Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: GOOGLE Black Bloc government

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 24, 2012, 2:25 p.m. EST by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Agent provocateur

Traditionally, an agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent(s)") is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action.

As a known tool to prevent infiltration by agents provocateurs, the organizers of large or controversial assemblies may deploy and coordinate demonstration marshals, also called stewards.

Common usage

An agent provocateur may be a police officer or a secret agent of police who encourages suspects to carry out a crime under conditions where evidence can be obtained; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion and be convicted of the crime.

A political organization or government may use agents provocateurs against political opponents. The provocateurs try to incite the opponent to do counter-productive or ineffective acts to foster public disdain—or provide a pretext for aggression against the opponent (see Red-baiting).

Historically, labor spies, hired to infiltrate, monitor, disrupt, or subvert union activities, have used agent provocateur tactics.

Agent provocateur activities raise ethical and legal issues. In common law jurisdictions, the legal concept of entrapment may apply if the main impetus for the crime was the provocateur.


Historically documented as the most public outing of agent provocateurs was in Canada at the anti-SPP protest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaeuV2RNL3o&feature=related

30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by mountaineer (16) 2 years ago

so what you are trying to say is.....that its someone elses fault and there is no accountability for those who do wish to create illegal acts.

[-] 1 points by leandroBR (24) from São José dos Campos, São Paulo 2 years ago

I wouldn't say that its always someone else's fault, but the current human justice can't read minds to know if either it was someone's idea or he was encouraged by someone else, so it simply impossible to answer your comment. What i can say for sure is that i read about a study that demonstrated that 65% of the population would be capable of killing or torturing if there is someone encouraging them to do it. Its mostly a human flaw than an exception.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by leandroBR (24) from São José dos Campos, São Paulo 2 years ago

Thanks! I didn't know there was an Wikipedia link about it...

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

i am kind of unclear what you mean. It's all of our fault the government is out of control, liberty requires eternal vigilance. We must remain peaceful is what i am saying in this post. If you run with Black Bloc you will go down hard and the government will make laws to end protesting.

[-] 1 points by mountaineer (16) 2 years ago

i do agree with what you say about black bloc.....when i read about black bloc, i am not sure on how breaking windows of buildings and burning cars helps a cause. the idea that it brings attention to the issue in my opinion is ridiculous. this just bring negative attention and most look at it as a shame.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

This is the entry for black block: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc

You copy/pasted the entry for agent provocateur in your posting.

What you posted is just a definition. It doesn't tell us anything about who is breaking windows, throwing Bibles off rooftops, etc... at OWS marches. Some of them could be agent provocateurs paid for by the government, others could be anarchists who favor methods like those of Bharat Singh.

OWS is made up of a lot of different people. I think it's naive to think that none of those people believe in violent measures. Egyptian protesters have written an official letter to OWS protesters where they advocate the use of violence to fight back. I'm sure some OWS protesters agree.

Time will tell. My prediction is that Occupy will become more and more violent. I made that prediction 2 months ago and still believe it is correct. It's an opinion based on circumstantial evidence. A prediction for fun, not to be taken too seriously. Again, time will tell.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

What does it do to turn violent? It turns non OWSers against OWS and in effect will be used to justify the crack down.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Not necessarily. It depends how much support is achieved before turning to violence. In Egypt, the violence is accepted. In previous protests around the world violence was also accepted. Bharat Singh is considered a hero in india even though he assassinated a person and bombed the parliament.

The tactic is to use direct action to create tension with the authorities. By invading parks and ports and holding their position ad infinitum, occupiers are inviting police to come in and disperse them. This is inevitable and they know it. When the police come in and do their job, the protesters scream that their rights to assembly have been trampled upon. Of course, we both know you don't need to occupy a park 24/7 to assemble and protest against a cause. If the a few policemen make the mistake of using violence, Occupy uses this to demonize the police. For example, they focused on the canister and pepper spray incidents to create the impression that all the police force is extremely bad. They also link the police to the 1%. The idea is to make the protesters look like victims. "Hey look! We can't assemble and protest without the cops coming in and beating us. We have a message to say and it's being censored. Etc...". If enough people believe that the "1%" is shutting down US citizens, and that companies like Starbucks are part of the "1%", then the people will follow and use violence. It's happened before several times. There are occupiers in europe who have brought a guillotine at one of their protests.

The idea of Occupy is to create a revolution and replace the government with general assemblies on every street corner. They say so on this very website. Do you think the US government will simply step down and say "You're right, the republic is corrupted. We need to let you anarchists take over and use your general assemblies instead. Here you go, the key of the city." Of course not, for that to happen there must be a civil war. OWS intellectuals know this and that's what they are preparing for. Why do you think they print posters with tanks and blood on them. Why do you think they always report news about Egypt and the fight against the military in that country. Why do you think they are inviting speaker like Derrick Jensen. They want to prepare protesters for violence. It's working. I have seen many protesters lately who are not bothered by the black bloc breaking windows. Some people are starting to think that is OK.

[-] 2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

I said: "What does it do to turn violent? It turns non OWSers against OWS and in effect will be used to justify the crack down."

You said: "The tactic is to use direct action to create tension with the authorities. By invading parks and ports and holding their position ad infinitum, occupiers are inviting police to come in and disperse them. This is inevitable and they know it. When the police come in and do their job,"

so no it wont lead to a crackdown, it will lead to a "crackdown".

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

your freudian slip in there is very telling.

[-] 2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

I think the whole statement was one LARGE slip. So he want's the crackdown? The Egypt situation is something you should try and avoid. We need to get the military on our side not against us.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Where does it say I want a crackdown? I absolutely agree we should avoid the situation in Egypt. Iv'e written about this so many times in the last two months. Occupy needs to be custom made for the political-economical-social problems of America. It needs to stop comparing itself to Egypt.

Explaining a tactic does not mean promoting a tactic. The best way to protect yourself against something is to understand it. The comment above is meant to clarify the Occupy tactics and goals. It's not meant to support them in any way. That's your extrapolation.

Have you ever heard a psychologist explain the mindset of a rapist? Did you think he was advocating rape by doing this?

Please, don't start being like richard. He extrapolates like no one else around here.

[-] 2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

guess i misunderstood you thanks for clearing that up. Figured you were for it since you were talking about it working.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Do you think all same-sex marriage supporters are gay and want to get married?

If I talk about menstruation, will you assume that I'm a menstruating woman?

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

It was the way you were speaking about it

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Sure sound like one to me.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The only thing that's telling is your inability to offer replies that are specific and of worth. As usual, you're just spamming the boards with bane comments. I guess that's better than being attacked by your links. Still, it would be nice if you did more than soaked your feet at the side of the pool. Don't be afraid to dive in and offer a little more depth.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

this

your freudian slip in there is very telling.

is spam?


if I wanted to be more specific, I would be. Keep in mind, my comments are as much for other users as it is for you. The comment is intended to get others to read and see for themselves what you cannot.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

You're so funny. Do you get sexual pleasure from stalking me? Most Richards I know are gay. Are you? For your information, I'm not gay and I'm already married. It doesn't matter how long and hard you stalk me, or how long and hard your lizard may be, I'll never fall for you.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Are you really getting frustrated that I am holding your feet to the fire for your baseless accusations? Grow a fucking pair.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Frustrated? No. You're only giving me more opportunities to write about the issue. You don't have any counter-arguments at all. I haven't even made an accusation, so saying it is baseless makes no sense. I only ask questions. Reread my link:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your adding of a question as a footnote not even a caveat is bullshit and only makes you feel clever. Nobody else is buying it.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Order out of chaos huh? Can you point to this having a positive outcome anywhere? I can point to many times it has not like in Egypt where the military now controls the country violently.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The May 68 France protests had a very favorable outcome. They used direct action like Occupy. 20% of the population participated. As you can see in the picture of this Wikipedia entry, they destroyed cars amongst other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France

excerpt - "May 1968 was a political failure for the protesters, but it had an enormous social impact. In France, it is considered to be the watershed moment when a conservative moral ideal (religion, patriotism, respect for authority) shifted towards a more liberal moral ideal (sexual liberation) that today better describes French society, in theory if not in practice.[citation needed] Although this change did not take place solely in this one month, the term mai 68 is used to refer to this general shift in principles, especially when referring to its most idealistic aspect"

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

"The real legacy of May ’68, as we see in France today, is individualism, the rejection of civic sense and ideology, the rehabilitation of the idea that personal and financial success is a worthy pursuit — in short, a revival of capitalism. To borrow an expression of Lenin’s, we were useful idiots. Indeed, the uprising was more a counterrevolution than a revolution."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/opinion/24guillebaud.html

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

My point is that even though there was property destruction, a large part of the population actively supported the protest. When the terrain is properly prepared, violent actions can and often are supported by a large part of the population. If the situation in America gets worse, don't be surprised to see more and more violence erupt. And since the 1% have been deemed guilty, don't be surprised if violence goes their way.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

You are missing the point the violence actually hurt their cause as people turned against Marxism. Not that i want Marxism but that is not what OWS is about. Almost everyone i have talked to on the ground want's liberty or congress and wall.st tried in open court and that is what OWS is to me.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I understand that what OWS is to you and most protesters on the ground is not necessarily what OWS is to the anarchists who started it and continue to control the general assemblies. The point is, things can change. It's not because most protesters don't agree with violence today, that they won't agree with it tomorrow. I think the anarchists are currently trying to put that idea on the table to see how people like yourself will react. If the reaction is bad, they'll wait for a later time to introduce that idea. Eventually, if OWS goes into the revolution that it wants, the violence will have to come out. Most likely, there will eventually be a breach between people who think like you and the OWS organizers. At one point, some protesters will get tired of direct action like holding parks and ports and will want to start working within the governmental structure and make demands. At least I hope.