portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

actions & protests | corporate dominance

Why Not Do 99% Movement Protests Independently

I believe that the 99% protests are great, and can be worthwhile. At the moment, presumably most of the protesters are associated in various degrees with an organization that instantly sprung up, calling itself the "General Assembly." It has dapper "organizers" who go about dispensing money (from where?). It doesn't have to be that way. Other protesters should form their own affinity groups of five to ten individuals and show up. (Large groups get infiltrated fast.) Each group can make its own demands.
Please don't use consensus to make decisions. (In my experience it always led to chaos and manipulation. I suggest approval voting with a initial primary vote and then one runoff, and with an initial non-binding preference poll.) These groups can send representatives to larger alliances. The groups should ask town or city hall about what will happen if they are asked to leave the initial protest site by other protest groups (who may have special permits).

The 99% movement is heavily infiltrated by a very odd and manipulative operation calling itself "The General Assembly." I believe it is a foundation psy-op. Perhaps run the "World Movement for Democracy," which is a branch of the "National Endowment for Democracy (NED)", which is a "private" non-profit corporation created and funded by Congress. (They are really Federal agents, of course.) They are electing a "National General Assembly" that will issue a "Petition of Grievances." But others can have their own alliances with their own Petitions of Grievances, of course.

It won't save the world, but it might accomplish something if more people outside of this very manipulative General Assembly would get out and protest!

Money 19.Oct.2011 01:01


A lot of the funding is coming from George Sorros and the Tides Foundation.

Here are some videos from Burlington, Vermont 19.Oct.2011 17:50


After reading the article, I was shocked to hear that what happened at Burlington, Vermont was very similar to what the article described, so I'm posting some video for others to watch and think about.

In this link, beginning at 6:40 minutes, you see offers to pass out money. Later in the day, the same guy claimed to have given a woman (who cheerfully identified herself) $40.00 for bus fair (it costs about $150.00 one way, which they should know if they sent people):


The next video continues where the previous left off:


Really smooth, I thought.

Now, last Sunday, the General Assembly suddenly told us it was our voice (no one voted on it) and told us how to submit ourselves to it:


People had come expecting a march at 12:30, but they got about 2 hours of General Assembly instead. Many people actually left before we finally marched.

Here are additional videos, before an important two I want to point out:

An agenda was already foisted upon us and created before we even decided to have a GA:

Also, note that we don't need the "human mic" in Vermont. We can use a megaphone legally, so why the "human mic"?

You will see that many people are thwarted from speaking because of "procedure":




Now, by this point, people are getting kind of pissed. They came to march and they're being held hostage by a GA they didn't choose to have.


(below) A 3:45, an older woman tries to speak. In ageist fashion, no one repeats what she has to say, thus denying her the "human mic". The points out that by having a GA before the march, we will lose many members. Many of the younger people raise the "point of order" symbol to shut her up. She is basically shut down and then shouted down by the human mic. Another older woman notices this ageism and calls them on it:

In this next section (see link below), at just after 2:00, there is a proposal to decide when to have the GA next week. The meeting addicts want to have it BEFORE the march again (thereby forcing those who want to join the march to hang around through the GA). Almost no one in the crowd wants this, they want to march first, at 12:30, the next week. Next follows an attempt to squelch that proposal by going over, yet again, what consensus is and dragging it out. At 4:02 in the video, people are indicating that they do want to march at 12:30 the next week, and once again, it is drawn out by a "point of information" to review the hand signals (YET AGAIN). At 4:37, a person disagrees because he feels that learning to conform to the GA is more important than marching (nearly everyone came to march, not go to the GA). Nearly everyone shows disapproval for this plea against the majority. Everyone wants to march. Once again, an older woman speaks and no one repeats her (silencing from her the human mic). One of the core people then says that since we don't agree, we should meeting at 12:30 the next week for the GA (thereby handing victory over to the minority) and, if you disagree, go to a facilitation meeting and learn how to try to convince people next week (duh). At 6:45 another dissenter speaks up (and NO ONE repeats what he says). He says an overwhelming majority wants to march. At 7:30 a man blocks and asks why do we have to do this consensus thing at all? NO ONE REPEATS HIM (because he's not with the core), they indicate immediately that he has spoken too long and shut him down. Everyone, at this point, decides to ignore the GA and starts marching: