<<Mikey did mention agent provocateurs as cover for union thugs to get violent.>>
I did?
Funny, I must have missed that post. Damn! When did I write it? I believe that I mentioned
FBI provocateurs, not as a "cover" for so-called "union thugs," but as a vehicle for directly discrediting the movement. This was a common tactic of "your" government against the anti-war movement of the Sixties.
Just in case I expressed myself poorly on this topic, or in case of any genuine misunderstanding of my words, here are my present thoughts on the subject:
During its attack on the anti-war movement, the US government and the FBI in particular heavily relied on the use of
agents provocateurs to discredit the movement generally and ultimately to justify violence against them, culminating in the Ohio National Guard's infamous Kent State Massacre of anti-war university students in 1970 and a much less-publicized massacre of black anti-war student protestors in (where else?) the South. The relentless defamation of the protest movement as dirty, hippie, anti-American, communistic, seduced a large segment of the US public into taking an "anything goes" attitude against them, so that when state violence was ultimately employed to crush the movement once and for all, public outcry was muted to the extent that it was possible to mute the outrage that the authorities knew would follow the massacre. The MSM gave the outrage its 15 minutes of fame, then abruptly cut off its coverage and the country "returned to normal" without any more of those pesky protests.
Given its extraordinary success in crushing the student antiwar movement in the early Seventies, I see no reason to believe that the US government is planning to crush OWS in any other way today. They of course will be discredited in the MSM, efforts which will succeed only in driving more people away from the MSM for their news, and when that fails, there will be escalating police violence against them, and when that fails, at some point the National Guard will be called in somewhere to let the people know who is the boss. One or two massacres was all it took in the Seventies, and I think one or two massacres will be all it takes now.
BT's version of what I said makes it look like the OWS leaders are planning violence using so-called "union thugs" as their instruments, and that the provocateurs are just part of their plan - - almost as if the true goals of the movement are nothing but violence for the sake of violence, and elaborate plans built around provocateurs are being developed, so that the movement can finally get down to its true objectives, violence and mayhem, and forget all their bullshit about Wall Street greed, taking back the government, etc; this is of course ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than any other portrayals of OWS in the MSM or by anti-OWS politicians and other defenders of the status quo.
It was kind of amusing to read plane's post about the efforts of
The Spectator to discredit the march. They're not an important part of the MSM, so it doesn't really matter much, but it was kind of an eye-opener for me to see how totally shameless the whole operation is. Even corporate whores like the
NYT would probably feel obligated to fire anyone who admitted to what the
Spec's reporter admitted to doing, just to keep their journalistic skirts clean. I would imagine that the
Spectator is heavily supported by right-wing corporations or Koch Brothers fronts, so it probably doesn't make any difference to them - - the "reporter" needn't fear any on-the-job rebukes, but I was kind of wondering how this guy could have any friends at all - - what a fucking embarrassment to journalism, to ethics, to the whole human race. Reading those two
Spectator pieces made me feel afterwards like I needed to take a bath.
