Kennebunkport, Maine Rally and March for Peace

[Insurgent]

A brief article about agent provacateurs:

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

[CNHT]

A brief article about agent provacateurs:

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

So you think it was the Kbpt police who did this? I know the Kbpt police fairly well and I rather doubt they would go to the trouble of doing that.

[Insurgent]

A brief article about agent provacateurs:

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

So you think it was the Kbpt police who did this? I know the Kbpt police fairly well and I rather doubt they would go to the trouble of doing that.

Not necessarily, just pointing out a historical eventuality of what often happens when these types of events occur.

[CNHT]

I attended a FSP "Porcufest" event several years ago; the attendees of that event were much more rowdy and raucous than the group in Kennebunkport Saturday. Rude? I didn't notice anyone being rude (at the Porcufest or at Kennebunkport).

I have attended two PorcFests and yes I was loud myself (giggle) but I've not seen people be rude...why would they? They weren't protesting anything, it wasn't even political; they were drinking, partying, and generally having a good time as they usually do! I would not compare the two events at all.

I knew nothing about the "Gathering Eagles" group before you posted this, but from the looks of their website, and this "writeup from a casual attendee" I'm having a lot of trouble taking them seriously!

Well the man is running for office and the article was sent to me by a different person who attended as well and who is more like you I'd say from his political perspective but he can vouch for him. I don't see any reason to lie about what he was confronted with. I'm sure not ALL the attendees acted like that...but apparently some did not like pro-America demonstrators and they showed it.

[CNHT]

My point is that there is not necessarily anything wrong with "rowdy and raucous" behavior. People can get that way whether just playing, protesting, or whatever. Funny thing is, I wouldn't have called the Kennebunkport group particularly rowdy and raucous compared to any other group of that size. Yes, they were making noise and shouting slogans; it was a protest, after all!

Undoubtedly in a group that large some people must of been rude at times but I really did not notice that.

Funny that you should label the pro-war demonstrators as the "pro-America demonstrators". I bet there will be more Ron Paul votes coming out of the other group.

Maybe you were not in the same spot...as I said, I'm sure it wasn't everyone behaving like this.

I don't think they were 'pro-war', just did not in tune with those who showed the anti-American sentiment.
Why can't people be anti-war and also pro-America?  I think the anti-American sentiment is not necessary to be against something you don't like. If anyone is really that anti-American they are free to move, right?

[EthanAllen]

or throw things at them

Throwing things at people is not only uncivil it could be criminal. Where in the article does it say anyone threw anything?

Shouting at people is not campaigning!

You are "campaigning" not with the counter protestors but amongst the protesters as you are with them and afterwards. Maybe you are instructing the protesters on what appropriate behavior is to counter protesters that makes a favorable impression upon them. Mostly you are participating civilly and then making subtle comments to folks or carrying a sign who are intrigued by your left libertarian approach enough to engage in a conversation and consider another point of view.

Standing quietly on the sidewalk and handing out literature would be...but inciting violence isn't.

What "inciting violence" are you referring to as it relates to the protesters? If there were police officers there then that is a specific unlawful act. Why wasn't anyone arrested and charged?

[jaqeboy]

Looks like a "poison pill" post has been thwarted on this thread! A provocateur/saboteur can hijack a thread (a group, a movement) and divert the discussion away from ideologies, tactics, resolutions, etc., but ONLY if you let them - only if YOU take the bait.

In this case, it was probably more of a cognitive problem than active planned sabotage, though the effect was identical and nearly as masterful.

The plan of a conscious provocateur:
a) plant false information (with credible-appearing quoted authority) that diverts attention from issues to style (bad behavior, in this case),
b) associate the freedom proponents with the alleged bad behavior,
c) put freedom proponents on the defensive
d) proponents take the bait, assume the information is true
e) freedom proponents begin defending their allies who "all" behave badly, resulting in
f) freedom being associated with bad behavior (since no matter how much you defend it you won't win that false battle),
g) fascism being associated with kindness and gentility, resulting in
h) people prefering fascism to freedom, because "those freedom people are so nasty and ill-mannered"

The success of the op:
diverted thread from discussion of real issues, the subject of the speakers, their resolutions, the resolve of the people, their follow-on plans, and how we can advance our movement.

Dénouement:
The info is revealed to be false;
well-meaning conservatives are recognized to be sad apologists for fascism now (though sadly, again, they don't even recognize yet that they've been incrementally led down the rosy path to hell);
we move forward and resume talking about the issues

This is all in the Bad Guys Manual, and we've got to get wiser about it. This isn't the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. Be on your guard - Re-read the posts at "Don't feed the trolls."

And, PS, the struggle for freedom won't always be "nice."

[jaqeboy]

Not just on this as style, but let me analyze a back-and-forth that I read in the Seacoast Online piece, linked to below:

Many people who came out yesterday said they did it because of those lost soldiers.

Wes Flierl and Richard Knight, both of Dover, N.H., came both as members of Veterans for Peace and the Seacoast Peace Response.

"We've been peace vigiling since before the invasion," said Knight, a veteran of both World War II and Korea. "We were trying to stop the war from starting. We didn't succeed, so now we're still trying."

Before the marchers stepped off they were warned to be peaceful, that there were counter-protesters along the route. Then, drums booming and signs held high, they stepped off.

Down on Ocean Avenue in front of the Colony Resort, Eliot's Byron Grant was giving directions of his own. The Maine State Coordinator for Gathering of Eagles, a counter-protest group, Grant began to rally his troops as the protesters neared.

"No matter what they say or do, do not retaliate," he yelled into his bullhorn as he walked up and down the sidewalk.

Grant said he was pleased with the Eagles' turnout, though he acknowledged that the 100 or so counter-protesters were clearly in the minority.

"We're always outnumbered," he said. "But tomorrow, I'll probably receive 100 e-mails from troops in Iraq, thanking us for what we're doing today."

Liam Madden of Boston, a member of Iraq Veterans for Peace, found himself face to face with Grant.

"Stand up for other troops," Grant yelled to Madden.

"We are the troops," Madden shot back.

[emphases added]

Noted in this piece:

Veterans opposed the start of the war, because they knew American soldiers lives would be wasted. (None of us pro-freedom folk protesting before the invasion could have then predicted the emergence of and the catalyzing effect of one greiving Mom who would stand up.)

It's not clear from the article whether Grant, of a Gathering of Eagles, is a veteran, but when he yelled at someone who is a veteran he got as he gave. His implication that protest against the war is insult to the troops is obviously insulting to real troops who have been there.

The mind-numbed conservative position, that has been discredited over and over again ad nauseum, that opposing policies of madmen is somehow "not supporting the troops", is tiredly implied by Grant. That the protestors aren't buying it and that they "are the troops" should be a great lesson to Grant. I'm sure he is a good and decent man, but cognitively, he has missed the logic here and ends up taking a pro-fascist stand as the result of that failure. He will learn as this debacle continues or die defending the undefendable, like Nixon's supporters did in the 70's.

So, it appears to me that the protestors are the ones that are concerned about the lives and freedom of Americans, especially our troops, and that the Eagles have had too much of the Kool-Aid and actually believe in the continuing series of lies from a criminal administration that has all but taken away every American right in conjunction with their pursuit of a series of imperial wars of agression.

The really great news from the event is that amongst the people, the apologists for fascism / imperialism are outnumbered! In some sense we are winning! However, that brings up the Kennebunkport Warning...

[jaqeboy]

Btw, Law, how were the talks? Did you meet any good allies? Sorry I couldn't make it. Was "tied up" in Manchester all weekend!

[CNHT]

Well they kept chanting fight the rich not the war or something...

Heck I thought everyone here WANTED people to be rich...everyone! Isn't that what it's all about? 

[CNHT]

  the apologists for fascism / imperialism 

To many of you, everyone is a fascist...especially if they have money regardless of what their stance is on 'war'.
Therefore anyone who has money is automatically bad regardless.

This is the typical class-warfare of the leftists/communists who feel that all wealth must be shared, otherwise it makes the wealthy person a facist because they are somehow withholding life's privileges from others, making them 'poor'.

And to me that's just not right.

[CNHT]

What "inciting violence" are you referring to as it relates to the protesters? If there were police officers there then that is a specific unlawful act. Why wasn't anyone arrested and charged?

Because although taunted, the so-called 'fascists' refused to take the bait? Interesting isn't it that the 'anti-fascists' (according to you) were the ones inciting the violence. Typcial situational ethics here...not surprising.

But it is clear to me that your ideologies are stuck in the 60s here...

The police did it...
Fight the rich...not the war = class warfare
Supporting veterans means one supports the war... (Ron Paul supports veterans and military more than anyone and gets awards for it)
Anyone who is rich, and supports the veterans is thus a fascist...I assume, you would include Ron Paul in this too.

It's deja vu all over again.
Sad.

[jaqeboy]

On the issue of the troops, I just saw the movie Sir, No Sir about the rebellion of the troops against the Vietnam invasion/occupation. There was a lot of information in the movie that has been suppressed. The US gov't (Nixon at the time) had to stop the land war (and resort to an air war only) because the infantry in the field were refusing to obey orders and the soldiers on leave were refusing to go back. We have got to get this movie shown locally to help empower our troops!

Some of the other revelations in the movie were that 1) the "spitting on the soldiers when they returned at the airports" reports were disinformation/propaganda, 2) there was a huge underground newspaper / pirate radio movment, 3) "fragging" incidents (killing their officers) were rampant, 4) some carriers were not able to leave port because the sailors would not operate the controls - Wow!

[CNHT]

I have no problem at all with wealth gained through legitimate means and think that any sharing should be voluntary.

Well I'm glad for that, but don't agree that violence under certain circumstances is acceptable. I don't think that's 'stupid' or that I'm 'stupid' for thinking that.

If one is going to preach non-violence there should be no exceptions, not even for a freedom movement that is sometimes 'not pretty'.

[CNHT]

I doubt that any of this even happened.

Aw c'mon, you know that with that many people, law of averages is that there is always going to be someone who gets a little overzealous on either side of an issue...it's just to be expected.

I heard it from others too. It's not unusual...no need to be upset about it.