Riot training in America? Will they succeed or fail?

An old movement with a new name, “99% spring,” plans “non-violent direct action.” Or do they plan riot and civil commotion?

A 14-page brochure came to CNAV today from a source who prefers not to identify himself. The brochure publishers call themselves “The 99% Spring.” The source said that they really are “Occupy Wall Street” with a new name.

In observing the OCCUPY activities over the past year or
so, I surmised that their “first wave” was designed to serve as their
learning curve, and that their puppet masters would then deploy them to
mount “Wave Two”, creating new and more vehement outrages, building on
their experience.

Who might those “puppet masters” be? The slogans in the brochure offer key clues:

As a generation we must choose between greater wealth for
a few, or opportunity for many; tax breaks for the richest, or a fair
shot for the rest of us….

The man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama, spoke those
words almost verbatim at a campaign stop this week. Coincidence? Or
correlation? To quote the late Ian Fleming:

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action.

Guido "Guy" Fawkes, chief suspect in the Gunpowder Plot.

This organization has many more materials, including a 60-page version of the linked brochure.

The problem: how do they define non-violent action? On page 4 of the brochure, the organizers try to define that phrase. And they equivocate.

Some believe that cursing or carrying a loud
tone is violent. Others believe that clipping a lock to re-occupy a
foreclosed home, destroying a draft card, or disabling a war machine is
non-violent.

The brochure says only that any “action group” agree in advance on
how far they will go. The above suggests that they might indeed be
willing to do violent things.

Obviously “The 99% Spring” cannot afford to tell people to riot. To tell anyone to riot in advance is to incite to riot. Every jurisdiction in the land has a law against that. But the source that forwarded the brochure to CNAV dropped this dark hint:

Some Tea Party people infiltrated some of their training
sessions. One of them brought this brochure out. And they heard the
training leaders say, “We might have to do violence to achieve our
goals.”

Was that leader serious? Could this have to do with their choice of name? After all, “99% Spring” calls to mind the Arab Spring of 2011.

The “99% Spring” lists several “action dates” between now and the first of June. One date, the April 17 tax filing deadline, has already passed. Page 11
of the brochure says that the organization called for people to gather
at the headquarters buildings of the largest American corporations,
present a cardboard “tax bill,” and demand “payment.” This is the closest thing to a “disruptive action” that happened on Tax Day, at the South Bend, Indiana headquarters of AT&T.;

The next “action date” might see more obvious “action”: April 24, the
day of the shareholders’ meeting of the Wells Fargo group in San
Francisco, CA. The next day has two different “actions” in two different cities.

But the most significant “action date” is May 1: May Day. The old
Soviet Union celebrated May Day every year. (Opponents of communism
observed “Law Day” on that day.) What will May Day look like?

Nor does this group limit its “actions” to those dates. The brochure
also speaks of sit-ins in Congressional or Senate offices. The source
also warned that members of this movement might plan to send
counter-demonstrators to pick fights with people at Tea Party rallies,
and make it look as if the Tea Party people started them.

… remember that they are well-trained, well-funded,
extremely well-organized and directed. This is no longer the ragtag
bunch of fools who are clueless about what they are there for – they are
still ragtag but now they have marching orders and each group will have
an even better trained leader(s)…

He advised Tea Party rally organizers to have plenty of people on
hand with video cameras, and to call the police as soon as they realize
that someone is there to start a riot.

One of the oldest maxims of law enforcement reads:

Seek whom the crime will profit.

Or in Latin, cui bono? Who benefits? If riots break out and
surprise everyone, the government benefits. The government brings order,
and people cry out for order.

This movement might fizzle, if their “action dates” draw no bigger
crowds than at the South Bend event. Or it might gather strength, if the
organizers recruit more people.

Developing…