Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Akrasjel Lanate]

How COINTELPRO really works and destroys social movements: Open letter from former Tea Partier to Occupy Wall Street protesters

I don't expect you to believe me. I want you to read this, take it with a grain of salt, and do the research yourself. You may not believe me, but I want your movement to succeed. From a former tea partier to you, young new rebels, there's some advice to prevent what happened to our now broken movement from happening to you. I don't agree with everything your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy. You guys are very intelligent and I trust that you will take this in the spirit it is intended.

I wish I could believe this Occupy Wall Street was still about (r)Evolution, but so far, all I am seeing is a painful rehash of how the government turned the pre-Presidential election tea party movement into the joke it is now. We were anarchists and ultra-libertarians, but above all we were peaceful. So, the media tried painting us as racists. But when that didn't work they tried to goad us into violence. When that failed, they killed our movement with money and false kindness from the theocratic arm of the Republican party. That killed our popular support.

I am sharing these observations, so you guys know what's going on and can prevent the media from succeeding in painting you as violent slacker hippies rebelling without a cause, or from having the movement be hijacked by a bunch of corporatists seeking to twist the movement's original intentions. If you think this can't happen, it happened to the Independence Party and the tea party movement. Don't let it happen to your movement as well.

Here's how they turned our movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Republican party rebranding astroturf, and this is how I predict they are turning your movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Democratic party rebranding astroturf. I believe many of these things are already happening, so take note.

1- The media will initially and purposely avoid covering your dissenting movement to cause confusion about what your movement is about within mainstream audiences. This is to enrage you and make you appear unreasonable, and perhaps even invisible.

2- While the obfuscation is happening, corporatists/government stooges will infiltrate and give superficial support, focus and financial backing to the targeted movement. In the tea party movement's case, it was the religious Republicans and Koch Brothers. In this case, it's the Public Sector Unions (the organizations as quasi-human entities, not the members themselves) and Ultra Rich liberals who pretend to care, but frankly do not serve liberators and freedom seekers but rather the interests of those who run the Public Sector Unions and the Democratic Party. Democrat, Republican, these parties are all part of the same corporate ruling system. Case in point: http://www.debates.org/

3-The media will cover the movement only after this infiltration succeeds. Once the infiltration is completed the MSM will manufacture public media antipathy towards the movement by using selective focus on the movement's most repulsive elements or infiltrators on the corporate Conservative media side, while the corporate Liberal media will create a more sympathetic tragic hero image -- this is the flip side of the tea party, but same media manipulation tactics. I go into greater detail on this tactic here.

4- Someone in the Democratic Party will feign sympathy for the movement and falsely "non-partisan" entities provide tons of funding and unwanted organization, just as was done with the tea party movement by Republicans. Once people assume that the government operatives are their friends, the government will hijack the movement and the threat of your movement will be neutralized.

If this new Occupy Wall Street movement is to survive, here's what needs to be done.

1- Loudly denounce violence and disavow the violent rabblerousers of the movement. They do not help the cause.

2- Be image conscious. Present your best face and call out those who act like fools within the movement. People are more likely to pay attention to you in your Sunday dress and bringing homemade food, than when you are drinking a bottle of Snapple and chomping on Big Macs while you are looking like a slacker rich hipster/unwashed hippie stereotype.

3- Accept that you've already been infiltrated by the government, and work hard to say, and state what your movement is and is not about. "No, this isn't about unions or Liberals, conservatives or bored spoiled brats. This is about 99% of our population being exploited and manipulated for the sake of profit." "No we will not resort to violence." "Yes, all we want is for for the end of government collusion with corporate entities that are illegitimately recognized as people." And, so forth...

4- Don't forget who you are as the illusions are thrown at you. Corporatists are masters of illusions. That's the most powerful weapon they have. That's how they sell products you don't need and convince you to justify accepting atrocities for the sake of products Don't fall for it. Otherwise, your cause will be lost. Be wary of large donations from special interest groups or non-profit corporations that were not involved this movement from the inception. Special interests groups are not your allies. Non-profit corporations are still corporations, and unfortunately, too many of them care more about donations than doing the right thing. Killing a movement with kindness is easy.

5- Remain independent and focused. If you can, pick a face to represent your movement. Rosa Parks wasn't just a random lady in a bus -- She was chosen. You too can use the power of illusion against those who oppose you.

I wish your movement better luck than we had with the tea party movement before it got hijacked by the theocrats and corporatists. We used to be non-partisan too. We were the older version of you. But, I believe that as the media apparatchik and infiltrators start to twist your cause, you will understand the frustration us early adopter tea partiers felt and that we were not your enemy after all. A fascist oligarchy on the verge of winning is our common enemy. This should be your focus. Don't be dazzled by the illusion as we were. For the sake of our future, know who you are.

Thank you for reading. I would love to read your ideas on the subject. Correct me where I am wrong. Explain what is going right. This is ultimately your fight.

Rest here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235842-How-COINTELPRO-really-works-and-destroys-social-movements-Open-letter-from-former-Tea-Partier-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters

[Victoria Stecker]

*stuff*

Rest here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235842-How-COINTELPRO-really-works-and-destroys-social-movements-Open-letter-from-former-Tea-Partier-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters

While I think the author paints the early Tea Party in a much better light than it really deserves, that is certainly a worthwhile read. I think the reason that the Tea Party was so easily manipulated is that all it was was angry. They were really fucking mad about things, but didn't really have much to offer in terms of how to make it better. They were then hijacked and used to elect candidates who are similarly passionate about how bad things are but have absolutely nothing to contribute to fixing the problems.

The biggest difference that I see is that OccupyWallst seems to contain people who are both pissed off about the mess we're in, and willing to look at the problem and say "how do we fix this shit?"

I'm not sure that will make them any less vulnerable to political hijacking, but I have hope. It may help that I agree more closely with them than I ever did with the Tea Party.

[orange]

*stuff*

Rest here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235842-How-COINTELPRO-really-works-and-destroys-social-movements-Open-letter-from-former-Tea-Partier-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters

While I think the author paints the early Tea Party in a much better light than it really deserves, that is certainly a worthwhile read. I think the reason that the Tea Party was so easily manipulated is that all it was was angry. They were really fucking mad about things, but didn't really have much to offer in terms of how to make it better. They were then hijacked and used to elect candidates who are similarly passionate about how bad things are but have absolutely nothing to contribute to fixing the problems.

The biggest difference that I see is that OccupyWallst seems to contain people who are both pissed off about the mess we're in, and willing to look at the problem and say "how do we fix this shit?"

I'm not sure that will make them any less vulnerable to political hijacking, but I have hope. It may help that I agree more closely with them than I ever did with the Tea Party.

I disagree with your position that the Tea Party did not offer a solution to the problems.

The early Tea Party solution was for the US Federal Government to strictly follow the US Constitution as much as possible.  You may not agree that it is a solution, but it would immediately address the mechanism by which many things people disagree with have occurred.

The simplest example is US military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Libya in the past decade and going back all the way to Vietnam.  It can be argued these actions are/were unconstitutional and that the War Powers Resolution is the unconstitutional mechanism by which they are allowed to occur.  In addition, it can be argued the large & extensive US military is unconstitutional, specifically a standing national army & national air force.  The Constitution allows for the maintenance of a navy, which would engage in protection of US interest aboard like the defense of trade routes and strategic response.

More complex discussion arises when looking at Social Security and Medicare/Medicad.  By what Constitutional power does Congress establish these programs?  Are they related to Interstate Commerce?  The strictest reading would say the power to establish such programs are denied the Federal government and left to the States to enact as they see fit, based on the 10th Amendment.

Or perhaps, the US Constitution is an outdated document and the citizens of the US should consider an entirely new structure of government that was not written in the late 1780s.   I think that is an argument presented from many high level politicians.

[Victoria Stecker]

Or perhaps, the US Constitution is an outdated document and the citizens of the US should consider an entirely new structure of government that was not written in the late 1780s.   I think that is an argument presented from many high level politicians.

This could turn into it's own discussion, but I think there is a degree to which we have to acknowledge that the Constitution was written in a world very different than the one we live in today, based on beliefs and assumptions which no longer hold true. Even leaving aside the classic example of the 3/5ths compromise, the world and the country in particular have changed in ways the founding fathers never expected. As a result, we've ended up with some strange contradictions, like a representative government where the citizens of the capital (which has a greater population than the state of Wyoming) have are unrepresented in the Congress. When the constitution was written, they simply didn't expect that anyone would want to live there (and they built the city on a fucking swamp, why the hell do people live there anyways?).

So yeah. The Constitution is awesome. I love it. It just needs some tweaking, which the current political climate makes entirely impossible (whoever made 'compromise' into such a dirty word needs to either take a history lesson or be hung as a traitor).

[Misan]

This thing is even coming to my town now. Although despite its size not too surprising given the demographics (especially of Carrboro). http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Chapel-HillCarrboro/168592356560355?sk=wall

[Kyoko Sakoda]

While I wish the protesters the best, the sad thing is their demands won't be met. We're pretty deep in late-capitalism.

[orange]

Or perhaps, the US Constitution is an outdated document and the citizens of the US should consider an entirely new structure of government that was not written in the late 1780s.   I think that is an argument presented from many high level politicians.

This could turn into it's own discussion, but I think there is a degree to which we have to acknowledge that the Constitution was written in a world very different than the one we live in today, based on beliefs and assumptions which no longer hold true. Even leaving aside the classic example of the 3/5ths compromise, the world and the country in particular have changed in ways the founding fathers never expected. As a result, we've ended up with some strange contradictions, like a representative government where the citizens of the capital (which has a greater population than the state of Wyoming) have are unrepresented in the Congress. When the constitution was written, they simply didn't expect that anyone would want to live there (and they built the city on a fucking swamp, why the hell do people live there anyways?).

So yeah. The Constitution is awesome. I love it. It just needs some tweaking, which the current political climate makes entirely impossible (whoever made 'compromise' into such a dirty word needs to either take a history lesson or be hung as a traitor).

I think it is the very core of the discussion/debate/etc.  What kind of government do we want?

Republican/Democrat ideologies are self-conflicting and lack core ideas applied across the various issues.  In some cases they want to tell people they can't do this, but the freedom to do this is scared.  Hot-button issues, like the firearms and marriage have conflicting policies on both sides.  For Republicans: it is ok for someone to defend themselves & property, but not ok for someone to have a same-gender partner.  For Democrats: it is ok for someone to have a same-gender partner, but not ok for someone to own the means to defend yourself.

I think the discussion really is about how government regulates our lives and to what extent, it is a question of security vs freedom.

It also seems clear that I am in a minority of philosophically favoring freedom over security.  Hypocritically, I am currently a member of a very socialist organization - the US military.

[Mizhara]

Op-Ed Columnist
Panic of the Plutocrats
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 9, 2011

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”

What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.

Source: The Panic of the Plutocrats

[orange]

Response from an anonymous source via Facebook:

[Z.Sinraali]

The last statement there is simply false. That individual is very clearly part of the bottom 99th percentile of both wealth and income. The rest is largely premised on misunderstandings of what the movement's concerns are. Suggesting the government end "handouts" to large financial institutions or take advantage of historically low interest rates to borrow money to stimulate the economy and repair neglected infrastructure is hardly asking for things to be handed to you.

As for the debt-shaming, remember: Like all market transactions, debt requires two parties. A debtor and a creditor. One who knowingly gives a loan to someone who knows they can't pay it back is just as guilty. Note also the requirements of knowing that it can't be paid. Do you really want to condemn someone who can't pay their underwater mortgage (which the bank refuses to make modifications on account of it being easier to simply mass-foreclose) because they were laid off and have fallen into the ranks of the long-term unemployed or been forced to take one of those wonderful barely-above-minimum-wage jobs?

I wonder too if this individual has a non-minimum wage job lined up for after graduation. The diminished utility of a college degree for young people is also a major complaint.

[orange]

He may be part of that 99%.  But it seems he does not appreciate those protesting claiming they are speaking for him.

Did you know the government passed laws that prevented banks from not making loans the bank considered risky?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

As for the college degree, if everyone can/needs to get a degree then it becomes an expensive high school diploma.  If the degree is in Acting or Art History, the individual is unlikely to find as many jobs where the degree has value, especially in comparison to an Electrical Engineer or Management.  Yet, for some reason we assign them some measure of equivalency!

So, yes the kid may have a good job lined up, but maybe that is because he choose to study something that would lead to him having a good job.

[Z.Sinraali]

Did you know that not only do the regulations explicitly¹ not do such a thing, but that loans originated from CRA-compliant banks were less likely to be high-cost (which I'll grant you is not synonymous with subprime, but subprime loans are always higher cost) and more likely to be kept on the banks' own balance sheets? (Which indicates more confidence in a loan's value than securitizing or otherwise selling it.) What's more, banks subject to CRA oversight originated less than 25% of loans in the areas studied. If you have contrary evidence to suggest that the CRA led to an increase in risky loans, please provide it.

Now, telling me that some degrees are more likely to get you a job is fine, if completely obvious, but it doesn't change the fact that employment rates have gone down for all degrees, even the ones with "value." I couldn't find comprehensive nationwide data, so I just grabbed what I could for management grads from my alma mater, Western Washington University--which is, as it happens, a moderately-priced, in-state public university. (Which of course are now less moderately-priced than they used to be, owing in large part to deficits fueled by tax cuts for the much-maligned 1% and the recession they helped create.) Given the small sample size, the data in the attached pic are of course subject to all the usual caveats, but they illustrate the point nicely. It's in chronological order, 06-07 grads at the top, 09-10 at the bottom.

Regardless, my point was not to complain that he may have a well-paying job set up and therefore not understand the hardships--if he does, good for him--but that like so many others, he may very well not, despite all that hard work.

1: See subpart B, section 345.21, paragraph d, "Safe and sound operations"

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Victoria Stecker]

Response from an anonymous source via Facebook:

*picture*

What this is is simply one of the other responses to this mess. This is roughly my situation - mostly broke, working, saving as much money as I can, etc. I am, however, a little annoyed by the tone.

What I mean by different responses:

The person in the picture is stuck in the same economic mess as the rest of us and has responded by busting his ass in order to make ends meet.

The OccupyWallSt response has been to look at the mess, look at what caused it, notice the obvious fact that the people who created the clusterfuck are still making tons of money while the rest of the country and economy suffers, and rather than saying "welp, this sucks, but we'd better make the best of it," to instead say, "This is fucking wrong, let's see what we can do to make it better."

It's good to have a mix because if everyone said "welp," then we'd never fix the problem, but if everyone went "rawr!" then things would shut down entirely. Personally, I'm be joining the "rawr" execpt I'm too busy going 'welp' and working full time at an entry level job which barely pays enough to cover living expenses in this area.

[Invelious]

Response from an anonymous source via Facebook:

Thats nice, thats not the point, the point is Wall Street robbed the US of 100's of billions of dollars, and have power and influence in the White House. Corp's should not have any influence or authority within any Government. Think of this as the new church and state.

[Mizhara]

An open letter to that 53 guy.
Definitely worth the read. One of the better explanations I've read of the 99% desires and motivations.