Star Man
12-15-2011, 04:26 PM
Infiltrating the Progressive Movement
Justin Elliott wrote an article for Salon discussing the precipitous decrease in donations to the OWS movement. You can read the article here:
https://politics(dot)salon(dot)com/2011/12/15/donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet/singleton/
<http(colon) politics(dot)salon(dot)com="" 2011="" 12="" 15="" donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet="" singleton=""> <http(colon) politics.salon.com="" 2011="" 12="" 15="" donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet="" singleton=""> <http: politics.salon.com="" 2011="" 12="" 15="" donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet="" singleton="">
In his article Elliott reports discussions with transcripts within OWS meetings about how donations should be spent, and I noticed once again how putative infiltrators could easily disrupt the progressive movement.
The blocking process in OWS discussions of how to spend donated money, demonstrates just how easy it is for infiltrators to disrupt the progressive movement. The BLOCK refused to stand down. A ton of time was wasted on a discussion that only existed because someone refused to stand down, refused to join in the consensus process. The Blocker picked a wedge issue, whether money should be spent on anything related to herbal medicine, and his seemingly cogent point ended up stymieing an important discussion. Ultimately the progressive movement is sapped by these stymieing tactics. The movement is enervated, and potential donors decide not to give money (in the case of OWS) or to participate in demonstrations or to join in progressive meetings. I believe that infiltrators brought down the Green Party with just this tactic ("Mad," I know you disagree, but let it go, OK I have my belief and you have yours.) The infiltrators proposed alternative approaches, pounded on the issue, and thereby stymied the movement. I believe the infiltrators are placed by the government. I watched this happen in Berkeley with the Free Speech Movement and more readily observable with the Vietnam Day Committee.
In a related topic, I am noticing the proliferation of MoveOn-type organizations that appear to be nothing but a web and email presence. First there was MoveOn, then CREDO. Now BoldProgressives, Rebuild The Dream, and SumOfUs.org are crowding my Inbox. I wonder if the the corporatocracy is protecting itself by creating sham internet organizations to dilute the effect of more legitimate, better established groups like MoveOn. This would be a very probable tactic for the corporatocracy to employ. Both this and the infiltration of meetings by agents provocateurs are forms of PsyOps that the government has been developing for a couple of centuries.</http:></http(colon)></http(colon)>
Justin Elliott wrote an article for Salon discussing the precipitous decrease in donations to the OWS movement. You can read the article here:
https://politics(dot)salon(dot)com/2011/12/15/donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet/singleton/
<http(colon) politics(dot)salon(dot)com="" 2011="" 12="" 15="" donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet="" singleton=""> <http(colon) politics.salon.com="" 2011="" 12="" 15="" donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet="" singleton=""> <http: politics.salon.com="" 2011="" 12="" 15="" donations_to_occupy_wall_street_plummet="" singleton="">
In his article Elliott reports discussions with transcripts within OWS meetings about how donations should be spent, and I noticed once again how putative infiltrators could easily disrupt the progressive movement.
The blocking process in OWS discussions of how to spend donated money, demonstrates just how easy it is for infiltrators to disrupt the progressive movement. The BLOCK refused to stand down. A ton of time was wasted on a discussion that only existed because someone refused to stand down, refused to join in the consensus process. The Blocker picked a wedge issue, whether money should be spent on anything related to herbal medicine, and his seemingly cogent point ended up stymieing an important discussion. Ultimately the progressive movement is sapped by these stymieing tactics. The movement is enervated, and potential donors decide not to give money (in the case of OWS) or to participate in demonstrations or to join in progressive meetings. I believe that infiltrators brought down the Green Party with just this tactic ("Mad," I know you disagree, but let it go, OK I have my belief and you have yours.) The infiltrators proposed alternative approaches, pounded on the issue, and thereby stymied the movement. I believe the infiltrators are placed by the government. I watched this happen in Berkeley with the Free Speech Movement and more readily observable with the Vietnam Day Committee.
In a related topic, I am noticing the proliferation of MoveOn-type organizations that appear to be nothing but a web and email presence. First there was MoveOn, then CREDO. Now BoldProgressives, Rebuild The Dream, and SumOfUs.org are crowding my Inbox. I wonder if the the corporatocracy is protecting itself by creating sham internet organizations to dilute the effect of more legitimate, better established groups like MoveOn. This would be a very probable tactic for the corporatocracy to employ. Both this and the infiltration of meetings by agents provocateurs are forms of PsyOps that the government has been developing for a couple of centuries.</http:></http(colon)></http(colon)>