Move-In Day. Success to disaster. Its just like the 60s all over again. Hippies, SDS, Weather Underground. Success to failure. The 60′s were thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by the feds and destroyed. So far, the feds will do the same with Occupy, but at a much faster rate. It’s not cuz they are so good; but its cuz the people, like the conspiracy deniers here, are so willfully ignorant.
Ghan said
The above post by Ike is a perfect example of why schizophrenic paranoia is no substitute for sober analysis.
j.r. said
> Finally, the issue of escalation of tactics to include property damage and conflict with police was brought up. The euphemism for this is “diversity of tactics.” In fact, there is great diversity within nonviolent tactics.
Yeah, there’s great diversity within tactics, some of which can be labelled ‘nonviolent’, still leaving great diversity on the other side too. Where are we going with this tautology?
> In another Occupy, the General Assembly approved putting up a structure but agreed that if the police wanted it taken down the protesters would promptly do so to prove that it was temporary. After the structure was put up, a handful of people refused to take it down causing a 10 hour police conflict and undermining public support for the Occupy.
Wow, in something called an ‘occupation’, a handful of people decided they didn’t want to help the police demolish something they demanded to take down. I’m rather more astounded that it was just ‘a handful’.
I wasn’t there, I’m sure there’s room for reasonable people to disagree on tactics for a symbolic occupation. But if was going to be paranoid and start suggesting anyone that disagreed was obviously a government agent, then I’m not sure which side I’d wanna bet on.
blackorchidcollective said
IkeNCumalot,
I am a member of Black Orchid Collective. I have never heard of you/seen you comment on our blog regarding any disagreements. Please withdraw your slanderous comment here. They are destructive to the movement building that a lot of us here in Seattle and beyond are part of. If you have differences with our politics, then lay it out. Don’t be calling us agents just cos you dont like what we say and do. Any revolutionary knows that you don’t throw that shit around like that. It causes unnecessary paranoia and mistrust. Again, lay out your differences and let’s have a debate. Take back your words if you can’t back that shit up.
peace