no direct horizontal relationships between branches.

Hopefully there's a lot of informal horizontal relationships between branches, because you can't really challenge leadership (in any org) without having that

You know I thought it was odd seeing all these Kijiji postings hiring local criminal networks for targeted intimidation and violence.

"restorative justice" has repeatedly been misused in this discussion. It does not mean sweeping offences under the rug and allowing people to stay in their top positions, where they will continue to be a threat to others, who will have no way of knowing of any danger. It means accountability and change and then afterwards being allowed, provisionally, to return to a normal status, not an entitlement to the very position of authority which enabled this behavior in the first place. If you can't understand this basic difference, if you don't understand the first thing in this topic, then you should seriously reflect on why you feel the need to give ignorant opinions on serious topics.

Need a syncopated knock so you don't worry people

I'm actually open to the theory that this could be partially NSPM-7 related. A common pattern in the COINTELPRO era (and beyond) is to wreck an org using real grievances and real problems and real divisions. If they're competent, the government has known about all of this for a long time, and just sat on it until the order came down. That doesn't mean that most people raising this issues are feds, it would take very little to spark something like this, and then just let things follow their own logic. More than likely the feds would stay completely behind the scenes, not out front writing documents.

And if this is an op, that doesn't really change things for me, because 1) we've all seen this pattern of failed coverups so many times, we should know it doesn't work in the first place 2) we should expect to be surveilled by our enemies and to have our (real) problems exploited in the future, at the worst time, and 3) the defense of "I was only caught because I faced unfair scrutiny" might (sometimes) work in court, but its not a viable political defense. I am extremely sympathetic to PSL, very aware of what the gov is capable of, and I still find this "its the feds fault" defense to be absolutely unconvincing, so I don't know who else would be convinced by this. I think that's why this defense is usually stated indirectly, because it's such an obviously weak excuse.

I find it completely baffling that an apparently-competent org like PSL would try to cover up things like this, instead of making the obvious choice of just removing anyone with credible accusations. Its the only viable strategy to keep the org safe. Its also, incidentally, a much better way to protect other comrades, who (if secrecy is actually maintained) would have no way to know who is dangerous and who isn't. You'd think that would also matter, but the defenders never seem very concerned with that goal, compared to the greater good of protecting the org. Just cult-like thinking. Pathetic to defend this. Worms.

wow if this is the "correct" policy then whats a mistake look like?

Looks like it's a Facebook group with an associated substack.

It's entirely engagement bait for libs

Someone pointed out to me that organizing from these almost-management type positions can actually be easier, because you have a lot of extra info about other people's working conditions, and their complaints w management, and can more easily guess the views of more people before anything even starts. Sounds like that might match w your experiences?

huh.

So Trump is sending tons of 2000lb bombs to Israel?

And then what? Is the theory that Israel is willing to do riskier bombing missions than the US is willing to do?

I guess "if you care so much then do it yourself" is a very Trump plan.

The "international community" cannot allow it? Looks to me like they can't prevent it

Oh so it was the kulaks? Sounds Russian to me