Skip to main content

Photo: Occupy Wall Street Facebook page
There is a vast total-information-awareness surveillance network made up of global corporations and subservient (captured) governments engaging in the systematic infiltration and suppression of social justice activist groups. Their main method of control is the implementation of divide-and-conquer strategies.  When it comes to activists, their approach is to apply these strategies to what they have defined as four distinct groups: Radicals, who see the system as corrupt are marginalized and discredited with character assassination techniques.  Realists, who can be convinced that real change is not possible.  Idealists, who can be convinced (through propaganda) that they have the facts wrong.  And Opportunists, who are in it for themselves and therefore can be easily co-opted.  

These suppression strategies, revealed on Stratfor documents from the WikiLeaks “Global Intelligence Files" ("as a result of Jeremy Hammond’s December 2011 hack"),  were reported in a MintPress News article written by Steve Horn: "How To Win The Media War Against Grassroots Activists: Stratfor’s Strategies"

This image is a screenshot from a leaked Stratfor PowerPoint presentation about how to apply the divide-and-conquer strategy against environmental activists focused on the "Oil Sands Market."
When one takes the time to dig into many of the leaked documents as well as additional material becoming available as the result of Freedom of Information Act requests, one can't help but to marvel at the level of depravity exhibited by these global corporate spy networks in their single-minded quest for profit and power.

And that is why the non-hierarchical organizational approach the Occupy Wall Street movement embraced from the beginning was the right one all along.  As the movement reemerges with more strength and power than ever this year, the non-hierarchical leadership approach will be its biggest strength.

What I've been able to glean from examining multiple leaked and FOIA documents is that these corporate spy networks are obsessed with compiling very detailed dossiers of activists they've identified as leaders so they can then be categorized and profiled so the appropriate manipulation technique can be applied.

As many Occupy Wall Street activists know, the spying and infiltration the movement has been subjected to is very systematic and strategic, as reported by The Progressive in an article titled "Spying on Occupy Activists."  Here are some highlights from a report title "Dissent or Terror" (PDF) reviewed:

OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, the Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement officers have engaged in widespread domestic spying on Occupy Wall Street activists, among others, on the shaky premise that these activists pose a terrorist threat. Often, Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies have coordinated with the private sector, working on behalf of, or in cooperation with, Wall Street firms and other companies the protesters have criticized.

- SNIP -

The anti-terrorist apparatus that the U.S. government established after 9/11 has now been turned against law-abiding citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. This apparatus consists not only of advanced surveillance technologies but also of “fusion centers” in state after state that coordinate the efforts of law enforcement up and down the line and collaborate with leading members of the private sector. Often, the work they do in the name of national security advances the interests of some of the largest corporations in America rather than focusing on protecting the United States from actual threats or attacks, such as the one at the Boston Marathon on April 15.

The emphasis is mine

How well-integrated is this coordination?  

There are two primary domestic public-private intelligence sharing partnerships at work at the federal level: Infragard and the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC).

Infragard is a public-private intelligence sharing partnership managed by the FBI Cyber Division Public/Private Alliance Unit (PPAU). As described by the FBI, Infragard is an "association of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement agencies and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the United States." There are 86 Infragard chapters nationwide. These Infragard chapters serve as representatives of private sector "stakeholders" in the many of the nation's fusion centers.

DSAC is a public-private intelligence sharing partnership between the FBI, U.S. DHS I&A and several of the nation's leading corporate/financial interests. Some of these corporate/financial interests comprise the DSAC Leadership Board. The DSAC Leadership Board consists of 29 corporations and banks, including several entities that have been the subject of OWS protests/criticism. Corporate/financial interests active in the DSAC Leadership Board include: Bank of America, MasterCard, Citigroup, American Express, Barclays, RBS Citizens, 3M, Archer Daniels Midland, ConocoPhillips, Time Warner and Wal-Mart. Along with DSAC chairmen from the FBI and U.S. DHS I&A, DSAC is co-chaired by a representative of these private sector interests-- currently Grant Ashley, vice president of global security for pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.

- "Dissent or Terror"

[The emphasis is mine]

And then, of course, there are the more nefarious and illegal spying and infiltration of social justice activist groups by shadowy corporate spy networks, according a recently published report:
One of the troubling aspects of recent corporate espionage against nonprofits is the use of current and former police, current government contractors, and former CIA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service and other law enforcement officers.

Even active-duty CIA operatives are allowed to sell their expertise to the highest bidder, "a policy that gives financial firms and hedge funds access to the nation's top-level intelligence talent," writes Eamon Javers.  Little is known about the CIA's moonlighting policy, or which corporations have hired current CIA operatives...


Hiring former intelligence, military and law enforcement officials has its advantages.  First, these officials may be able to use their status as a shield.  For example, current law enforcement officials may be disinclined to investigate or prosecute former intelligence or law enforcement agents.  They may be more likely to get a "pass" because of their government services.  In effect, corporations are hiring "pass" and sometimes using it to conduct unethical or even illegal intelligence gathering against nonprofits.

[The emphasis is mine]

Another example of widespread corporate spying on activists are new revelations about how Bank of America uses social media "trolling" spy teams, as reported by "Leaked Email Exposes Bank Of America's Social Media Spies"
Published by Washington state activist Andrew Hendricks, the email, dated September 23, 2013, details a conversation between Bank of American’s Global Corporate Security Vice President Kim Triplett-Kolerich, the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and one redacted recipient.

Discussing the then upcoming Anonymous “Million Mask March” at the state’s capitol, Kolerich, who previously spent over 25 years in the Washington State Patrol, details the bank’s superior ability to track political groups.

“If you find any intel on Anarchists or Occupy Protesters please let me know – I will most likely find it first as Social Media trolling is not what the WSP does best,” Kolerich says. “Bank of America has a team of 20 people and that’s all they do all day and then pass it to us around the country!!”

Whether Kolerich is referring to a specific Washington state based team or the total number of paid “trolls” is unclear, though the possibility of multiple nationwide teams seems much more likely.

How personal can these proto-fascist actions by the government/corporate spy networks be?  Let's examine two examples of people targeted with character assassination and disinformation campaigns...

Below is a screenshot of a leaked PowerPoint  presentation by  Palanir Technologies, HBGary  Federal, and Berico Technologies on "The WikiLeaks Threat."  Notice how eerie it is to see this type of dossier on their target, Julian Assange.  Also, keep in mind that these corporate spy organizations seem to be fully integrated with government agencies...

We live in the world that your propaganda made, but when you think you are strong, you are weak.  Your lies tell us the truth we will use against you. Your secrecy shows us where we will strike. Your weapons reveal your fear for all to see.  From Cairo to Quito a new order is forming.  The power of people armed with the truth.

-- Julian Assange / Calle 13 multi-viral

Now, from the same leaked PowerPoint presentation, let's get a glimpse at how they planned to neutralize journalist Glenn Greenwald:

When one begins to understand the depth and breadth of this total-information-awareness surveillance on activist networks, and how it is being used to illegally build detailed dossiers, the dangers not only to targeted activists, but to freedom and democracy become painfully apparent.  What are some of the dangers?  Here's one from a FOIA request by The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund:
An identified [DELETED] as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas if deemed necessary. An identified [DELETED] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [DELETED] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs , then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.

[The emphasis is mine]


The first thing I'd like to do as I conclude this open letter to the Occupy Movement is to congratulate every single person who consider themselves part of it.  Contrary to the false narrative the corporate state has been trying to propagate so desperately, the Occupy Movement was enormously effective and successful if one takes into consideration the massive amount of resources the corporate state invested in suppressing it.

In my heart of hearts I truly believe that what the movement did in 2011 is going to be considered a "dress rehearsal" by future historians.  I believe that the Movement, which by the way has never been idled, is about to have a big resurgence (and there are growing signs of this all over the country) not only in the U.S., but internationally, since what we are facing is an international Neo-liberal proto-fascist regime.

And that is the reason there is a growing protest movement around the world.  Here are some findings from a new report by Initiative for Policy Dialogue and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung New York on world protests from 2006 to 2013:

  • Failure of Political Representation and Political Systems: 376 protests on lack of real democracy;  corporate influence, deregulation and privatization; corruption; failure to receive justice from the  legal system; transparency and accountability; surveillance of citizens; and anti-war/military industrial complex.
  • We are in the midst of a major global upheaval comparable to 1848, 1917 or 1968.
  • The most sobering finding: the overwhelming demand is not for economic justice per se, but for “real democracy” which would allow national governments to address core economic issues.
This is my appeal to all people of good-will who consider themselves part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement: Let's honor the sacrifices of political prisoners like Chelsea Manning, and Jeremy Hammond, and of activists like Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden; and let's honor the memory of Aaron Schwartz.  Let's do that by all of us stepping up to the plate and fully engage in the struggle for social justice, in the struggle against the increasingly fascistic and oppressive corporate state.

There has never been a better time in history than today, when we face an Orwellian total information awareness surveillance corporate state, to apply the practices and concepts associated with non-hierarchical social justice movements.

The situation does not lend itself for the Movement to rely (only) on top-down leadership, on hierarchical organizations (which have all been targeted for manipulation and co-option), on charismatic individuals.

Yes, just like during any other time in history when tyranny and injustice engulfs societies, there will be those who will step forward to challenge the system, unafraid, and many of them will sacrifice their own security and freedom.  But they need reinforcement; they need all of us to stand with them as this struggle moves to the next stage.

Some may ask, "What can we do?" "What does it mean to stand together in unity and solidarity?"  Well, of course, ultimately we are going to have to answer those questions together, but in the meantime, here are some suggestions...

First, what is the role of a social justice movement?  I think the book Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements by Bill Moyer provides a pretty good answer:

Social movements involve a long-term struggle between the movement and the powerholders for the hearts, minds, and support of the majority of the population.  Before social movements begin, most people are either unaware that a problem exists or don't believe that they can do anything about it.  They believe the powerholder's societal myths and support the high-sounding official policies and practices, all of which seem to be consistent with the culture's deeply held held values and beliefs...


The strategy of social movements, therefore, is to alert, educate, and win over an ever increasing majority of the public.  First the public needs to be convinced that a critical social problem exists.  Then it must be convinced that policies need to be changed.  And then a majority of people must be mobilized into a force that eventually brings about an acceptable solution.

[The emphasis is mine]

Here's what I've determined from the research I'm doing about the machinations of the corporate state and its vast cognitive infiltration spy network: What they fear the most is a well-organized and sustained movement capable of acting in concert nationwide, under a common understanding of the true nature of the system.

That is why they spend such an extraordinary amount of effort in dissembling reality, on propaganda, on cognitive infiltration tactics, on co-option tactics, on divide and conquer strategies.

That's why they are so concerned about strategic protests... They are concerned about people showing up to protest their business headquarters, their business meetings; they are concerned about well-organized protests at the public square.  Once you read page after page of leaks documents, you begin to understand that their main objective is to do whatever it takes to avoid this:

The strategy of social movements, therefore, is to alert, educate, and win over an ever increasing majority of the public.  First the public needs to be convinced that a critical social problem exists.  Then it must be convinced that policies need to be changed.  And then a majority of people must be mobilized into a force that eventually brings about an acceptable solution.

[The emphasis is mine]

So we know what they don't want us to do!  Therefore, we know what we must do!  First, let's encourage insiders (inside the proto-fascist) corporate state to continue providing us with more information about how it operates so we can understand the methods of manipulation and control.  Let's continue our involvement in local causes, of course, but also, let's form people-to-people coalitions capable of organizing direct action on an ongoing basis (sustained).

A great source of information about non-violent direct action is in the work of Gene Sharp.  Here's a biographical article about him published by The New York Times in 2011: "Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution"

Few Americans have heard of Mr. Sharp. But for decades, his practical writings on nonviolent revolution — most notably “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats, available for download in 24 languages — have inspired dissidents around the world, including in Burma, Bosnia, Estonia and Zimbabwe, and now Tunisia and Egypt.


When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to “protest disrobing” to “disclosing identities of secret agents.”

I encourage people to do their own research in order to become thoroughly familiarized with the machinations of the proto-fascist surveillance state, and then share their findings/knowledge with others... We need to engage in the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, and that means that we need to fully understand how corporate state propaganda works.

Finally, I offer this tactic as a thought experiment which will hopefully prompt people to develop ideas of their own...


Let's pick a date to start... Let's say, Monday, January 27th, 2014.  We're going to employ a very simple tactic every week, for the next 100 weeks (or until the corporate state is defeated).

Targets: Media Headquarters nationwide; TBTF Banks' HQ's in major cities; Strategic locations (and events) targeting politicians.

With the use of social media we can share information about the locations we'll be targeting.  Then individual activists can show up on their own with printed protest signs... As the protests take place, people would post pictures on twitter and encourage others to stop by.  All this can happen organically, without anybody directing it; a true non-hierarchical-type tactic.

Doing something like this would accomplish many goals.  First, it would serve as a psy-ops tactic against the intended targets.  Second the signs (and possibly flyers) would serve to communicate with the public at large, and eventually recruit more people to join the movement.  Third, it will eventually start to engender a feeling of unity and solidarity, and that will build confidence, and that will attract more people...

But the key to success, in my opinion, is that it needs to be strategic, organized (even if non-hierarchical) and sustained (100 weeks?).

So here's what I'm going to do, personally... I'm going to print a sign like the one below and then I will reach out to Occupy Oakland and Occupy San Francisco folks and see if we can get a group to show up at the Financial District in San Francisco on Monday, January 27th, starting at 10:00 A.M.

Other targeted entities could be media headquarters or politicians...

There are already organizations doing similar things, but remember, the key is to be consistent and to engage in these tactics on a sustained basis, week after week after week, for the foreseeable future.


Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook

Sockpuppets & Trolls Watch: Their aim is to disrupt, to annoy, to introduce "noise" in order to prevent meaningful discussions of issues.  Their tactics include casting aspersions (attack on the reputation or integrity), and ad hominems, where instead of addressing issues, they attack the character of people.  They also engage in mockery, and logical fallacies.  A good source of information about the tactics used by sockpuppets, trolls and hacks is "The 15 Rules of Web Disruption."  Once you familiarize yourself with those tactics, it is pretty easy to spot the potential troll.  Once spotted, the best thing is to ignore them. [Image credit: Jacob Bøtter from Copenhagen, Denmark]
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  From Occupy Mathews, VA (10+ / 0-)

    Solidarity from day one!

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:34:16 PM PST

  •  when did you ever say they were wrong? (8+ / 9-)

    People are not smart enough to conspire the way you think they do.

    So now you call me a troll who is trying to derail your diary and you can continue the circle jerk that does nothing to actually change a damn thing you give a fuck about. Unless all you give a fuck about is pointing out conspiracies that don't exist.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:37:59 PM PST

    •  HRed. Trying to stop the threadjack in infancy. (14+ / 0-)

      We get it. You don't like Ray Pensador's diaries.

      Why don't you go read some other diaries?

      At least try to follow the law of Wheaton.

    •  Recommended to offset a ridiculous (10+ / 0-)

      hr.  Nothing in jbou's comment is deserving of an hr.  

      Proud to be a Democrat

      by Lying eyes on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:48:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  People are dumb enough to believe they don't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The "Tea" - a toxic mixture of faith and fear brewed to convince people to give away their country all the while shouting that they are here to take it back.

      by herenow on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:52:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  really? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, erratic

        people have shown themselves to be dumber more than they have shown themselves to be smart. We tend to ascribe malicious intent when it really comes down to greed and luck.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:00:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  OWS put income inequality out in the open - HR (16+ / 0-)

      the income inequality is as bad as it was before the great depression

      this country was founded in opposition to monarchy

      that is what we now have

      the monarchy is back

      have you noticed that National Security trumps the constitution?

      have you noticed that everyone is now being spied on?

      have you noticed that banksters who are criminals are not being prosecuted?

      OWS was a grass roots effort that opened up the space for opposition and got people to demonstrate in the public space which has been reduced more and more

      •  I wasn't knocking OWS (7+ / 0-)

        I was knocking Ray's repetitive nonsense.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:08:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're welcome to disagree, but feel free to take (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, angel d, aliasalias

          Markos' advice to IGNORE once you do, even if you DON'T like Rays views. This was a substantive diary, and not only repetitive. Stop trolling just because you don't like progressive views.

          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by Kombema on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 07:24:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am a progressive (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too, erratic, poco

            What I don't find appealing is the nonsense that Ray repeats over and over again about the corporate conspiracies and the NSA. There's not much of a connection between the greed on Wall Street and what is happening at the NSA. Now I know the young protester folks like to think that they're important enough to be spied on by the NSA but they're not. This ain't J Edger and his nonsense.

            We could start with a simple freaking issue like raising the capital gains taxes. It goes after Wall Street and the rich families who are hoarding money that is causing our economy to stagnate. I know it is not as glamorous as standing in a park and holding a clever sign but It'll probably be more effective.

            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

            by jbou on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:01:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good grief, jbou (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias, Ray Pensador, migo

              he provided links that proved OWS was spied on.
              And I havevread many of them on other sites.
              The FBI, SWATraided some leaders houses and took their computers.
              You are very wrong stating they weren't spied on.
              Go read the links provided and learn the truth.
              Or don't let the facts get in your way of disrupting another diary.

              Now, crawl back into your  bible and drool about the good ol' days when God, the mass murderer, flooded the world and killed almost everyone including the animals. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS. Ziggy fingers on an Ipad :)

              by snoopydawg on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:38:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  what jbou said was (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch, poco

                "the young protester folks like to think that they're important enough to be spied on by the NSA"

                •  The NSA spying exists (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  We don't know entirely know whom are specific targets, besides generally nearly everyone.

                  "the young protester folks like to think that they're important enough to be spied on by the NSA"
                  We know they are important enough to be infiltrated and designated as a terrorist group... and to spend enormous resources cracking down on the movement. Why wouldn't the NSA spy on them? It seems more reasonable to assume they do, than not.

                  The security apparatus certainly keeps track of public mass revolt movements, and Occupy certainly had some inclination towards that. And the security state certainly has models and contingency plans to deal with the consequences of mass starvation, unrest, massive downturns of the economy.

                  OWS probably fit into those models, and they would certainly have used the opportunity, at the very least, to study dissident group behavior, to test their models and contingency plans. This is the massive US intelligence apparatus we're talking about, replete with entire cities of analysts. You think they won't use that enormous investment, and take it out on a test drive every chance they get?

                  To assume they just ignore these genesis movements (which could grow into something even larger -- although Occupy being in most major and a lot of minor cities wasn't exactly small!) would be very naive.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:44:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Would you say that those arguments are somehow (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    trying to minimize the issue, to undermine those who express concern about the dangers of a total information awareness surveillance system in the hands of corporate spy networks?

                    It seems to me that way.  What do you think?

                    •  Well, just analyze the comment: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador
                      "the young protester folks like to think that they're important enough to be spied on by the NSA"
                      Look at the way this is phrased. Obviously, the message here is that Occupy was about as important as a group of gnats.

                      And yet, several books, a large amount of essays, loads of news reports, endless discussion, has been instigated by the movement, not to mention an entire new narrative that still continues to this day.

                      I think what this nay saying boils down to is a fight about basic world views, involving one which is content to stick within the status quo, consisting of mostly supporting it or trying to make small changes within the existing structure, or on the other hand a more sweeping form of change.

                      Graeber nails the disagreement by describing most of the criticisms as having one basic underlying premise: People wanted Occupy to work within the electoral system, by advancing legislation and candidates, but Occupy rejected this, and thus rejected their world view: It attacked the entire system as a failure.

                      That's really what this all boils down to, and in fact, much of this is at the root of why they attack you. You're pulling out the rug from the whole standard operating principle of dkos by calling for more than bandaid solutions.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:43:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Gotta do some work. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:43:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Thought so. It seems obvious, doesn't it? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        •  Basically (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ray Pensador

                          They are defending the system. Thus, if you listen to their narrative, the system didn't fail, Occupy failed instead, by not working within the existing structure. But Occupiers rejected the structure as not worthy of support.

                          So, they have to put down Occupy, rather than let Occupy succeed in getting the statement to stick, because it criticized the entire process that they still believe in and support. In effect, it criticized them.

                          And it wouldn't surprise me that some of the critics are acting on instinct, rather than having a fully conscious basis for their criticism. They know somewhere in the recesses of their consciousness that these "self-important" dissident gnats, these Occupiers, are substantially criticizing the staidness, the inside-the-groove mentality, the comfortable well-worn roles and long-established functions and assumptions of party politics, and the complicity of the system's status quo supporters.

                          The same thing happened in the '60s, and this attitude was called an "establishment" attitude.

                          So, look at the defensiveness: People come up with arguments like "we all went through this before" and "cointelpro!" and "this ain't nuthin', you should have seen the FBI back in the day!" and they attack the "lack of leadership," (which is hogwash, Occupy had/has plenty of leaders, they simply weren't anointed with absolute positions of immutable authority), or they attack the lack of an agenda (which is also nonsense, they just wanted a less sweeping agenda than "the entire system is broken, let's find an entirely new way of organizing", one which narrowed its focus to pathetically cementing back together a crumbling system).

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:36:33 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So then we're talking about system apologists? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I've been doing a lot of reading about previous struggles.

                            It's an interesting phenomenon.  It seems you're very versed in the history of previous social struggles and would probably agree with this observation...

                            A very large segment of the oppressed population somehow comes to accept and embrace the narrative that's handed down from their oppressors.  It happens in every era when it comes to the struggle for social justice.

                            But eventually many come around and join the movement once they run out of justifications in the face of rampant corruption and oppression.

                  •  Hi Zhenren! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I do agree that NSA spying exists. I missed the part when OWS was designated a terrorist group - do you have a link?

                    As to the rest of your comment, there's nothing wrong with speculation, but it's not proof of anything.

                    •  It was labeled and treated as a "terrorist threat" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador

                      but not officially a terrorist organization. Take whatever comfort that difference means to you, as you sit in your armchair at home, rather than facing a police line.

                      When an organization is perceived as a "terrorist threat" are you naive enough to think the US security apparatus would simply sit on its hands, and not use its resources? Remember, we're talking about the security madness of post-9/11 America, where Presidents' legacies are based on "keeping America safe" and are considered failures if they don't act on every scant detail of information they can get their hands on.

                      Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me which particular department of the mammoth security state, as identified which alphabetized acronym of that security state, was used. That's just a red herring argument. A diversion or digression. I've no reason to pretend that the state wouldn't use whichever instrument or technology that got the job done. That's why they spend the money on these tools, after all. Which exact spy tool was involved hardly matters.

                      Let's turn this around: If the US intelligence apparatus thought of OWS as a threat to Wall Street (oh, horrors!), and thought OWS might hack into, or block, or in some way stop trading (you have to think like these intelligence types do, and they've made it clear they were using their terrorist resources to investigate), then what measures would they NOT be willing to take to stop OWS? How disinterested would they be? I wonder if people represented by your attitude haven't talked themselves into such a dismissive attitude of OWS' relative importance that you project that attitude onto the US intelligence authorities.

                      But look at the difference: Most conventional people on the left who were ho-hum about Occupy didn't (thank goodness) think Occupy was a terrorist threat. But, on the other hand, the intelligence authorities did!

                      Chew on that thought for awhile, before you think your notion that they wouldn't go as far as they thought was necessary to track Occupy's doings.

                      It is one thing to call out unreasonable speculation, but quite another to allow oneself to be deluded by one's own naive projections.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 05:13:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  These folks are very disciplined and systematic (0+ / 0-)

                with the dissembling. It is amazing to see it happen in real-time.

          •  And you are the arbiter of progressive views?... (0+ / 0-)

            Who appointed you as the voice of "progressives"? Seriously, get over yourself.

    •  Did you even read the diary? (8+ / 0-)

      Why the huge surveillance network in the absence of conspiracy?
      (And here I am, enabling your thread-jacking.  Not another word!)

    •  Rec'd to counter HR (4+ / 0-)

      No rules were violated here.

      “The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves”- Lincoln

      by commonscribe on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:17:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you familiar with the site guidelines? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        angel d
        •  What site guidelines? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, Lying eyes, erratic, poco

          you continue to insist that people who disagree with you are trolls sent here to purposely disrupt your agenda. I disagree with your connecting the Wall Street greed to the NSA. You insist that there's a connection and when you offer proof your proof turns out to be some serious dot connecting where dots can't be connected.

          Like I said above. How about you shoot for something doable like raising the capital gains tax? Instead you want to somehow spur a peaceful middle class revolt against the corpoleptoactracy of imaginary gentleman.

          I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

          by jbou on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:33:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well actually (0+ / 0-)

      Whether you are indeed a troll or not isn't important but your message is what we need to pay attention to. First off, many of the things listed in the article are not conspiracies but actuality. Just look at the history of the U.S. during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War protests. The establishment carried out many of the tactics the article speaks of (minus any of today's technology of course) back then. Why wouldn't they do it again? You sound like a defeatist or at some point you cared and then gave up. Understandable. We are all up against a pretty big shit monster in the form of giant trans national corporations who are really our government. Every time I get tired and feel like just sitting on the couch watching Wal Mart ads, er sorry, silly safe shows on TV, I end up hearing or reading about the crap these corporations or the Koch brothers or Shelly Adelson are spewing out and I get reinvigorated, get off my butt and go back at. My wife and I have 18 years to go before we retire, two teenage sons (one in college and the other starts next year), a house and so on. We are however more or less usually in with the 75% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. It was supposed to be better than that. That's what my Dad told me and he believed it because when he retired in 1983 he was actually better off financially than I am now. I'll be damned if this handful of mentally unstable, spoiled brat jackasses are going to continue to ruin the 99%'s lives just to preserve their lifestyle. Fuck all of them! And that's why I continue to fight and will do so until I just can't anymore.

  •  Good luck. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, rebel ga

    Suggestion for Facebook: 50 free "starter friends" automatically as soon as you sign up.

    by dov12348 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:41:04 PM PST

  •  Ray - 1/20 is a holiday. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, OLinda, erratic

    The banks won't be open.  I'm on your side, although I don't live in CA, but this needs to be started when these businesses are up and running - just a suggestion.

    Human dignity + compassion = Peace (Anonymous)

    by Raggedy Ann on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:51:47 PM PST

  •  Discussion Lawrence Lessing & Chris Hedges (10+ / 0-)

    they were at an Occupy demonstration, Occupy the Courts

    Lessing from Harvard, runs a Democracy project, is well thought of by liberals,  but for my mind comes across as a wimp when up against what occupy is doing

    Chris Hedges comes out swinging. "We have had a corporate coup d'etat, and they won."

  •  I think... (12+ / 0-)

    the most interesting thing about this diary is not his repetition, as opponents say, or that it is hard-hitting and explosive, as proponents say, but the fact that he actually sat down and planned on something for the people to do. That is the most interesting thing I found in this diary.

    Anyone can complain about the system, but it takes true effort to actually come up with a plan on how to revamp the system. He came up with protests in certain locations, designed signs people could hold, and even asked for backup.

    Before launching into the tone of his diary or "what repetitive nonsense" it is, ask yourself this question: What have I offered up as solutions on how to fix the system? If you can answer with "I set up protests or started numerous petitions", then great!! Join him. If not, and you haven't done anything but complain, perhaps you might want to choose a different strategy. No disrespect but it is kind of obvious that the strategy of non-intervention is not working. The "trust corporations to do the right thing" strategy is not working. Just a thought.

    "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    by Seanryan on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:44:59 PM PST

    •  There is a tiny group of persistent trolls that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, angel d, allenjo

      have been posting dozens of disruptive messages in my diaries.  For a really blatant example of it, check out the diary I published yesterday.

      It is relentless and very disciplined.  I'm just sharing this heads up with you so you know the background.

      •  "Tiny group?" (15+ / 0-)

        Ray, my guess is that if someone wanted to go back through your diaries and compile a list of all of the people you have treated as if they are "trolls, sockpuppets or hacks," that list would number 100 or more.

        Most folks have one encounter with you where they point out an area of disagreement or simply offer an alternative view to what you present in your diary, you label them "disruptor," and they never bother coming back to your diaries again.

        You can repeatedly claim that it's a small group, but the truth is, you have turned off dozens and dozens of posters here, many of whom would probably agree with your general, overall politics.

        Helluva' way to build a movement...

        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:17:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  100? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, allenjo, angel d, snoopydawg

          That sounds a bit inflated.

          Why guess?

          I'm sure an exact number exists. It might take some time, but surely it would be worth the effort to go back through his diaries and get some solid numbers, don't you think?

          Heck, it might even EXCEED 100.

          It could be a MILLION.

          By the way, since when do you speak for "dozens and dozens of users here?"

          Was there a roll call diary I missed?

          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 06:23:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's just for effect; for the casual lurker. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead, angel d
          •  I ain't gonna' do it. (4+ / 0-)

            I never said I "spoke for dozens and dozens of users here."
            I said Ray has treated that many users here as "sockpuppets, trolls or hacks."

            You are always in these dead threads, sometimes for days afterward. Perhaps you have the time to go back and check.

            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

            by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:37:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bob the fact is that there is a handful of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              persistent users trolling my diaries, sometimes postings dozens of highly insulting and disruptive messages in diary after diary after diary. Bob, people aren't blind nor stupid. They can see for themselves.

              •  Hi Ray! (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch, poco, Lying eyes

                Agreed, people aren't blind nor stupid, and they can see for themselves. What some people see in your diaries is a persistent and aggressive tendency on your part of mischaracterizing commenters in your diaries as trolls.

                Bob's comment below links to your exchange with JosephK74, which is a textbook illustration of that behavior. I've watched you play the same game with commenters hundreds of times - it's your default response to those who disagree with you.

                For someone coming in blank slate to one of your diaries, it would be possible to interpret some of the dissenting commenters as "insulting and disruptive", but for anyone who follows a few of your diary exchanges to the end, it's clear that you're the one creating this narrative of persistent trolling, by consistently mischaracterizing commenters in your diaries as trolls.

                •  Let's just call it dickish behavour (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  erratic, Ray Pensador

                  Everyone seems to have their own definitions of trolls, depending on what side you are on.

                  But we all know if posters are BAD, no matter what side they are taking.

                  And there's no shortage in Ray's diaries, or other diaries for that matter, that enjoy BAD, engaging in that dickish behavor.

                  I do not agree with your comment......

                  For someone coming in blank slate to one of your diaries, it would be possible to interpret some of the dissenting commenters as "insulting and disruptive", but for anyone who follows a few of your diary exchanges to the end, it's clear that you're the one creating this narrative of persistent trolling, by consistently mischaracterizing commenters in your diaries as trolls.

                  For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan to Dover AF mortuary, "God bless the cause of "The Good War" for which they died" - As if any war can be called Good in its 13th year, America's longest war.

                  by allenjo on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 10:58:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Agreed, there's definitely dickish behavior (0+ / 0-)

                    which I don't consider constructive. I'm curious about your perspective on Ray's exchange with JosephK74, which Bob links to in a comment below.

                    Or from Ray's previous diary, where posts a comment about OWS, that Ray characterizes as "It seems to be a provocative comment meant to provoke...".

                    Ray could address or ignore DBAD behavior in his diaries. Instead, he consistently frames it as "persistent trolls...posting dozens of disruptive messages in my diaries...It is relentless and very disciplined".

                  •  Notice the almost desperate attempts at maligning (0+ / 0-)

                    by posting unrelated links that are then mischaracterized. The same tiny group of users.

                    •  Hi Ray! (3+ / 0-)

                      Thanks for proving my point, I guess. Although I don't see why my link to hangingchad's comment thread in your diary, or Bob's to Josephk74's is unrelated.

                      •  Erratic, there's been a lot of focus on (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        personalities.  I think people's opinions have been expressed at a personal level.  Since you are commenting in this thread, did you happen to read the diary?  Do you have any feedback on it?  What is your opinion about the issues I brought up?

                        Perhaps you and I can have a couple of respectful exchanges on the actual topic of the diary.

                        One user had a perspective but the language was coarse and vulgar, which garnered him quite a few HRs; hopefully you'll understand why I didn't engage that user.

                        Let's see if we can redirect the conversation to the topic of the diary.  What do you thing?

                        •  Sure thing Ray, and cheers. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ray Pensador

                          And just so you know for the future, I always read diaries that I comment in. I did appreciate the link to the article about Gene Sharp in your diary - I hadn't heard of him before, and enjoyed learning about him.

                          The last paragraph jumped out at me, in reference to your diary:

                          In the meantime, he is keeping a close eye on the Middle East. He was struck by the Egyptian protesters’ discipline in remaining peaceful, and especially by their lack of fear. “That is straight out of Gandhi,” Mr. Sharp said. “If people are not afraid of the dictatorship, that dictatorship is in big trouble.”
                          I feel that this diary, as have many previous ones, seems to be committed to creating fear (eg, "There is a vast total-information-awareness surveillance network made up of global corporations and subservient (captured) governments engaging in the systematic infiltration and suppression of social justice activist groups"). I suspect that you'd argue that you're simply presenting the reality of the current situation, but I feel that you're building an exaggerated, extreme narrative of oppression by tying together data points. The result is a sort of Ewoks vs Empire narrative, where citizens unite to destroy the powerful oppressors.

                          I'm pretty sure that you and I mostly agree on social justice issues, and the fact that powerful entities and organizations are heavily invested in maintaining their profitable status quo. I think we also agree on some end goals, eg raising taxes on the wealthy, reducing corporate influence on the political process...I believe that we both agree that these issues are best addressed by putting effective pressure on the existing political/government system.

                          One area where we don't agree is on the narrative of powerful oppression. I use the same analytic filters here that I do in the real world, and I don't like being manipulated. I've followed some of the Stratfor links that you've posted, and so far I've seen college-paper level analyses of political action and speculation. It's a bit creepy, but not exactly terrifying. The same goes for the protest monitoring.

                          My inclination with stuff like the Stratfor documents is to analyze them and learn how to implement stronger and more effective campaigns. In general, I feel that the best strategies are based on having a clear understanding of one's "opponents", what motivates them, what they perceive.

                          So when I read about "...a vast total-information-awareness surveillance network made up of global corporations and subservient (captured) governments engaging in the systematic infiltration and suppression of social justice activist groups", and find that it's based on mostly unrelated data points, I get a bit frustrated. To break it down,

                          There is a vast total-information-awareness surveillance network...
                          ->I assume that you're referring to the NSA here
                          ...made up of global corporations
                          ->Ok, so the NSA works with private contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton
                          ...and subservient (captured) governments
                          ->Um wait, so I guess not the NSA, since that's a gov't agency. Since it's multiple governments, maybe you're referring to Five Eyes, but then it would still need to be a network that's running those governments
                          ...engaging in the systematic infiltration and suppression of social justice activist groups
                          ->and now you lost me. There's documentation in this diary of infiltration of social justice activist groups, but by local gov't agencies. FBI, DHS are likely in play as well. Targetted arrests, police actions against OWS activities, ok, that's suppression. But is it systematic? Wouldn't that mean going after all social justice activist groups, and not just specific actions? How does this tie back to the global corporations? And how strongly connected is this vast network?

                          •  I'm sure you're provably aware about the letter (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Senator Bernie Sanders sent to the NSA.  Here's an excerpt from the press release:

                            BURLINGTON, Vt., Jan. 3 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today asked the National Security Agency director whether the agency has monitored the phone calls, emails and Internet traffic of members of Congress and other elected officials.

                            “Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials?” Sanders asked in a letter to Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director. “Spying” would include gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business?”

                            As you correctly point out, I've written several diaries about this subject... In fact, it is something I've been following for over ten years now.

                            I've read most of the articles published by The Guardian and other publications about the NSA illegal spying revealed by Edward Snowden.

                            I've also read and reviewed a lot of leaked documents at WikiLeaks.  I've read several reports from multiple organizations about how government and corporations have basically fused the surveillance apparatus.

                            And I've read (and reported on) about how multiple corporations, PR firms, law firms, shadowy corporate spy networks (who sometimes hire active CIA, FBI, and Police officials) engage in illegal activities related to the monitoring of innocent civilians and groups.

                            There is also plenty documentation about how they deploy vast networks of trolls and sock-puppets across the social media landscape.

                            Now, I've come to my conclusions many years ago just by basic observation, and these revelations resulting from the great patriotic efforts of people like Snowden have just confirmed what I already suspected.

                            That's just myself, of course... Now there are many other respected individuals, writers, intellectuals, who have also come to the same conclusions, and argue that the reason for that is because at some level, if one pays attention with an open mind and is objective, it is pretty obvious what's happening.

                            But regardless of all that, it seems that your point of contention is that you don't agree with my conclusions; that you don't connect the dots the same way I do, and somehow you say that that frustrates you.

                            Would it be fair to say that the frustration comes from your absolute certainty that my conclusions are wrong and that you are wanting to either dismiss my conclusions out of hand, or even enforce your conclusions as the only ones that matter?

                            Now, let me be very specific as to why I say that... Let's say that you write a diary and you address all these issues but you come to a very different set of conclusions I do.

                            The first thing is that it is very likely that I will not read it because if I remember correctly I've never visited one of your diaries... But even if I were to visit for the first time and read your diary and see that you reached a set of conclusions which I find totally off base, it is even less likely that I would challenge you head on in your own diary.  In the unlikely case I do post one comment, I would take care to do so in a respectful manner.

                            But either way, the likelihood is that that won't happen because I just to visit diaries of people with whom I know I have serious disagreements, and I think it's not polite to barge in and get into a confrontational mode in somebody else's diary.

                            Now, that's just me.  I fully understand that others don't operate that way and feel that they have the right to visit any diary they want and post as many comments the feel like posting.  And I don't object to that, of course; that's the nature of a blog like this where people can comment at will.

                            But be that as it may, and this question is key, I do find it a little perplexing that some folks claim to find my conclusions extremely disquieting but they keep reading all my diaries and sometimes post dozens of messages per diary, in dairy after diary after diary.

                            And sometimes the invective can get very crass, coarse, vulgar as it happen in this very diary.

                            That's the part I don't understand...

                            Maybe you can help me understand it better... Is the purpose of the folks who assert that they vehemently disagree with my conclusions but who nevertheless keep appearing in all my diaries, to change my mind?  Is it to change the minds of others who are reading my diaries?  When the invective gets into name-calling and allusions of paranoia, narcissism, and the like, a character assassination tactic?

                            What do you think it is?  It seems you are quite perceptive about these things...

                            Now, addressing the elephant in the room, when it comes to trolls, sockpuppets and bad-faith actors, what I usually focus on is on behavior.

                            You are familiar with the little box I put at the end of my diaries where I put a link to the 15 Rules of Web Disruption.

                            I argue that those web disruption tactics are pretty easy to spot and then I suggest to readers that if they believe a user is engaging in web disruption tactics that maybe they should not engage so they can instead focus on meaningful discussion of the issue at hand.

                            Is that the part that some user find objectionable?  What do you think?

                            Actually, what do you think about the content of that link in general?

                            Do you think is is impossible to tell troll from not troll?  That there are no tell-tale signs, behavior that may lead a reasonable person to conclude that someone is acting like a troll?

                            Anyways, I'm working on my next diary which I will publish later tonight.  You are welcome to participate and I'll be sure to answer your inquiries which I assume you'll be presenting in good faith.

                          •  Hi Ray! (0+ / 0-)

                            I thought you wanted to address the topic of the diary. Are we focussing back on personalities now?

                            On the topic of identifying trolls, did you notice hangingchad's follow-up comments to his post in your previous diary, which you described as "It seems to be a provocative comment meant to provoke..."?

                            You recced RocketJSquirrel, who mocked him. These were his responses:

                            Ask MinistryOfTruth who got him his laptop
                            I helped them as much as I could as I could not be in the street with my health issues.

                            I have major vision issues
                            and cannot see the sidewalk etc.. I have been in my apartment alone with two cats for almost 8 years. All I have is this 56 inch screen as my outlet to the world. I do what I can.

                            And btw I did march in Tampa
                            due to my Type I diabetes I ended up with blisters and gangrene. I am not healthy and only can do what I can.. Some people here at Dkos make some assumptions they should stop doing.

                          •  No, I hadn't seen the follow up comment. Either (0+ / 0-)

                            way this type of interaction could go on forever once it becomes adversarial.  I see I posted the rec on a comment I agreed with before the issue of his disability came up.

                            I stayed out of the thread after the rec and my initial comment.

                            Let me ask you something... My impression every time I've tried to engage you in discussion is that things quickly deteriorate into a very personal clash.  Do you see it like that, or do you see it in another way?

                            That's why I don't usually engage with you when you post in my diaries.

                            Hopefully you don't see this as an attack or anything like that; I'm just trying to point out the dynamics of the interactions.

                            But you understand what I mean about endless back-and-forth once these types of dynamics take hold, right?

                            Either way, we tried.

                          •  Here's the thing Ray (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            You wrote a diary in support of OWS. hangingchad shared his opinion, and you suggested he was trolling, because his opinion didn't align with yours. When I pointed out that hangingchad had apparently contributed significantly to OWS given his limitations, your response was basically, 'well, I didn't know he was handicapped at the time, and I didn't say anything after that'. What about an apology?

                            My question is, what kind of a movement can you build, if you're treating people like hangingchad as trolls? How receptive would you expect him to be to your message in the future?

            •  Yes, I expected that you'd make it about me. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, SpecialKinFlag

              That's what you do every time I question something about your comments.

              Your preferred tactic is implying that I'm somehow doing something inappropriate by commenting in a diary after a certain point in time. In this case, you're even making shit up, as this diary is still visible on the recent list and is being actively commented in by others.

              So it certainly wasn't "dead" at the time I posted my above comment above to you.

              Tell me, did you tell those participating in your recent gun-related diary a day or two after you posted it the same thing?

              Enough about me, how about we return to the reason I posted my comment to you, in the first place, this claim of yours:

              Ray, my guess is that if someone wanted to go back through your diaries and compile a list of all of the people you have treated as if they are "trolls, sockpuppets or hacks," that list would number 100 or more.
              Got any exact numbers for me yet?

              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:07:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's a list of 79 folks on Ray's enemies list (6+ / 0-)

                ... to start with:

                Click on the Recommended by: tag:    

                weatherdude, chicago minx, BoiseBlue, FG, phenry, AnnetteK, 1918, buddabelly, Smoh, terrypinder, IB JOHN, TooFolkGR, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, ER Doc, blue jersey mom, BleacherBum153, leftywright, Senor Unoball, Bill W, dov12348, Irish Patti, johnny wurster, serendipityisabitch, arizonablue, citizenx, kat68, Caelian, RightLeaningMod, Im a frayed knot, JosephK74, mikidee, Mike S, Hey338Too, pittie70, Arilca Mockingbird, HudsonValleyMark, smartdemmg, 2thanks, quiet in NC, blueyescryinintherain, Sylv, Empty Vessel, Ebby, paulitics, gchaucer2, edrie, erratic, mahakali overdrive, Adam B, mungley, Onomastic, swampyankee, xanthippe2, DowneastDem, 6412093, jiffypop, raptavio, NYFM, poco, jeff in nyc, twigg, WakeUpNeo, Via Chicago, Chrislove, raina, richardak, dpinzow, doroma, turnover, Oke, Fogiv, Brit, boriquasi, Diogenes2008, txvoodoo, Mark Mywurtz, TomP, missLotus, ord avg guy
                And here's one of the classics...

                Ray makes a significant factual error in his diary, and JosephK74, whose generally agree and align with Ray's, points out Ray's error. Ray then goes on to accuse Joseph of all sorts of things and denies that there is anything wrong in the diary -- even though Joseph proves Ray is wrong and is simply pointing out the error. That's a great thread. You should read the whole thing.

                There are dozens more examples of this sort of behavior with Ray going back to his very early diaries here. Most people just give up with him, rather than face his endless accusations and mischaracterizations.

                Have a nice Saturday, DeadHead.

                "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

                by Bob Johnson on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 09:32:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good on you for digging up factual support (5+ / 0-)

                  for your previous comment.

                  Sadly, there's little reason to expect that the persona known as Ray Pensador, or those who excuse him, will pay any attention.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 09:51:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Except... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ray Pensador

                    There's nothing "factual" about simply citing the recommenders of a single cute comment of his and the linking of one instance between him and one user.

                    It doesn't even approach "proof" of his original claim of "100 or more people being treated as sockpuppets, trolls, or shills."

                    I'm surprised you'd sign-on to such a flimsy analysis, which I also pointed out to him here.

                    Actually, I'm not really all that surprised, now that I think about it.

                    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                    by DeadHead on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 10:53:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  LOL, the maligning attempts by now not only look (0+ / 0-)

                      desperate but grotesquely comical, in a way.

                    •  You want analysis? Okay (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fcvaguy, serendipityisabitch

                      In the linked thread "Ray" lauds a commenter who labeled the "single cute comment" as trollery. That is, the act of a troll, which logically makes the author a troll and all the recomenders, at the least, troll symps.

                      This is standard operating procedure for "Ray". He incites  suspicion that his critics are trolls and sockpuppets and when someone else steps over the line in support of him, he applauds.

                      It also makes the numbers involved completely suitable as a point of comparison for "Ray's" repeated, vague assertions that his critics are a "tiny minority" or amount to a "fab six". Assertions that appear born of a desire for plausible deniability more than anything else.

                      If this sort of thing doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. I consider it one step removed from sabotage.


                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:27:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Ah, okay (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  So everyone who rec'd a single comment of yours in a past diary, a comment in which you reworded something he said into this:

                  Now, let me define what I mean by "trolls": In this case, I'm using it as an all-encompassing term for people who take issue with something I've written.
                  is someone who he's personally...
                  treated as if they are "trolls, sockpuppets or hacks"
                  As I suspected.

                  If I were to search for comments Ray as actually made to each of those names on that list, I suspect it would be considerably less than 79. From that list, I suspect even fewer would have actually had conversation with Ray which resulted in them being personally treated as a "sockpuppet, troll, or shill."

                  They would also probably be the same ones who visit Ray's diaries on a repeat basis for no other purpose than to introduce noise into the discussion, or one's who loyally rec those who do.

                  Perhaps, if I'm bored later, I'll look into that for you. In the meantime, I'm of the opinion that your analysis is incomplete, built on questionable data, and therefore remains woefully inaccurate.

                  Not to mention, 21 short of your original claim. :)

                  Have a nice Saturday as well, Bob.

                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 10:43:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I get what you are saying (7+ / 0-)

      and agree with it mostly, but unless we are gonna start giving people an award for "wishing it were so," at the end of the day its about actually achieving something, not advocating it.

      This is the result of one of Ray's previous calls for non-violent revolution.

      Sure, its great, and I respect him for trying...but he failed, we all know that...right?

      My question is this...why did he fail, and what should he be doing differently so that he doesn't fail next time?

      Unless these questions are asked and answered, his next revolution will be no more successful than his last.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:00:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  which is, I imagine, precisely why (7+ / 0-)
      but the fact that he actually sat down and planned on something for the people to do
      it's being so stridently and frantically derided.

      We're supposed to sit on the sidelines, cheer on cue, and open our wallets, also on cue.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:16:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  3 users? (4+ / 0-)
        it's being so stridently and frantically derided.
        That's how many people wrote comments not praising the Ray or his awsome thoughts. If you think that is either "strident" or "frantic" you really need to get out more.

        And I seem to remember jbou being on Ray's side early on. I might be wrong but I think he finally saw through him.

        Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

        by Mike S on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:35:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, Ray did come up with something... (7+ / 0-)

      ... for people to do.  But this diary has been touted by Ray for the last two days (he mentions it here on Jan. 1).  The original plan was to stand in front of closed buildings with those signs, because the first date Ray chose was a bank holiday.  So there's a plan, but it's the lack of actual planning that is extremely disconcerting.

      To quote Ray directly:

      Here's what I've determined from the research I'm doing about the machinations of the corporate state and its vast cognitive infiltration spy network: What they fear the most is a well-organized ... movement ...
      If this kind of thing were a "one off" it could be excused.  But this kind of thing happens repeatedly with Ray.

      Secondly, and probably most importantly in my mind, is that during the course of the next 100 weeks there is going to be a pretty major election in this country.  No where in this diary is the word "vote" used.  As a reader of Ray's diaries I have seen lip service given to staying engaged in the political process - but not here, in the diary which lays out "The 100 Week Plan".  2014 is a pretty important election year, getting out the vote is going to be critical to making sure anything positive is done in Washington for the next two years.  Holding signs in front of buildings and politicians won't have anywhere near the same effect as working toward establishing a majority in the House and maintaining our majority in the Senate.  Who knows, maybe Ray's (and many of our) goals of making tax rates fairer and shoring up the social safety net can be achieved if we gave the President a House and Senate he can work with.  If successful it would take less than 100 weeks, actually less than 50.

      Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

      by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 04:54:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's always an election coming up. (7+ / 0-)

        And it's always a "major" one.


        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 06:45:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And there's always a Supreme Court (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna, 6412093, Hey338Too, erratic, poco

          vacancy waiting in the wings and nothing is more "major" than that.  We win elections or else - or else the next justice of the Supreme Court is selected by a Republican president and if there's anything worse than Citizens United the resulting solidified right wing court is guaranteed to give it to you.  And more.

          Proud to be a Democrat

          by Lying eyes on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:02:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador, SpecialKinFlag

            So we're voting for the Supreme Court, then.

            Everything else means nothing, apparently.

            It doesn't matter what the party does on anything else, just as long as a Supreme Court vacancy is filled by someone who isn't another Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, or, more often than not, Kennedy.

            Why bother doing anything that might actually work towards keeping the distance between the two parties as wide as possible?

            Just let them slowly, but surely, become harder and harder to distinguish from each other on everything except social issues.

            Toe the line it is, then, for you, I guess.

            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

            by DeadHead on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:23:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Also, the 100 week plan ties in nicely with the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angel d, AoT

      election cycle.  By engaging in the type of high-visibility sustained direct action the movement would also be putting pressure on the corrupt political system by shinning a light on the graft and profiteering.

      This could have the effect of making the political field friendlier to true progressive candidates who oppose graft and corruption.

      I'll be sharing more ideas about how a grassroots protest movement can positively influence the political process.

      In fact, that has been the case in U.S. history with previous popular/progressive uprisings.

  •  2 questions (6+ / 0-)

    Any historical examples of a "non-hierarchical leadership approach" for a large movement that produced results? You call it Occupy's "biggest strength" and I'm wondering based on what metric or model?

    And, what strategic goals are you talking about? Even if Occupy II  were to succeed beyond even your imagination here  (e.g., actually stops rush hour traffic, interrupts the stock market) its goals of "banksters paying" and getting bribes out of elections and whatever else crops up as a popular strategic goal are all likely to be swiftly implemented merely to peel off a critical mass of support. And then...status quo.

    So in case of success, I'm curious what the strategic goal will be that you think will bring people together. Sometimes it's merely passing a threshold of tolerance of  disgust with moral and economic injustice but then Occupy already tapped into the singular most likely nexus of anger at the economic collapse and bailouts and the pain today is not as universal or acute as it was.

    •  Here's the thing... We need to stay engaged in (7+ / 0-)

      the current game, system, even if we know it is utterly broken, corrupt.  We have no choice.  There are marginal gains we can achieve by staying involved.

      Regarding the other questions you have, when it comes to making absolutely sure something will be successful before one engages in it, that may be characterized as "fence sitting" waiting for others to do the hard work and take all the risk before one gets involved.  And that's okay; that's usually the way it works.

      There will always be early-adopters revolutionaries or activists willing to take those first steps.  I argue that they don't take those steps because they know that victory is assured, but instead they take them because it is the right thing to do, morally.

      When the level of corruption, oppression and tyranny reaches a certain point, activists and people of good will who care about freedom, justice, and democracy have to come together in solidarity, in opposition to the power structure.

      And that has to be done in a multifaceted manner.  You can't rely on any one given approach, whether that is only the ballot box, or only street protests.  We have to be fully engaged, full-spectrum.

      •  Fair 'nuff. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, erratic

        I'd say relentlessly engaged and continuously upping the ante - a relentless and relentlessly demanding public. But I don't envision a middle class revolt as you have suggested at times so it's critical imo to have the most clarity of vision to make most of the "marginal gains" and that was one of Occupy's fatal flaws imHo.

        •  I on the other hand not only envision it, I see (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          angel d

          it happening, taking shape right now as we speak.  The level of protests and involvement is growing across the entire country and pretty soon not even the corporate media blackout will be able to make it look like is not happening.

          Check out: to get an idea about what's happening..

        •  Read about the spanish collectives... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador

          And, the reason Occupy was so successfull in creating such a widespread movement, and widely reported by the press, is precisely because Occupy didn't get sucked into the legislative cesspool of corruption and lack of democracy, and didn't get sucked in individual issues and electoral goals.

          It was a statement against the entire system, and the control Wall Street has over that system. If it had taken up single "issues" and endorsements of single "candidates" it simply would have been the same old failed approach.

          The people who made Occupy happen in dozens of cities across the US were not peeved about a thing or two, but about the entire failed democratic process.

          That's what drew them, that's what made it work.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:30:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Spanish Revolution 1936 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador
      Any historical examples of a "non-hierarchical leadership approach" for a large movement that produced results?
      Look up the history. I don't like the title (Living Utopia) since this isn't really about creating utopia, but this documentary is all about successes of the collectives in Spain.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:24:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think we should end the war OF terror. Either (7+ / 0-)

    that or abolish the Federal Reserve, IMF, BIS, ECB, and the private central banking system.
    This is right where we were at 3 years ago, 30 years ago, 100 years ago.  
    I'm not saying I'm right either, but I'd like to see the people demand one fucking thing and get it.  Just one fucking thing.  Maybe that's what we could call the revolution, "Just One Fucking Thing".

    "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:07:52 PM PST

  •  what I notice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, WB Reeves

    is that Ray only responds to comments lauding his diary.

    •  Did you wanted to engage in serious discussion? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angel d, snoopydawg, poco

      I'd be glad to.  Do you have anything to say about the diary?  What are your views?

      •  what's so special about my comment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, WB Reeves

        what about all the ones that came before? They addressed the diary.

        What's so special about mine, other than it's in what is pretty much, by now, a dead diary?

        47 is the new 51!

        by nickrud on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 08:00:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think I posted about 23 messages in the diary. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          angel d, nickrud, poco

          Don't you find that to be sufficient?  There is a vulgar comment that got a bunch of HRs.  Do you think it would have been productive for me to engage that user?

          You posted a comment expressing concern about me only replying to people who agree with me, and I answered to you directly and invited you to ask any question you like.  You demurred; that's fine.

          I'm trying to figure out then what is your intention in this interaction.  

    •  This diary, specifically? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador, angel d

      Or as a general rule?

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:09:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  my perception is that it is a trend over time (0+ / 0-)

        47 is the new 51!

        by nickrud on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:03:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador

          ...feel that feeding trollish behavior is something a diarist is obligated to do?

          Should it be left to the diarist's discretion as to whom he feels is or is not participating in good faith?

          How many diaries by this diarist have you observed in order to come to your conclusion?

          I would hope such a sweeping characterization of a diarist's participatory style would be based on a fair reading of many, if not all, of his diaries and their comment sections over a reasonably long period of time.

          I can pretty much say the same thing about most of the Obama-cheering diaries that I see here. Dissent isn't tolerated. Those who try to inject reality about some of Obama's less popular actions into those diaries, even if they're reasonably germane, are oftentimes ignored, told to buzz off, or even HRed on grounds of trolling or threadjacking.

          Should this diarist be held to a different standard, then?

          If so, why?

          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 02:50:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What's "Obama cheering" got to do with this diary (3+ / 0-)

            or the commenter?

            If you don't approve of the behavior you cite, why would you excuse it elsewhere on an unrelated topic?

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 09:00:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was a counter-example I chose for purposes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, WB Reeves

              of illustrating a potential double standard, WB, which you now appear to be attempting to make into something more than it was.

              The reason why I used such an example in the first place was because I wanted to note that Ray's choosing to refrain from engaging certain users or their particular "dissenting" views is not unique to him, and shouldn't be treated as if he's doing something out-of-the-ordinary.

              But you probably knew that, I think.

              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:10:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope, I didn't know that (0+ / 0-)

                I do know that the whole rox/sux thing is a hot button issue and I had seen where another commenter raised it as well, so I was naturally curious as to what its presumed relevance might be.

                BTW, what "potential double standard" did you envision?

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:23:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I don't get it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, DeadHead, LaEscapee

    I've followed a half dozen or so of Ray Pensador's diaries and the weird negativism that attaches itself to each one from various posters is so confusing to me. What riles up people so much in these diaries? It is all basic antiestablishment thinking and call to action. There's nothing objectionable about it. I just don't get it. He's outlining the craven state of capitalism. This is 101. He's optimistic about the change that civil disobedience and protest can affect. The naysayers act as if it's an either/or proposition. What Ray is proposing does not negate voting or political strategizing etc. We can do both. As far as I can tell, Ray calls it pretty true as far as the corporate state of things. He's just trying to motivate people to become passionate and involved, instead of being mere bean counters only. Can't hurt, imho. Go for it, Ray. I'm tiring of the general quietism of this site.

    •  Thank you for sharing your observations. If you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      notice there is a small number of persistent users sometimes posting insults and disruptive messages in diary after diary; the same tiny group of users. If you go back 20, or 30 diaries you'll see the pattern. It is kind of creepy, actually. And what is even stranger is that these folks seem to be engaging in these obvious violation of site rules with total impunity.

      •  I have noticed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, Ray Pensador

        and I am shaking my head in disbelief. What are we serving here? As far as I'm concerned, we are serving the possibilities inherent in accumulating knowledge and forward thinking. I was talking to my SO tonight and I said that it gets to the point where I feel so desperate that I don't care if someone actually DOES something to change things -- the base level we have to be going for here is for people to admit that the state on the ground is f'ed. Just ADMIT IT, first step. Even if, especially if, you are benefiting from the state of things, just ADMIT it's royally messed up: misery, loss of livelihood, irrelevance of individuals, etc. JUST SAY IT: THIS IS NOT WHAT I HOPED MY COUNTRY WOULD BE. THIS LIFE I HAVE BEEN GIVEN IS LESS MEANINGFUL THAN I WOULD LIKE. THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE SUFFERING. I DON"T WANT TO STAND BY AND WATCH THE VERY REAL SUFFERING, BUT I DON"T KNOW WHAT TO DO THAT DOES NOT THREATEN MY POSITION IN LIFE, etc. Just say it: this system is gross, disgusting, there is no justification for it. More homeless children than at any time since the depression. You know that should be enough to raise the hackles of any feeling human being.... But, we're trapped into our daily lives like never before. I GET IT -- WE ARE TRAPPED. BUT JUST ADMIT IT. IT IS AWFUL! Blah... I don't think it's hopeless, just pretty close to hopeless. I WOULD JUST SETTLE FOR MORE HUMAN BEINGS TO LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND SAY: THIS REALITY IS HONESTLY UNACCEPTABLE EVEN THOUGH I CANNOT THINK OF HOW TO CHANGE IT RIGHT NOW.

        •  In answer to your puzzlement about negativity (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erratic, 6412093

          evinced towards Ray, IMO, it likely has to do with his habitual smearing of those who disagree with him.

          A shame really, since he's capable of making valid points, as some of his comments in these threads show.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 10:07:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  WB, there's been a lot of talk about (0+ / 0-)

            disagreements in the abstract.  Since we're here in this diary, did you happen to read it?  What is your perspective on the information within?

            I posted links to leaked documents about how corporate spy networks manipulate activists; I also posted links to research showing how the OWS is monitored.  I also made some recommendations regarding direct action.

            And I added some videos as well...

            Do you have any input on the content?  Any point of contention, disagreement, a counter-argument, a different point of view?

            I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have about the content of the diary.

            •  A smart response (3+ / 0-)

              As you have reason to know, my objections are largely to the tactics you employ, such as using each of your diaries as a platform for flogging the Trolls, sock puppets, operatives  meme, which serves no practical purpose other than to prejudice discussion and debate. A practice that you continue in this diary.

              That aside, the diary is problematic in terms of its efficacy in reaching beyond the limits of those who already largely agree.

              This may reflect your stated belief that the necessary changes to the status quo can be achieved by a small minority of the population. You've repeatedly cited 5% as being sufficient for this purpose.

              While it's certainly true that one minority can overturn and replace a ruling minority in the political sense, it doesn't follow from this that swapping one minority for another would result in the sweeping reordering of society that is so desperately needed. The radical reconstruction of a society cannot be accomplished without the active participation of the broad mass of the citizenry. 5% isn't even close.

              Moreover, such a conception is inherently hierarchical, since the 5% would constitute a vanguard substituting itself for the larger mass of the population while supposedly acting in their interest.

              We simply aren't going to to get the changes we need without a broad mass movement that actively demands them and we won't get that movement unless we actively reach out to those who aren't already won over to the view that such change is necessary. That wont be accomplished by preaching to the choir, which is essentially what this diary does.

              There are other points that can be raised as well but I think it good policy to see your reply to this before investing further time and effort.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:58:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  What smears in THIS diary? Point them out! n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  Not relevant, since the question was general, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

              so was my answer.

              However, since you asked, this diary contains the same Sock puppet warning that "Ray" attaches to the bottom of each his diaries, which effectively injects the accusation into the diary and sets up this dynamic.

              As long as "Ray" insists on promoting this meme with each of his diaries, you can expect that he will be criticized on this score and such criticism will not be OT.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:58:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you think that it is OK to engage in (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ray Pensador

                "tactics [that] include casting aspersions (attack on the reputation or integrity), and ad hominems, where instead of addressing issues, they attack the character of people.  They also engage in mockery, and logical fallacies"? I certainly don't.

                If you agree with me that those tactics are trolling, then why do you object to Ray's sig line? No names are mentioned, but Jbou responded with insults, crude language & a claim of having been personally labeled as a troll. And didn't make any arguments at all. It's absurd, but you seem to claim that responses like that are reasonable & to be expected.

                And now I'll obey the final sentence of Ray's sig line and bow out of the whole issue.

        •  You are not going to get far engaging these folks. (0+ / 0-)

          Notice the lockstep repetition of certain maligning memes.

  •  This is what you get for electing Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And never entertaining the possibility of further left non-corporate third parties. It's quite easy for those in power to control the two major parties. Justify it however you like. This right here is what you get. Keep telling yourself Obama is playing "seven dimensional chess" or that you just need to put more pressure on elected Democrats. Unless you can outpressure a giant sack of money, you're out of luck. They know when they say jump, you'll jump. Like any trained dog, hearing the master's command.

    •  The crossroads (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I read this diary because it was linked on Reddit. I don't come here much anymore, because I'm sick of the apologists who thought the first, fourth and fifth amendment were trampled by Bush43's spying and suppression of investigatory journalism, but now ignore it as it escalates under an administration we helped put in power.

      dKos faces the serious question of how it will deal with a Democratic party that is probably going to run candidates that will not even tell the truth about these abuses.

      I'm now an independent progressive. I'm still registered Democratic because I want to help guide the candidate selection process, but the chances that I will vote Democratic in the next election are pretty slim.

      That calls into question whether I belong here; it's the age old question of whether this is a Democratic site or a progressive one. As those two definitions diverge it becomes less and less possible for it to be both.

      More information on my views on this and other topics available 24/7 at the NSA.

      by PBCliberal on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:51:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Complete and utter bull. (0+ / 0-)

    First, Occupy is dead.

    This is not propaganda, defeatism, or right-wing ignorance. I was involved with Occupy Portland, on and off, for about two years. I was involved specifically because I believed that Occupy could be something powerful and beautiful. After OP was kicked out of its two parks, I watched as its members stopped marching, stopped protesting, stopped organizing, stopped communicating with the public. I watched everybody who didn't have their head up their ass leave, along with anybody who actually had the ability to get anything done. I watched as Occupy Portland poured every last drop of energy and relevance it had - which is not much - into a ridiculous campaign to prevent the city's water from being fluoridated.

    Granted, the campaign succeeded, thanks in large part to big money donations from the likes of "Doctor" Joseph Mercola, one of the greatest scientific frauds alive. But that's hardly something to be celebrated.

    There is nothing left but fringe wackos, wannabe revolutionaries who are all talk, and opinionated internet assholes much like myself (so I ought to know one when I see it). There is no underground resistance building to a head. There is nothing in Occupy to come back.

    Second, Occupy's lack of hierarchy has often been touted as some kind of strength. As if, without leaders, Occupy couldn't be beaten. You'd think they would have learned from their own history, when Occupiers were quite literally beaten, by riot cops, and ceased to Occupy immediately thereafter. The police didn't need "leaders"; they had a target-rich environment as it was.

    That same lack of hierarchy - well, let's call a spade a spade, it's not just a lack of hierarchy, it's a lack of any useful organization at all - led directly to a lack of consensus, a lack of vision, a lack of direction, and a lack of accomplishment. For all its sound and fury, what has Occupy actually changed? Wealth inequality? Political corruption? The division of Americans along a thousand petty political lines? Popular values? No.

    Meanwhile, the so-called "Elizabeth Warren Democrats" have already accomplished more than Occupy ever did, and seem poised to accomplish more in the future... which is ironic, because if there was one thing that Occupy absolutely refused to get involved in, it was our political establishment. Meaning that of all the people the EDW may have to thank for their accomplishments, Occupy and Occupiers are not among them.

    •  As someone who worked for & voted for Warren... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I think the Occupy emphasis on income inequality had a HUGE effect on the national conversation. And I see a direct link from that to the then-absurd notion of drafting Warren to run for the Senate after her appointment was blocked.

      This doesn't argue against your points about Occupy Portland or the rest of the movement. But even police brutality is now in the national conversation in a way that it wasn't before, because it wasn't just being directed against the poor or minorities this time.

      May I suggest that Occupy lost the battles, but changed the status of the war, not least because it was specifically not about politics or supporting candidates?

      Yeah, I know you disagree. That's fine. But I think it's interesting that you argue here that Occupy accomplished nothing -- it's electing better Democrats that is key -- while a comment a few up complains about the worthlessness of electing Democrats at all because they are all corrupt.

      •  Occupy may have had an effect (0+ / 0-)

        Or it may not have. We'll never really know. It's presumptous to assume that an injustice large enough to result in mass outbreaks of civil disobedience couldn't have produced those changes all on its own.

        "But I think it's interesting that you argue here that Occupy accomplished nothing -- it's electing better Democrats that is key -- while a comment a few up complains about the worthlessness of electing Democrats at all because they are all corrupt."

        I don't think electing better Democrats is the key. What I think is that working within our established political system to pass concrete legislation that actually changes things and elect representatives who will faithfully serve the people (regardless of their party affiliation) by passing such legislation is infinitely more effective than Occupy's "do nothing, support nothing, define nothing, lead nothing and communicate poorly" strategy and that people like Warren prove that.

        •  True, we need better laws... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...but we're never going to get them without changing the conversation away from false ideas (e.g. cut our way to prosperity & the poor just want to mooch) to true ideas (e.g. invest our way to prosperity & the poor want a chance to work at good jobs).

          Occupy was critical to changing the conversation -- that was really the goal of the movement, NOT passing specific legislation. And that was essential to making it possible for others to pass legislation. If you don't see that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

          One final story: I went to an Elizabeth Warren rally before she was elected & was chosen to ask a question. I asked about how she'd solve school funding & student debt issues. She did NOT respond with a list legislative proposals! Instead she talked about specific ways that we should change our priorities, so that we can then craft legislation that meets those new priorities. If I'd had any remaining doubts about how smart she is, they were laid to rest.

  •  OWS @ the EPICENTER (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, belinda ridgewood

    Thumbs up and thanx for the article.
    Here are pix from Zuccotti Park.
    hi all u r-evolutionaries  and bro-testers.
    can u find yourself?
    will you join us ?

    best viewed as a really long slide show

  •  Got here from Buzzflash! Great article Mahalo! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador
  •  Socialism NOW (0+ / 0-)

    Can you even argue we're not living in a filthy, despotic, truly evil plutocracy?  Can you argue we don't need guillotines and socialism?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site