Agents Provocateurs Active Against Occupy Movement

Infiltration to Disrupt, Divide and Misdirect Is Widespread in Occupy

Posted on Feb 24, 2012

Downloaded 2/25/12 from https://www.truthdig.com/report/item...rect_20120224/

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.

https://www.truthdig.com/images/eart...ration_450.jpg Two undercover police officers who just stepped out of a police van (left) and the officer in blue entering Zuccotti Park (right). Photos by Margaret Flowers.

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.

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 [email protected].)

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.

* * * * * * * * * *
Dear Waccobeans, I am aware that some doubt that the government or others would infliltrate progressive movements. The article posted here summarizes observations of infiltration by undercover police and other actors. Denying that inflitration occurs, as for example some have done regarding my assertion that inflitrators compromised the Green Party, serves only to strengthen the power of the 1% and other elements of the ruling elites. I will post Part II of this series when it appears.

Star Man

Star Man,

I have never denied that infiltration and police agent (whether hired and conscious, or wanna be psycho/social dysfunctional) provocation occur whenever oppositional movements gain traction.

What I have denied are sweeping claims of yours such as, "The Green Party was destroyed from within after 2000 because of conflict created by police agents.", and other such totalizing and reductive claims.

Recently I argued against the claim that gets bandied about, that every member of the Black Bloc/q/k is a cop or a provocateur. Something I know for a fact to be false. Yet in Occupy! circles as soon as a few started fighting back against police violence, and destroying property, you started hearing from some people outside of demonstration culture, that "they're all police agents".

(Particularly in Oakland. I'm not interested in debating whether property destruction is violence, or not, and whether defensive violence is as unnaceptable as offensive violence, etc.. That's a different debate, although closely related, that has been well addressed by others, from many perspectives, for decades now. There's really nothing new that can be said on those matters. And there is plenty of easily available info for those curious about them, and who have not yet made up their minds.)

It's one thing to warn against political policing tactics of infiltration, disruption and provocation. That's important and anyone doing any organizing needs to understand the history and the need for, as well as the dangers of, movement security culture. Any political activist who is not well familiarized with the history of Cointelpro, especially in the sixties and seventies, but also other versions prior to and since, needs to become familiar. There are plenty of decent histories out there to read.

But an approach that claims that every dispute, every disagreement about money, or tactics, or lifestyle, or ideology, is the result of provocation? That's rank alarmism. It's also a recipe for organizational and movement dysfunction. The logic of that claim serves the same ends as conscious provocation. To cast aspersions on and spread suspicion about anybody who disagrees with you? Who needs police agents when we can do the job for free without even knowing that's what we're doing!

As in all things, it's a matter of balance. There are ways to identify and marginalize cops. I've acknowledged all of this in every post on this matter when I've criticized you for making unfounded and sweeping claims about the sources of disagreement within our movement.

First rule of thumb for spotting a police agent: Whoever is calling for the most illegal, violent, destructive actions (especially when it comes to doing bodily harm to others, including police riot squad members) odds are, they're the cop. Or they're suffering from problems that makes the distinction between being an actual cop, and an immature, emotionally reactive and possibly psychologically damaged individual, moot.

Activists are going to argue about process, money, direction, tactics, strategy, analysis, ideology and style. That's what we do. We wouldn't be active if we didn't like the way things are, and have strong ideas about how they should be and what needs to be done to get from here to there. Blanketing all internal dissent as police provocation, hey, who needs the cops to provoke that? Mission accomplished!

It is crucial in any movement to have a sense of balance. Before accusing someone of the most dastardly of crimes, being a police spy, it is imperative that one have actual reasons, evidence, for such a claim. Just cause they disagree with you vociferously, that is not sufficient evidence for the ultimate dismissal. And if that's the tactic one uses to suppress disagreements, it makes one suspect.

Cops call other people cops all the time, especially those they see as a threat to their primacy in a group, usually against someone endangering their covert activity. It's one of the first tricks in the kit bag of police agent provocation.

Everybody's seen, "Matewan", right? If not, it's an excellent primer in how differences between people can be exploited by the cops and company thugs, to divide and try to conquer. It's also an excellent primer in how to resist such provocation.

Another excellent film, this one a documentary, about how a police agent set up two naive activists, from recent history, is "Better This World".

I've gotten to know you well enough here Star Man so I feel it important to say, no, I'm not calling you a cop. I just think you paint with such a broad brush, in this matter and a couple of others, that what you say about police provocation, ignores salient details of history and styles of provocation, so that it obscures more than it reveals.

Not everyone who calls for "violence" is a cop. Not everyone who does militant things that you disagree with is a cop. Not everyone who digs in and takes a strong position that they're unwilling to compromise about is a cop.

And responding to such people by calling them cops, causes more problems than it solves. I know, because I have had the experiences that have shown me that in very emotionally painful ways for everyone involved (it's called a "Witch Hunt" by the way) several times in the past thirty-seven years.

There are three kinds of "cops" who work as provocateurs. Actual sworn in cops who are generally easy to spot because they don't really fit in in numerous ways. Some of which are covered in the article below. Freelancers who are ideologically opposed and appoint themselves as agent provocateurs (Andrew Breitbart has a coterie of such types who have done destructive things in the past few years.) And those who for complicated psychosocial reasons serve to disrupt because of their inability to cooperate with others, basically people who lack essential social skills.

The latter group doesn't think of themselves as cops. They think of themselves as being right, and everybody who disagrees with them is wrong. There are far more of them than there are sworn officers, and political opposition freelancers working undercover. But they're just as destructive to movement and organization cohesion and progress.

There are ways to deal with all three. Good facilitation. An open and transparent process. Clear agreements for Demonstrations and Non-Violent Direct Actions. Creating a movement culture that accepts and honors differences between people, but still has a clear commitment to common values, goals and acceptable tactics.

In the long debate about what is violence, the "diversity of tactics" agreement was a compromise, that came out of decades of argument and experience. It is not a solution, it's an agreement to disagree, and to try and keep the level of confusion and sense of betrayal to the bare minimum.

When those who do not understand and were not part of the history leading up to it, like Chris Hedges who recently dismissed the entire Black Bloc tactic as an "group of police agents" (that alone showed how little he understood what the Black Bloc has been in its various occurrences) dismiss "diversity of tactics" as a call for violence, they just show that they don't have a clue.

For those who do, who have been "in the trenches" so to speak, it's an indication that such critics can be ignored, since they don't even know what they're talking about.

Being specific is important. Situating a critique in details which illustrate what one is actually saying, is the only way to get at this stuff. Sweeping claims without any backing details, claims which are easy to refute with well known details, that's not going to get anybody anywhere. Unless one does want to contribute to the confusion and dissension, then making sweeping, dismissive claims which only serve to dismiss large numbers of committed activists as "agents" ... well that certainly helps with the disruption. Surely nobody here is interested in that!