filtration

why do i need to voice this?

it is because i know it is. you cannot change reality you do not witness.

whence this is not about things i like, and not an easy thing to write.

---------------------

there need not be no excuses, the filtration of political expression is to longstanding for that.
state's interesses through political file, it all exists from the days of your nations first parlementarian and long before.

who knows the freemasons are really the ones to inherit the greek scala of secret registration of possible enemy's of the elite.

don't even know if this is btw part of the array of usual or unusual transpirations on the topic, never heard it before myself.

anyway's, to call an example, the "french revolution"'s revolutionarys got thoroughly registered, followed, bribed, etc.

to give it a context.

-------------------------

what get's me suspicious.

you could say there have been two moments in dutch politics that have influenced my thought on it most.
in weighing the moral consequence of international politics that would be the former yugoslavia debacle, and in the personal life-style kind of way, having to do with activism indeed,

it was perhaps, 'encapsulation'.

"encapsulation" is a great word in dutch translation, sufficiently descriptive to be explained, i hope it is for english.

otherways it is more confusing to make a difference with 'institutionalisation', wich is only one way filtrage expresses.

encapsulation is closer to the infamous phenomenon of infiltration, the infiltrated organisation will become shielded from the outside world, and may end up completely institutionalised.

weird as it is, with it's 'market' (a wide assortiment of discontent and solidarity),
profitable in many cases. obviously not necessarilly because things "are what they seem".

how very profitable get's clear when you realise the investment in for example the line of well indoctrinated 'educated' 'workers', is actually made to get a grip on movements that might change the status quo.
----------------------------------------

since that is how smart people be, i recognise the all to often institutional infiltrate usually through that. a hesistance to like change of status quo,

but there are rather a few more indications.

selfishly i like to be creative in activism, it's quite a pretence ofcourse, but you often see the attitude not to be open for alternative (and that is where peacefull comes into the action comparison) action, more direct action, that has consumer impact eg., sometimes even the rather visible publicitary aspect, in longstanding organisations.

some of them may function in their parts, but basically they are 'institutionalised',
for example the dutch 'socialists' had a complete agreeal with the capitalist elite about organisation.

normally you would not be made known, that such was already explicitly standing out in the 1920s.

anarchists do know. for no other reason then the fear of the power of the idea, whole police and army divisions were mobilised against a meeting on that political expression.

a lot of the people institutionalised would not even consciously know they are actually preserving the status quo,

for some odd reason undercover police often are not psychologically capable of denying their uniformist admiration of authority.

it will allways stay odd, the whole group of uniformed employed has thorough psychological sensitivities with authoritive inception.

the usual freudian expression with such a symptom is 'a inferiority complex'.

that besides they feel proud at it.

otoh. they possibly also give some of these open reactions because 'they know me' (and that there is not much i can do about it). also i figure they feel still safe.

not much of a madman, perhaps i just make an acutely sane impression, but i often hint notice,
wich they do not typically psychologically receive, allthough almost allways register.

---------------------------------

so what is the situation? i think in usia .. like here, every 'organisation', every staged event,
would be as 'depoliticised' as here.

the other way around it also works, the most politicised groups, like marxists, are indeed the ones to tell a serious thing, because they will be the more ideologically correct to take it serious.

i suppose it is like being branch oriented, oftentimes organisations in a field perform admirably but all to often only for what their limited context allows them.

the illusion of power is also a great tool, in keeping people 'occupied',

so the receipe is the same, occupy yourself and stay self-occupied.

it's never been comfortable that clichees don't matter.

--------------------------------------------

on the side of gossip.. i had the first thought at the first moment it perspired 'the occupy protests' and so far they have ofcourse been, were there 'to stay', it was a damn pitty we were so close to winter.

it is also a comforting sign of obama's engagement with civil action, notwithstanding flatter would still seem baseless.

it is a wonderfull thing so many people will be thinking such great things over such important things. would it be realist and netsavvy to work at that the southern hemisphere that is unfortunately less important, for now offers the best prospects for manifestations of direct action?

or are people going to set the record straight for housing rights? it's quite possible that with the usual speculation and foreclosures and ecological tipping points (the crisis), there is plenty room,
if you have great places warm cloths help a lot for activism in winter.
------------------

conclusion, i do not think it is possible to organise a bigger movement unobserved.
tolerance for one anothers activism, hopes aspirations and dreaming is what does the trick best.

really be a bit principled about things also helps a lot.

if something 'should actually be okay'. (for damage it is proportional), it should just be okay.
hampering political expressions, and delegation of tasks are the primary instruments of institutionalised infiltration.

it has been really painfull, many people hardly know what they do, but in how they communicate, and the attitude towards people they need to make their compromise with a more resolute integrity against (for), you immediatly notice the 'attitude'.

it is not exaactly, exactly police infiltration, but institutionalisation, typically 'educating' (brainwashing) people for the job, is surprisingly related.

one respect in what police actually does not try to limit the impact of events, is the scale of the escalation. having the arms , the tools, and the repressive instrument to win all those battles, the more typical infiltrant attitude is to push for violence against persons, and actual misplaced excess against goods i would think. instigating violence is more their point.

but that would be a bit hard to judge, for a beginner and even after a while, people do have particular trauma's and experiences of their own, and by far nar not all are allways ready to
express anything very thoughtfully,

it's often the difference between 'i hate the pigs' (with not uncommonly some of all the good reason), and: let's bloodthirstily escalate.

as allways with psychology it is as much of their projection as it is the desire.

all that said. cops can 'turn'. it's a much feared thing in the establishment. it is rare, and not many are that good at it, but it is nice to respect that all humans do try for a human aspect.

forgive me the lightheartedness, but it is also funny that for example when i see these students, student cop's really quite often i think, but.. etc. etc. , conformism rewards already for students,

and i notice how relatively violent they think, it is also possible to take it serious, perhaps really violence is how a cop think would be the best way if a 'turned' person (they forget we are not like them) wanted to do something about injustice.

typical, it's really quite lighthearted, makes me think that the fbi didn't like that ambassador:)
well, thought of that immediatly:)