Provocateurs accused of disrupting Occupy Denver protests

Provocateurs accused of disrupting Occupy Denver protests

www.examiner.com

The mainstream media has also been accused of providing false information to the public regarding Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Denver protests. Tim Holland explained that Denver’s Channel 4 was at their general assembly Sunday October 16, and falsely reported that Occupy Denver planned to march on 16th street mall later that night. Denver’s Channel 9 and Channel 7 have also been accused of promoting a riot, stating that Occupy Denver planned “To fight back” on October 14 despite Occupy Denver’s statement of remaining nonviolent. Denver’s Fox 31 reported yesterday that protesters

(visit the link for the full news article)

This article is interesting because it brings up undercover agents in OWS protests as well as mentioning how the Civil Rights had to deal with agents as well.

The evidence is pretty good, showing that #OCCUPYDENVER has been infiltrated. On the other hand, there are always crazy folk willing to disrupt a movement, but if there is $$$ behind the scenes there is no doubt this is happening.

www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

here's a good example
what do you call these guys.... protest sappers ?



in this example they are quit obvious...
the Only 3 Goons cover their faces and not talking to any1
can you say sore thumb

reply to post by jmanshiphop


Any "movement can and will be infiltrated and manipulated. When 'they' can't redirect peoples' energies into pointless effort - they foment violence to discredit the movement.

All standard.

Good catch . S&F&

Oh, it's never the mobs fault, lol.
If there is violence in the streets, it is a direct result of the commie provocateurs who organized and used globalist funding to create the conditions. Who's to say they didn't pay off their own agents to spark violence then try to say it was someone else? No wonder news agencies don't cover these things, they are set up like scapegoats if they do. The Commie organizers are on record saying they use violence and think it is necessary. So I'll go with the obvious.

Good catch on those videos. This movement needs to watch for agent provocateurs. They're everywhere. I havent seen any Occupy protestors that are angry and wanting to riot, break things or go off on their own. These are all warning signs. The TRUE protestors are not violent.

Agent provocateurs often target the angry protestors. They use and manipulate these people for their police agenda. Don't let angry protestors get together. Its very dangerous because of these police agents. They create more violence and chaos than the protestors. Remove angry, violent people from of your protest. Shaming them usually works. True protestors will abide, agents will fight you when shamed. They will argue and justify violence.

DONT LET YOUR PROTEST GET VIOLENT!

Follow these tips:

www.offthegridnews.com...

■Agents will often lack background connections or references. No one in your circles or related groups will know them.
■Agents try to keep discussions and action unproductive and still. They’ll spend plenty of time debating issues, with little action. They focus on ideas over people.
■They tend to create messes in groups and between group members. They leave chaos in their wake.
■They tend to gravitate toward people in the group who are dissatisfied. Once relationships with those folks grow, the dissatisfaction spreads.
■Some agents have been former prisoners who do this work as part of a deal. These folks tend to jump from organization to organization in a relatively short time.
■Agents don’t have known sources of income. They might have a job that doesn’t match their spending or claim their money comes from prior savings.
■They tend to provide gifts for key figures at first. This helps them build trust with the group.
■When confronted, they will get defensive and start making their own accusations.
■They act like zealots, but they don’t have the fruit of it. They have passion but don’t truly care.

Additional resources:

security.resist.ca...

forum.prisonplanet.com...

www.cannabisculture.com...

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Oh, it's never the mobs fault, lol.
If there is violence in the streets, it is a direct result of the commie provocateurs who organized and used globalist funding to create the conditions. Who's to say they didn't pay off their own agents to spark violence then try to say it was someone else? No wonder news agencies don't cover these things, they are set up like scapegoats if they do. The Commie organizers are on record saying they use violence and think it is necessary. So I'll go with the obvious.

What "commie organizers" are you talking about? "Commies" organized the Occupy Wallstreet movement? "Commie provocateurs"?

Tell me, have you ever met a communist before? I have met many. They're all smart enough to know that engaging in violent protest delegitimizes their cause, hence why they don't do it.

Maybe you're confusing communists with anarchists. If this is the case, then I recommend that you attend some advanced education to learn the difference between the two. I'll give you a hint: communists are consequentialists with specific political goals in mind; anarchists are people with little knowledge or care about real politics and simply engage in populist uprising.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Oh, it's never the mobs fault, lol.
If there is violence in the streets, it is a direct result of the commie provocateurs who organized and used globalist funding to create the conditions. Who's to say they didn't pay off their own agents to spark violence then try to say it was someone else? No wonder news agencies don't cover these things, they are set up like scapegoats if they do. The Commie organizers are on record saying they use violence and think it is necessary. So I'll go with the obvious.

What "commie organizers" are you talking about? "Commies" organized the Occupy Wallstreet movement? "Commie provocateurs"?

Tell me, have you ever met a communist before? I have met many. They're all smart enough to know that engaging in violent protest delegitimizes their cause, hence why they don't do it.

Maybe you're confusing communists with anarchists. If this is the case, then I recommend that you attend some advanced education to learn the difference between the two. I'll give you a hint: communists are consequentialists with specific political goals in mind; anarchists are people with little knowledge or care about real politics and simply engage in populist uprising.

Check out Emma Goldman and Crimethic for some real anarchy, not just punk kids who wear pins in their face and use the anarchy sign to express their apathy. Anarchism is not anger! Anarchism is not apathy! Its a real political belief that was so dangerous that newspapers had to change the public's perception of anarchists to maintain their power and maintain the illusion that people are dumb and powerless.

Its a small step from Libertarian to true anarchism. In fact, anarchism believes in people more than Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and really any political belief system because they feel the public is good enough and smart enough to run their own lives. Anything other than anarchism is slavery under another name. People are good, people are smart and people are powerful. These are the beliefs of a true anarchist.

Originally posted by doctornamtab

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Oh, it's never the mobs fault, lol.
If there is violence in the streets, it is a direct result of the commie provocateurs who organized and used globalist funding to create the conditions. Who's to say they didn't pay off their own agents to spark violence then try to say it was someone else? No wonder news agencies don't cover these things, they are set up like scapegoats if they do. The Commie organizers are on record saying they use violence and think it is necessary. So I'll go with the obvious.

What "commie organizers" are you talking about? "Commies" organized the Occupy Wallstreet movement? "Commie provocateurs"?

Tell me, have you ever met a communist before? I have met many. They're all smart enough to know that engaging in violent protest delegitimizes their cause, hence why they don't do it.

Maybe you're confusing communists with anarchists. If this is the case, then I recommend that you attend some advanced education to learn the difference between the two. I'll give you a hint: communists are consequentialists with specific political goals in mind; anarchists are people with little knowledge or care about real politics and simply engage in populist uprising.

Check out Emma Goldman and Crimethic for some real anarchy, not just punk kids who wear pins in their face and use the anarchy sign to express their apathy. Anarchism is not anger! Anarchism is not apathy! Its a real political belief that was so dangerous that newspapers had to change the public's perception of anarchists to maintain their power and maintain the illusion that people are dumb and powerless.

Its a small step from Libertarian to true anarchism. In fact, anarchism believes in people more than Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and really any political belief system because they feel the public is good enough and smart enough to run their own lives. Anything other than anarchism is slavery under another name. People are good, people are smart and people are powerful. These are the beliefs of a true anarchist.

Try studying the Russian Revolution of 1918 with its three-way battle between the White Army (Imperialists), Red Army (Communists) and Black Army (Anarchists) before you try teaching me about real anarchists. I know what they are, and early last century they were a major force in weaker nations of imperialist control. They are the motivated and mobilized element of the populist movement.

Libertarians? Please. Do you even know what a Libertarian is? They are the elite who believe only in minimal government involvement in society (that is, to provide security of their lives, property and perhaps to maintain the integrity of the nation). Libertarians do not care about common people because they make up their workforces. Neo-conservative corporate leaders are libertarian, which gets as far right as it can from the anarchist left.

True anarchists have no political goals; they simply mobilize to strike back at the powers that be. Anarchist forces are very useful for keeping an oppressive government busy while a real alternative political force mobilizes and takes over.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Well.

You took that way too personally. No ones attacking you or trying to convert you here.

I'm saying anarchists nowadays have no political goals or motivations. But thats not true anarchism. Thats anger and apathy. Anarchists have beliefs. They believe in people and their ability to function without hierarchy and control structures.

Read some American anarchism like Emma Goldman. Anarchists dont dress up in black jeans and Black Flag shirts running around Occupy protests with bandanas on their faces. Those kids just want to cause trouble and they shouldnt ruin anarchism's good name in the process.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
That is actually quite false. True believers in anarchism don't believe in politics, true, but they do have goals some call "political". To believe in anarchy doesn't mean one believes in chaos and violence. Far from it. There are individualistic anarchists and anarchists who believe that people can run their lives in settlements and community groups without interference of government regulation and control. Read about Freetown Christiania.

Originally posted by Chad_Thomas89
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

That is actually quite false. True believers in anarchism don't believe in politics, true, but they do have goals some call "political". To believe in anarchy doesn't mean one believes in chaos and violence. Far from it. There are individualistic anarchists and anarchists who believe that people can run their lives in settlements and community groups without interference of government regulation and control. Read about Freetown Christiania.

I guess I can compromise.

My interpretation of modern generation anarchists is of the red and black style. They strike me as the population's mediation force between government; in other words, when a government becomes oppressive, individuals without specific political plans for a new government simply target the current one without organization. More rioting = worse government-population relations.

But you are right about anarchist communities. They do exist but they are by design self-sustaining communities. These libertarians do exist under their own social order however. The anarchists that I speak of are the reactionary types who feel betrayed by government and their only organization is by understanding how screwed they are as the guy beside them. They simply have no faith that they are represented by government, yet they are stuck living under the establishment anyways.

doctornamtab-
Read some American anarchism like Emma Goldman. Anarchists dont dress up in black jeans and Black Flag shirts running around Occupy protests with bandanas on their faces. Those kids just want to cause trouble and they shouldnt ruin anarchism's good name in the process.

Again, I'm talking about reactionary anarchists. Libertarians believe in minimal state involvement, anarchists don't want any (but have self liberty), reactionaries simply feel like they have no guarentee of liberty.