Thanks for posting that, Luke. NOT looking good! It seems the infiltration and takeover by authoritarians is already well advanced. Let's see what happens. Hopefully it's not too late to turn this around.
Here's the Risk: "Occupy" ends up doing the bidding of the global elite
by Patrick Henningsen
History shows us it is easy for 'grassroots' campaigns to become co-opted by the very interests they are fighting against.
A 21st-century grassroots movement faces many pitfalls. This was as true back in 1968 as it is today. It could be infiltrated by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, or co-opted by a major party. As the state continues to creep further into our lives, activists can expect that it will use all its resources – not just the violent reaction seen in New York overnight, but also its agents, informants and surveillance packages – in its effort to monitor both sides of any serious social debate. Even bleaker, however, is the possibility that the movement was actually planned and launched by the very establishment activists thought they were waging a battle against in the first place. The larger the movement, the more interested a major party becomes in absorbing it into either the left or the right side of the current two-party paradigm.
The sudden emergence of America's Tea Party movement in 2007 is a good example. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, its inventor, used it as a springboard to highlight libertarian and constitutional issues during his 2008 campaign. Soon after, it was co-opted by key political and media influencers from the US right wing, associating itself less with a libertarian manifesto, and more with emerging figures within the Republican establishment. Now it is has morphed into nothing more than a block of voters whom the Republican party can rely to strike a deal with during an election cycle.
Arguably, the Occupy Wall Street movement has already drifted into the shadow of the Democratic party – with a number of Democratic establishment figures from the top down endorsing it. The Democrats' own media fundraising and media machine, Move On, has visibly adopted the cause. Like the Tea Party before it, the Occupy block would swing a close election during a national two-party race, functioning as a pressure-release valve for any issue too radical for the traditional platform.
Alongside this is the threat of being infiltrated. Scores of declassified documents, along with accounts from veteran activists, will reveal many stories of members who were actually undercover police, FBI or M15. In the worst cases of infiltration, undercover agents have acted as provocateurs. Such incidents normally serve to radicalise a movement, thus demonising it in the eyes of society and effectively lessening its wider political appeal.
Although the global Occupy movement has branched out in an open-source way, many of its participants and spectators might be completely unaware of who actually launched it. Upon investigation, what one finds is a daisy chain of non-profit foundations, all tied together by hundreds of millions per year in operational funding. The original call for Occupy Wall Street came from non-profit international media foundation Adbusters. Like many non-profits, Adbusters receives its funding and operating capital from other behind-the-scenes organisations. According to research conducted by watchdog Activistcash, Adbusters takes a significant portion of its money from the Tides Foundation, an organisation partnered with one of Wall Street billionaire oligarch George Soros's foundations, the Open Society Institute.
Although mostly hidden from the public eye, all major foundations and professional thinktanks undertake research and host training seminars, which are used to influence certain public and foreign policies, and thus, must have a political agenda. Theirs is the venue of choice for activities that cannot officially be conducted on the government clock.
Freedom House is another of Soros's Open Society partners. It supports the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas), an organisation started by Serbians Ivan Marovic and Srdja Popovic. After playing a pivotal role in the CIA-backed deposing of Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, the western media hailed Marovic as a democratic genius, but it came out later that his programme came out of an elite Boston thinktank's "regime change" manual, From Dictatorship to Democracy, written by Harvard professor Gene Sharp. Sharp's book is a bible of the colour revolutions – a "regime change for dummies". His Albert Einstein Institution has received funds from the National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Foundations, and his work serves as a template for western-backed opposition leaders in soft coups all around the world.
There are also reports of Canvas activity during the early days of Occupy Wall Street, including a video of Marovic himself addressing the general assembly. Currently, Canvas are touting their recent role in working with Egyptian and Tunisian protesters from as early as 2009, teaching skills that helped bring down their presidents and spark regional revolt.
When the dust settles and it's all said and done, millions of Occupy participants may very well be given a sober lesson under the heading of "controlled opposition". In the end, the Occupy movement could easily end up doing the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they were demonstrating against to begin with. To avoid such an outcome, it's important for a movement to have a good knowledge of history and the levers of power in the 21st century.
• Patrick Henningsen is speaking on Deep Politics and the Revolutions Business at Tent City University at St Paul's on Sunday, 20 November at 4pm
Patrick Henningsen is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Patrick Henningsen
luke wilson said:Pure speculation - the perfect storm..!
False flag on occupy wallstreet. Blame whoever for attacking right at the heart of democracy - protesters exercising there free will. Popular movement = popular support. Use that energy to launch an open war with whoever at the same time sink the movement. Not to mention putting the alternative movement in a tough spot where they can't criticize and instead have to surrender there dissent... Take away the spotlight from the monsters on wallstreet... Win all round for the establishment!
Can they sink this low? I hope not.
Just a thought after reading some of the articles posted on SOTT about the desire for wider conflict.
Is it too late to print fliers highlighting the main points of Political Ponerology and distribute them like candy among the occupations?
Perceval said:luke wilson said:Pure speculation - the perfect storm..!
False flag on occupy wallstreet. Blame whoever for attacking right at the heart of democracy - protesters exercising there free will. Popular movement = popular support. Use that energy to launch an open war with whoever at the same time sink the movement. Not to mention putting the alternative movement in a tough spot where they can't criticize and instead have to surrender there dissent... Take away the spotlight from the monsters on wallstreet... Win all round for the establishment!
Can they sink this low? I hope not.
Just a thought after reading some of the articles posted on SOTT about the desire for wider conflict.
This is the final solution I think to the OWS movements. We've already seen a little move in that direction with Jose Pimentel today. It wouldn't take much for the powers that be to push that a little further and blow something up and blame the 'anarchy of the OWS movement allowing Muslim terrorists to pass unnoticed'. People protestors have no answer to that kind of attack. What Chossudovsky does not understand is the fact that we are dealing with psychopaths in power. There is no way that they will back down in the face of any movement, if they cannot co-opt and thereby destroy it, they will take more serious measures. The only way a REAL change in the hierarchy on this planet can be effected via popular protests is revolution, and bloody, to one extent or another. History bears that out, and we have not evolved as a species since the revolutions of old. It's going to take a serious, direct and violent confrontation between the people and the 'forces of law and order' where those forces ultimately side with the people. Of course, the problem with that scenario is that once the revolution is over, it eventual becomes "meet the new boss same as the old boss". So I'm not advocating this kind of revolution, because it doesn't work in the end, but that's usually the way it transpires, and I can see no other way to unseat a corrupt and very entrenched bunch of psychos, if only temporarily.
webglider said:Quote from Whitecoast
Is it too late to print fliers highlighting the main points of Political Ponerology and distribute them like candy among the occupations?
I went down there about two weeks ago with two copies of Political Ponerology. I spoke to someone who was in the steering committee at the time, and, before I gave the books to her, I told her a little bit about the author, explained offered a definition of "ponerology", introduced the idea of psychopaths in power, gave her some examples of psychopathic characteristics, and then suggested that as there were brought two copies, two people might want to read them at the same time. I also told her to be careful of infiltrators, and she said that they were and that there were already a number of troublemakers.
I didn't mention anything about SOTT, but I did leave the SOTT bookmarks in the books.
Then I left. I wonder who, if anyone, is reading the books now since their library has been taken.
They took... The library?
Is it too late to print fliers highlighting the main points of Political Ponerology and distribute them like candy among the occupations?
...The "Arab Spring" is Fake
Clearly, the "revolution" in Egypt was entirely misrepresented by the corporate-media, and likewise by filmmaker Ruaridh Arrow. The "Arab Spring" was not spontaneous, nor was it indigenous. Rather it was a was a premeditated geopolitical plot engineered by US corporate-financier interests years in advance. The New York Times in its article, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," clearly stated as much when it reported, "a number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."
Further confirming this were public statements made by the US State Department-sponsored "Alliance for Youth Movements" (AYM) counting Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement among its above-mentioned inaugural AYM summit attendees in New York City as far back as 2008. Foreign Policy magazine admited that April 6 received further training from CANVAS in Serbia, before fomenting unrest in Egypt. FP magazine would also report that "CANVAS has worked with dissidents from almost every country in the Middle East; the region contains one of CANVAS's biggest successes, Lebanon, and one of its most disappointing failures, Iran."
The destabilization in Iran, of course, was drawn up by corporate-funded Brookings Institution, as articulated in its "Which Path to Persia?" report, with the actual mechanics of organizing the foreign-funded revolution subcontracted to organizations like US-funded CANVAS, NED and its subsidiaries.
In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect." The ripple effect Posner is talking about is of course the "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.
seek10 said:It looks like another interesting article. Many possibilities , most probable one is some pathologicals coopting and hijacking the entire movements, which CNN conveniently projects it on to the entire movement.
Occupy's 'nerve center' staffed by Soros activists