Agents Provocateur

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

cryptomnesiac's picture

Forums: 

Last night's GA was the first instance of prolonged conflict I've seen within the group. There are many factors at play, and many possibilities as to why things went down as they had. Maybe it was frustration, people needed naps, too much marker fumes coming from the sign-making area. I don't know the answer, but I'm constantly aware of that infiltration likely exists currently, and the problems it can cause if we don't recognize it and make a deliberate choice to behave with a mind to the cohesion and longevity of the movement.

Our goals rest on the other side of our cooperation. There's comfort in expressing anger, and catharsis in walking away from something when it seems an intractable burden. But what we'd walk back to is a world unchanged; a place with corporate power all the more assured of its position, safe from any threats by an organized public.

We have to rise above the shortsightedness -- on our parts, and by the 1% -- that got us to the dire state our countries are in. So I'm not going to identify those I think may be working against the movement, but rather implore everyone else to think before they react. Most people were level-headed, but a few fed into the madness. I'm not innocent of this myself.

But when some minor point has someone shouting, and other people seem ready to jump in... STOP. THINK. Wonder whether indulging in name-calling or shouting down is exactly the response that that person wants. THINK. Will my own reaction cause a cascade of other reactions until this assembly degenerates into chaos? What will happen if I let this go? Is there any benefit to any of the sincere people here, or my goals, if I "win" this shouting match with someone I hardly know?

Our foes -- our real foes; those guys out there in the suits, sneering at us from their fortifications -- don't want to see us disagree, they want to see us argue irrationally, turn violent, fall apart, and go back to being good little insects. When someone looks to be PRIMING the assembly for such a thing, either with volume, breaks in process, or ludicrous claims, please stop and think for a minute before indulging them.

John P. Garry's picture

I'm sorry, I wasn't at that

Submitted by John P. Garry on

I'm sorry, I wasn't at that GA, so I have no idea what the disturbances were or the issues involved.

"Infiltrator" is a powerful indictment with a specific meaning--and I need specific information before I will believe that there are in fact infiltrators about (aside form the LaRouchians, who are easy to spot). I'm not into cryptology--I need plain reporting of information.

John

I think that perhaps this

Submitted by estebanmgil on

I think that perhaps this relates to the somewhate unnecessary discord perceived over supporting or not supporting the march being put on by laid-off hotel workers in Bel-Air.

The problem comes with how proposals and ideas are framed in GA. Not everyone wrote their undergrad thesis on communications and public messaging strategy, so it's understandable that when proposals are made, they're often poorly framed and don't touch the audience the way the author intended.

At issue here were multiple facets of the direction of the movement.  1. Do we support workers?  On this point, consensus was reached, and the Action team will be organizing a supporting event with the hotel workers.  A clarifying statement was added which makes our support for workers distinct from a possible acceptance of institutionalized organized labor.  Which brings me to point 2. How do we deal with support from outside organizations?  This is an important question, but one which has little to do with the issue discussed yesterday...whether or not to march in solidarity with workers who were laid off. 

My understanding is that some things broke down yesterday when a certain individual jumped the stack and hijacked the microphone because he/she wanted to be heard and had been waiting a while to speak.  Was this a provocative act intended to cause discord?  Perhaps.  We can't discount the fact that as this movement grows it will attract provacative elements and people who wish to do us harm by infiltrating our ranks in order to sow division.  I think it probably had more to do with a misunderstanding of process, and an impatience at having to balance wanting to be heard, and needing to listen.

When proposals are framed correctly from the start---which means they are kept specific, simple, and without too many attachments, then--then they can be discussed rationally and consented to with less contention (although contention is necessary).

I think however, we need to understand fundamentally that this is a slow process (building consensus) and it requires time.  Is it frustrating that it took two hours to come to agreement about supporting the march?  Yes.  But it was an important baby-step in creating discussion and direction for the movement.  Now the conversation can begin: We support workers.  But how do we accept or deal with support from institutionalized organizations which claim to represent workers? How do we maintain a critical stance towards them? And, importantly, what is it about these organizations we dislike and wish to transform? 

interesting

Submitted by Supersean on

I wasn't there and have no opinion, but this sheds some light on some of the recent exchanges I've had on the forum.

My only advice for the movement: Don't take the weight of the world on your shoulders.

Non-Violence

Submitted by Wildthing on

I just posted about this elsewhere on this forum. I have no doubt the other side is already at work. No doubt. I was down there much of the weekend. I had my picture taken by too many people to count. I myself didn't say anything I wouldn't say to the President's face, but be aware. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.

It's for this reason this movement Must adopt non-violent principles. The People must KNOW that any violence didn't come from us. If not, we're doomed.

Wildthing

Non-violence

Submitted by Wildthing on

Also, this movement is growing so fast that the people you're not getting along with will be a completely new group of people next week. I think it's important not to get too hung up on the purity of our ideas. We're still just gathering. Everyone who comes down needs to talk and share. We've all seen and felt it. Let's keep it open. As little dogma as possible. I'm going to try to get down there tomorrow and hope to gather some donations. I'll try to connect on the non-violence issue with whoever is down there. (I'll be the one carrying the pitchfork. My new prop!! The irony!)

Wildthing

cryptomnesiac's picture

Actually, no fewer than three

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

Actually, no fewer than three individuals either jumped stack or tried to shout each other down, and arguing continued well past the GA. Things flared up repeatedly even when many were present trying to defuse the situation. It didn't help that one guy wouldn't stop shouting into a bullhorn, saying something to the effect of, who's here to sleep anyway?!

I point out those details not to argue my premise that there have been agents planted to cause discord, but just to illustrate that this was well outside the precedent of disagreements in the GAs I've seen -- including those dealing with police brutality. All of it over the backdrop of such a non-issue gave me pause.

But the ultimate purpose of this post was to raise awareness of the potential problem, and not to feed into it. If we don't follow an unstable character's lead, he's just a lone jackass.

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

cryptomnesiac's picture

It's good there's a mediation

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

It's good there's a mediation plan now. Instigation disrupts assembly, but isn't enough for security intervention, so at least genuine complaints can be addressed more calmly, and the fake ones can no longer disrupt proceedings.

On a positive note, after a slow and hesitant start to the evening, it was a very productive GA. Five resolutions passed.

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

cryptomnesiac's picture

 

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

 

Not just stress nonviolence, but not get sucked into dumb, pointless arguments that are obviously for their own sake, to waste time at the GA, and get people arguing about trifles.

Wanna know my theory about a lot of people breaking rules at the GA? First of all, not a single one of those loudmouths I've seen stomp around complaining about their right to speak has ever said anything substantial when given the chance afterward. Not in the GA, and not in private conversation. It's not a concrete indictment, but it's suspect to me.

Look, even when the proposed committee against police brutality was getting battered by disagreement in the GA, everyone remained civil, and respected process, in spite of it being a controversial topic, and important to the people involved. The crowd, too, didn't want to provoke police, so they had a stake in it. But there were no shouting matches.

Monday's assembly had people hard-blocking over the semantics of whether to use the word "worker" or "human" -- never mind the whole union debate -- in reference to the laid off hotel workers.

A guy hard blocked later, and when given the mic admitted he didn't really have a hard block, and started ranting about no apparent topic. The crowd groaned, and shouting matches ensued.

I don't know whether he was an agent, but if he was it was an effective strategy. The crowd became divided between people asking that process be respected, and others shouting "Let him speak!" The crowd's stances on the fairness of procedure, or whatever, might be legitimate, but the division seemed literally to be over nothing.

Finally, we had the guy with a bullhorn, also shouting about absolutely nothing. He was shouting about his right to shout, and blah dee blah blah blah. We don't have time for this crap.

We need to pass the 90% consensus measure, and be done tripping over these 1-3 person minority blockades -- or we will not move forward. Every day we go without a clear agenda, we risk co-opting and burn out.

Something funny from the article you linked:

Every single day, more videos emerge from the Occupy movement showing people saying things that, if they had been said by a Tea Partier, would have been front-page news for weeks and discredited the movement forever. But since it’s the Occupy Wall Street movement, darlings of the media [emphasis and link added] and Democratic politicians, they get a pass.

All they did was harmless stuff like carrying rifles and obliquely threatening the president, or talking incessantly about how the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants, or some such sentimental twaddle.

 

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

Yes!

Submitted by LovingFighter on

I really like the rough consensus proposal, and I'm sure it'll pass.  I always thought the veto power everyone held was ironically authoritatian.  It's great to see the movement mature.

cryptomnesiac's picture

My guess as to the

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

My guess as to the provocateurs' next moves:

  1. Commit thefts to break trust (believe me, they're not above this).
  2. Encourage drug use and public intoxication for some busts/searches and seizures.
  3. Violate health codes in the kitchen to shut us down.
  4. Draw stark comparisons between occupations in different cities, attempting to emphasize rivalry over unity.
  5. Impede the GA, blocking everything, asking for pointless clarifications, etc.
  6. Disrupt the GA by breaking process, using language about "rights" to divide the crowd between those conscious of process, and those committed to total individual freedom even over voluntary cooperation.
  7. Deprive occupiers of sleep during late hours with ostensibly spontaneous noise generation, through shouting, music, honking, or turning on sprinklers, etc. I know most late night noise probably isn't malicious, but sleep deprivation is classified as torture, and our oppressors will use it that way.
  8. Provide "donations" of things like spray paint, paint markers, etc., which lend themselves to graffiti (not everyone knows or respects the suggested conduct).
  9. Cause disruptions or elicit approval for urges toward violence, especially in presence of media.
  10. Try to divert various topics, like prosecuting Wall Street, stopping foreclosures, relieving student loan debt, restoring Glass-Steagall, reversing the Citizens United ruling, banning corporate money in campaigns, etc., ALL toward some vague, do-nothing topic like "End the Fed."

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

i agree mike but can u clarify 10

Submitted by LastChance on

But can u clarify 10 plz im confused i thought those where suppuse to be talked about or maybe im miisunderstanding ?

Also i strongly urge u guys to have a mod on the livefeed 24/7 because there are so so so so so many and i think thats why there loosing viewer count

Pages