Hur storföretagen krossar politiskt motstånd
Divide and conquer - unpacking Stratfors rise to power
Strafor strategies how to win the media war against grassroots activists
Basically så har anonymous lyckats hacka en av USAs största "säkerhets"firmor, som normalt sett föredrar att jobba i dunklet. Det de gör är att analysera och utveckla taktiker för hur storföretag och stat ska se till att krossa dissidenter. Deras kunder inkluderar bl.a. amerikanska staten och Nestlé.
"The goal of a corporate PR plan must be to separate the fanatic activist leaders
from the overwhelming majority of their followers: decent, concerned people who are willing to judge us on the basis of our openness and usefulness, Pagan stated in 1982, fully understanding that the public should never know this was the game plan.
Hammond perhaps without knowing every detail of the history of the playbook itself essentially cited it as the rationale behind his Stratfor hack and leak to WikiLeaks.
I believe in the power of the truth. In keeping with that, I do not want to hide what I did or to shy away from my actions, he stated in a press release announcing the plea deal. I believe people have a right to know what governments and corporations are doing behind closed doors.
In this investigation, Mint Press examines Stratfors rise to power and its use of the divide and conquer philosophy to take on some of the largest boycott movements against multinational corporations."
Väldigt läsvärd artikelserie, så mycket en vill copypasta in här men kan ju inte få plats med allt. Men detta måste med:
Radicals, Idealists, Realists, Opportunists
While its client work was noteworthy, the formula Duchin created to divide and conquer activist movements a regurgitation of what he learned while working under the mentorship of Rafael Pagan has stood the test of time. It is still employed to this day by Stratfor.
Duchin replaced Pagans fanatic activist leaders with radicals and created a three-step formula to divide and conquer activists by breaking them up into four subtypes, as described in a 1991 speech delivered to the National Cattlemans Association titled, Take an Activist Apart and What Do You Have? And How Do You Deal with Him/Her?
The subtypes: radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists.
Radical activists want to change the system; have underlying socio/political motives and see multinational corporations as inherently evil, explained Duchin. These organizations do not trust the
federal, state and local governments to protect them and to safeguard the environment. They believe, rather, that individuals and local groups should have direct power over industry
I would categorize their principal aims
as social justice and political empowerment.
The idealist is easier to deal with, according to Duchins analysis.
Idealists
want a perfect world
Because of their intrinsic altruism, however,
[they] have a vulnerable point, he told the audience. If they can be shown that their position is in opposition to an industry
and cannot be ethically justified, they [will] change their position.
The two easiest subtypes to join the corporate side of the fight are the realists and the opportunists. By definition, an opportunist takes the opportunity to side with the powerful for career gain, Duchin explained, and has skin in the game for visibility, power [and] followers.
The realist, by contrast, is more complex but the most important piece of the puzzle, says Duchin.
[Realists are able to] live with trade-offs; willing to work within the system; not interested in radical change; pragmatic. The realists should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue.
Duchin outlined a corresponding three-step strategy to deal with these four activist subtypes. First, isolate the radicals. Second, cultivate the idealists and educate them into becoming realists. And finally, co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry.
If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution, Duchin outlined in closing his speech.
Så, hur påverkar detta samhällsutvecklingen? Vad gör det för möjligheterna till en demokrati där folket har möjlighet att bilda sig och styra landet?
tog tid för den här tråden att skapas så bumpar den som nyskapad tråd nu
Så de vill diskreditera radikala i grund och botten. Det låter inte samhällsnyttigt i alla fall.
Beror väl på vad man definierar som "samhällsnyttigt"
går ju att använda termen för skit som bibehåller status quo
SEMANTIK
Definierar samhällsnyttig i detta sammanhang som det vars effekter inte hämmar individens eller kollektivets handlingskraft till att ändra samhället mot en bättre riktning.
Du måste vara inloggad för att skriva i forumet