> Doug Henwood ponders:
>>There's someone on the WBAI producers list denouncing me as a racist
>>and a cop for suggesting that we need to broaden our audience a bit.
>>He's invoked Cointelpro. As I recall, provocateurs were often the
>>most hypermilitant, and often the ones who invoked race to set groups
>>against each other. Do other people know more about this?
> The wildest and loudest, as well as the subdued and quiet
> turned out to be informers/provocateurs in my experience.
>
> That's a big help, hunh?
>
> Being disruptive is a pretty good sign that *something's*
> not right with the person, or their focus(egotist/nutcase...).
Doug,
They are probably just a loudmouth, a wingnut, or simply an activist who is angry about your opinions. One of the biggest paranoid canards found in activist circles is that the loudest, most militant activists are the undercover provocateurs. This was used against black bloc anarchists numerous times by peace fascists, until they realized that many activists actually supported violent tactics and hypermilitancy.
In my experience with undercover agents, they usually tend to be the quiet ones. They are the ones who actually DO the shitwork, because they want to fit in, be trusted, and gather information.
Undercover agents are mostly there to gather information. The Machiavellian provocateurs that many activists expect to be active simply aren't.
Chuck