Occupy Groups Get Funding

[Chan790]

3. The last phrase is a problem.

It's all in framing, but stipending "core activists" is a back-door way to attempt to choose leadership through the apportionment of funds and subvert the GA. If I were trying to bend Occupy to my agenda, that's how I would do it. MRG chooses who the "core activists" are, you can bet that they're going to choose who they want to be in charge.

By default of having funding and office-space, those people will be latched onto by the media as leadership and spokespeople. It's a poison-pill all over and a coup d'etat. From my POV, OWS GA should tell MRG to f**k off...if they want to donate, they can do it the same as everybody else.

Edit: This all goes back to what LG is saying in the thread on infiltration. This is an infiltration. It's a shiny happy one from people that are well-liked and well-regarded, people who may even think they're doing the right thing...but this is how movements of the people get co-opted by those with means.

Edit 2: I excerpted the portion from Leopold's Ghost's post that I think relevant to the coopt concerns I'm having.

I've read books where they talk about the dangers just of seeking fiscal sponsorship... when an organization that is fiscally sponsored by an existing, larger nonprofit (and these are mostly lefty organizations) gets a substantial cash donation, the "parent" organizaiton will very often engineer it so that they take control of the project and get to say how the money is spent -- and that is in the realm of financial advice for nonprofits, not even taking into account political hostility towards left-libertarians or the left in general. -Leopold's Ghost http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1252&pid=679