Who were the masked, hooded guys in Ferguson?

[cursichella1]

I just saw this Ferguson footage that shows many matching, masked, hooded people dressed in black, instigating A LOT if not all of the violence. Certainly a different picture than was presented by MSM.

The poster of this video believes they are Govt 'Agents' Provocateurs posing as Black Bloc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc)Anarchists, a group/tactic that seems to turn up worldwide whenever there's a protest, uprising, including London, Ukraine, Egypt. I'd be interested in opinions on what we're seeing here:

8PkuP1r60bI

[Snookie]

I was just going to comment that this same behaviour was observed in Montreal during a G7 Meeting, but I see they showed footage of it at the end of the video. The peaceful protesters make a good point. Why are the ones doing all the damage the ones who are hiding their faces?

[cfho83]

wow, the government is really trying hard to throw us in those fema camps.

[linksplatinum]

Agents most definitely

[Flash]

definitely organised provocation

[panopticon]

The individual in the first part of the video (from Ferguson) is likely a member of The Revolution Club (Chicago).

There were a number of members from revolutionary communist groups in Ferguson very soon after details started to emerge.

In a lot of the protest footage (until the police stopped provoking the protesters) an older Caucasian male can be seen with a bullhorn. His name is Gregory "Joey" Lee Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Lee_Johnson).

It is impossible to know whether there were police agent provocateur or if it was entirely persons of Johnson's ilk doing the agitation (which is not to say that some of those agitators themselves aren't plants -- it is widely accepted that individuals are introduced by agencies/police as a means of identifying radical elements within certain groups or to radicalise certain groups so the group can be targeted/arrested).

My personal opinion is that there were likely 2 provocation techniques used in Operation Ferguson. The first involved dispersing people in the crowd looking for suitable individuals to "encourage" into "active direct action" (there were a number of local residents who were reported as responding negatively to police direction -- I think there were 2 incidents of locals with molotov's [one in which they couldn't light the molotov's] and scattered reports of empty bottles, "rocks" [likely broken paving/bricks] & smoke/tear gas canisters (RTS) being thrown in response to police firing said smoke/tear gas cannisters & "rubber" bullets, oh and don't forget the widely reported looting which was eventually stopped by groups of local protesters guarding the stores -- while the police watched!).

The other provocation technique involved a small number (no more than a handful) who participated in "active direct action". In Operation Ferguson this group threw empty glass bottles well short of the police lines, lit fires against buildings (which other protesters put out) and threw molotov's (into dumpsters!). This is typical of people who do not know what they are doing (ie they are supposed to be causing damage but either don't know how to or really don't want to, so hold back). I always watch for reports like this in a "non-active direct action" protest as they could be an indicator of agent activity (though the same could be said about protesters, which is why the technique works so well as it's very hard to positively identify agent versus protester activity).

I view these 2 techniques were used to create a suitable environment for testing new containment protocols/strategies.

I came across the 'U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances (https://publicintelligence.net/usarmy-civil-disturbances/)' which was publicly released the day before Nixon declared the State of Emergency & called in the National Guard (ie released on the 15th August declaration 16th August). It had been internally available since April. In this publication all the strategies used during Operation Ferguson are well documented. From Captain Johnson sweet talking through to the militarised response (eg. use of rubber bullets, tear gas, identifying individual protesters who may be potential collaborators, baton/shield techniques).

By the way, the use of a mask etc by protesters serve a number of purposes. A mask can limit tear gas inhalation and provide a way of minimising direct contact with the gas. The gas gets retained in clothing, hair, on skin and the only way to stop it is to change clothing or remove the outer contaminated layer. The black outer layer serves as a protective layer, as does the scarf/beanie/mask combination. In addition all wearing the same/similar clothing makes later recognition by authorities more difficult. Why would anyone want to make their job easy??! It is madness to want to be easily documented by authorities. In the manual I referenced above:


VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHY

2-41. Video and still camera men should make a photographic record of the civil disturbance scene, and especially individuals in the crowd who are leaders and instigators. Events must be documented to hold personnel, factions, gangs, or groups accountable for acts that violate law, destroy property, or cause physical harm. Electronically recording these events aids in the prosecution of such cases. Cameras also act as a deterrent since most individuals will not act in certain ways if they know they are being recorded.
Remember, this works both ways. That's why police don't like having their picture taken either. Would Officer GFYS have been identified and reported without video evidence? Me thinks not.

-- Pan